Newsom vetoed the ban [1]. A pair of professors are having a bad time trying to got CSU’s ban on caste-based discrimination thrown out on the grounds of being religiously discriminatory [2].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/us/california-caste-discrimin...

[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/23...

▲

snozolli 5 days ago | parent [-]

Newsom vetoed the ban [1]

From that article:

In a statement explaining his veto decision, Newsom said the measure was “unnecessary” because discrimination based on caste is already prohibited in the state.

(Just adding context that I would have missed if not for another commenter pointing it out further down)

▲

crooked-v 5 days ago | parent [-]

For whatever it's worth, that's been a consistent trend with other things Newsom has vetoed with statements that he considers the vetoed item to be already covered by other laws, including some purely technical legislative things. I think it's likely that he sees himself as trying to keep California bureaucracy from growing indefinitely, especially with his push for things like CEQA process reduction/simplification.

▲

notmyjob 5 days ago | parent [-]

It’s capital, political and financial. Everything costs, got to pay for gerrymandering somehow.

	▲	jfengel 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Vetoing costs. More than half the legislature voted for it. It can win you a few friends but you lose more.