Business
NAACP Settles Lawsuit to Remove False Quote About Prop 26
“We’re glad the cardroom casino operators did the right thing and removed the deceptive and inappropriate quote from their “No on 26” ballot arguments,” said Rick Callender, president of the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP. “Despite the California-Hawaii NAACP’s strong support for Prop 26, opponents tried to deceive voters into thinking the opposite. Thankfully, voters will not be provided this false and misleading quote in the official voter guide sent to every voter.”

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media
A lawsuit filed by the California-Hawaii NAACP Conference on August 2 to remove an election ballot opposition statement to Proposition 26 attributed to a Los Angeles NAACP branch member has been settled.
The statement will be stricken from ballot materials.
The civil rights organization found the statement “false and/or misleading” because it supports Prop 26. Also, according to NAACP bylaws, a local branch is prohibited from taking positions opposite that of the state group.
The statement against Proposition 26 found on the Secretary of State’s website reads as follows:
“We oppose Prop 26 to protect young people from developing lifelong gambling addictions that often lead to ruined finances, relationships, even homelessness and crime.” Minnie Hadley-Hempstead, Retired teacher and President Emeritus of the Los Angeles NAACP Branch
The lawsuit named Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber as the defendant because removing the quote from ballot materials, requires a court ruling.
A declaration statement made by Hadley-Hempstead for the lawsuit describes how she was misled by the No on Prop 26 Campaign.
The lawsuit also points out that the position ‘President Emeritus’ does not exist within the NAACP, and the only branch that can clear use of the trademarked term NAACP in support of or opposition to any legislation is the state branch of the organization. It also claims the use of the term ‘We’ creates the belief that the NAACP supports a NO vote, which it did not.
“We’re glad the cardroom casino operators did the right thing and removed the deceptive and inappropriate quote from their “No on 26” ballot arguments,” said Rick Callender, president of the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP. “Despite the California-Hawaii NAACP’s strong support for Prop 26, opponents tried to deceive voters into thinking the opposite. Thankfully, voters will not be provided this false and misleading quote in the official voter guide sent to every voter.”
Prop 26, the in-person Tribal Sports Wagering Act, would authorize in-person sports wagering at existing tribal casinos. All bets must be placed in-person at a tribal casino with safeguards in place to prevent underage and illegal gambling.
Proponents of the proposition believe it will help create jobs and economic opportunities that support Indian self-reliance, while benefiting all Californians, generating new revenues for public schools, wildfire prevention and other state priorities.
Opponents of the proposition believe it will force local cardrooms out of business and, in turn, cause the state to lose tax revenue.
A statement from the “No on 26” campaign, respectfully adheres to the wishes of Hadley-Hempstead while standing behind the ballot initiative.
“Californians from across the state have been clear with their objections to Prop 26 which includes a poison pill that will unfairly harm communities of color. We appreciate and respect Ms. Hadley-Hempstead and will honor her wishes to remove her previously approved quote from the ballot statement,” it read.
Also named in the NAACP lawsuit, was Jay King, president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce. He told California Black Media that opposition to Prop 26 is justified saying, “With the tribes, they want to oversee what cardrooms do and want to legislate cardrooms. We have a body to do that already. I stand on the opposite side of the NAACP statewide and that’s OK.”
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook
As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.
Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.
Our community is hurting. Things have to change.
The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.
Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.
Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.
I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.
SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.
For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.
This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.
Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.
Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.
About the Author
Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.
Antonio Ray Harvey
Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

By Antonio Ray Harvey
California Black Media
Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.
Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.
With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.
The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.
“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”
The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.
The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.
Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”
“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”
The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.
Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.
Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.
“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”
Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.
The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.
Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 28 – June 30, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress2 weeks ago
It Just Got Even Better 2026 Toyota RAV4 AWD GR Sport Walkaround
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Remembering George Floyd
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oak Temple Hill Hosts Interfaith Leaders from Across the Bay Area
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Council Approves Budget to Invest in Core City Services, Save Fire Stations, Invest in Economic Development
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
WATCH: Five Years After George Floyd: Full Panel Discussion | Tracey’s Keepin’ It Real | Live Podcast Event
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of June 11 – 17, 2025
-
Activism2 weeks ago
“We Are Better Than This”: Black Caucus Denounces L.A. County ICE Raids as Multiple Protests Erupt