Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is in hot water for many reasons, and the latest scandal she's facing is over her retention of text messages. My colleague Bob Hoge wrote Sunday about Bass' inability to produce text messages related to the Palisades Fire requested by the Los Angeles Times because her phone was allegedly set to auto-delete text messages after 30 days. Unfortunately for Bass, some of those messages have already been produced by the people on the other side of the conversation (such as Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath).
But another person Bass communicated with during that time says he's not providing his text messages - or his emails - and claims that they're exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Fox Los Angeles' Cristy Fajardo revealed that little gem at the end of her report about the continued fallout from Bass' dirty deleting:
"We should also mention that we did ask Gov. Gavin Newsom for his emails and text messages to and from LA County and LA City officials in the days leading up to and after the fires. We were told they would not be providing those and that the governor's communications are exempt."
"We did ask Gov. Newsom for his emails and text messages to and from LA County and LA City officials in the days leading up to and after the fires. We were told they would not be providing those and that the governor's communications are exempt."
— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) March 13, 2025
No, they're not. Produce them! pic.twitter.com/x1fGsAQNsz
Newsom's email and text communications, whether from official devices/accounts or personal devices/accounts, are public records and are not exempt from disclosure, though.
California Government Code Section 7920.530 defines a public record:
(a) As used in this division, “public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.
(b) “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.
There are some exemptions, but Newsom isn't even following the law related to his denial of the CPRA request. The CPRA requires officials/agencies to clearly state which exemption applies to the records requested; the presumption is that all public records - including those that might be on private accounts or devices - are to be produced unless the agency/official can clearly articulate which exemption applies and why. Newsom doesn't even do that.
And, the California Constitution was amended in 2004 by the voters (Proposition 59) to add the "Sunshine" amendment, which adds this right to know as a foundational principle:
The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
This isn't the first time Newsom's office has refused to provide records to the press. In fact, it would be news if Newsom's administration actually complied with a CPRA request. Usually, though, he just claims that the information requested could jeopardize his or his family's safety; for example, his office refused to produce records related to how much state funding went to pay for his security detail when he visited Montana when the state was on California's no-go list for state-funded travel because its policies were insufficiently woke. Then, when he knew he couldn't weasel out of the issue, he claimed that there was a public safety exemption to the no-go law.
In addition, on numerous occasions when Newsom's left the state his office won't even reveal where he is - whether he's in the country or not - or if he's on personal or state business, again citing security concerns. He disappeared for more than a week on one occasion before I spotted him in a random photo Vogue magazine had published from Ivy Getty's wedding.
None of this is surprising given the fact that Newsom and other California Dems had interested parties sign a non-disclosure agreement when negotiating the fast food minimum wage law in 2023 - but it must end. RedState has filed its own CPRA request for Newsom's communications, and will pursue it as far as necessary.
Nobody holds Gavin Newsom and California Democrats' feet to the fire quite like RedState does.
Help us continue to expose the truth about Newsom's tyrannical reign even as he attempts to rebrand himself in preparation for a presidential run by joining RedState VIP today; use promo code FIGHT for 60% off!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member