The Dem-on-Dem race for insurance commissioner

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! Happy Wednesday. 

We’re officially less than a month away from Election Day. For the next few weeks we’ll bring you tidbits from the statewide races, plus some deeper dives into ballot measures. 

Today, we will also dive into the latest in the California-versus-President Donald Trump saga.

Two Democrats are battling it out this November to become the state’s next insurance commissioner, a job that has become increasingly important (and complex) in a state beleaguered by catastrophic wildfires and an ensuing insurance crisis. 

State Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, faces former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim to replace termed-out Ricardo Lara as California’s chief insurance industry regulator. Whoever wins will head up a department in charge of investigating insurance companies and overseeing their rates.

Allen is a longtime state lawmaker representing part of the Palisades Fire burn zone who authored California’s 2024 climate bond. He’s up against Kim, a progressive who has campaigned on creating single-payer disaster insurance policy.

Along with controller, it’s one of those statewide races that fly under the radar, often overtaken by the flashier race for governor and high-profile ballot measures. 

But as California continues to grapple with an insurance crisis laid bare by recent wildfires – including one in Allen’s home district – the state’s insurance commissioner has become an increasingly critical role. 

Not to mention that whoever holds the job next will land smack in the middle of a messy legislative effort to reform the state’s wildfire liability system, after an attempt from Newsom to cap how much utility companies pay in wildfire damages crashed and burned in Sacramento in August, punting the issue to the next legislative session and, by extension, likely affecting the next insurance commissioner. 

Allen advocates for speeding up claim response times and bulking up measures designed to mitigate long-term wildfire risk. He also supports bringing private insurers back into the home insurance market to minimize the number of residents who rely on the state’s property insurer of last resort, the FAIR Plan. He is endorsed by the California Democratic Party, the Consumer Federation of California, California Environmental Voters and several state Democratic leaders.

Allen was also endorsed by the Chronicle’s editorial board, which is independent from the newsroom.

Kim, a civil rights attorney, has called for California to establish “insurance for all” by creating a state-run, single-payer insurance program that would guarantee coverage for wildfires and floods, similar to a program in New Zealand. She has expressed a desire to reduce insurance costs and claim response times, and to increase transparency about where premium money goes. She is endorsed by the California Teachers Association, the California Labor Federation, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A little more background on the job, courtesy of the Chronicle’s Megan Fan Munce: 

The insurance commissioner wields influence over major rate hike decisions, such as that of State Farm earlier this year. He or she also has the power to launch investigations that can result in multi-million dollar fines against insurers and pursue executive actions that, be it with carrots or with sticks, influence how insurers approach writing policies in California

Before voters passed a proposition that overhauled insurance regulations in 1988, the insurance commissioner was appointed by the governor. 

Harvey Rosenfield, the proposition’s author and founder of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, told the Chronicle that the appointing system left the office open to the sway of governors seeking to pay back the industry for campaign contributions.

Over the past 36 years since it became an elected role, just five people have held the job. Four came directly from the Legislature; none had direct experience working in the insurance industry. Two others were appointed by the governor to hold the position briefly after their predecessor resigned.

It’s the sound bite that went viral. 

During a Nebraska rally on Monday, the president suggested that Iran “take out” Los Angeles or San Diego, during a section of his speech downplaying rising energy prices as a result of the war he began with Iran. 

“Remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let ’em take out Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego. That’s — this is a very small price to pay,” he said.

The comments, predictably, prompted outrage from Democrats, especially among California state lawmakers. 

As the Chronicle’s Sophia Bollag reported, that includes the usual suspects: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic candidate for governor Xavier Becerra and several California representatives. 

But it also spurred responses from several state legislators, including some who tend to be more reluctant to publicly weigh in on the latest political fracas. 

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, said on X that the president’s comments “do damage and sow distrust and threaten our safety as a country.”

Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, reposted a clip of Trump’s speech with the comment: “25th Amendment stat.” 

Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Geyserville, called Trump a “traitor” and a “warmonger” on social media, and Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, called his remarks “ramblings of a man unfit for the office he holds.”

White House spokesman Steven Cheung said Trump’s comments were being misinterpreted.

“The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality,” he wrote on social media. “He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped.”

Newsom signed more than 1,000 bills this year, introducing hundreds of new regulations, penalties, programs and funding sources. But three stand out as bills directly inspired by issues encountered in the Bay Area, resulting in new laws that will have implications across the state on homelessness policies, mental health and public safety. 

SB1246, authored by Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, is a direct response to a flurry of incidents that saw autonomous vehicles, including Waymos, get in the way of emergency response professionals and law enforcement. 

That includes the infamous December 2025 Waymo blackout, when robotaxis stalled nearly 1,600 times throughout San Francisco, leading to a frantic effort to clear the vehicles from intersections, crosswalks and busy city streets.

Starting in July 2028, autonomous vehicle operators will be on the hook for an up to $10,000 fine if their cars obstruct or interfere with emergency operations anywhere in the state.

The law will also require autonomous vehicle companies to alert cities when they are having any system failures and provide locations of all stalled vehicles, and provide a point person to work with local jurisdictions to clear the cars.

Another new law with Bay Area origins: AB1897, by Assembly Member Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, and sponsored by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. 

It requires an individual’s history of violence to be considered in mental health professionals’ evaluations used to determine if a person is safe to reenter society from incarceration. It is a direct response to issues highlighted by the case of Bill Gene Hobbs, a man known as a serial harasser of women in San Francisco, who was released on parole a few years into a 5 1/2-year sentence despite psychologists testifying that his severe mental illness was not in remission.

The new law requires mental health evaluators to use a standardized risk assessment tool to gauge how much a person could pose a public safety risk, considering a person’s history, their capacity to inflict physical harm, and their current mental state and treatment.

Haney was also behind AB1556, which opens the door for drug-free or sober housing facilities to access state homeless support funds, after years of ineligibility. 

The bill was sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and the Bay Area Council, and aims to bridge a funding gap by giving drug-free housing programs the ability to access state funds if they agree not to kick out residents who relapse and provide relapse-recovery services for those struggling with sobriety. 

It also creates a program designed to help residents who decide to leave sober living to help them find alternative housing.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s 2026 voter guide is here, with all the need-to-know information about this year’s election. 

For those of you in the Bay Area, that includes guides about your local ballot measures and races. For the rest of us, it’s a very useful guide for all the state races, including the very long list of statewide ballot measures. 

Confused about the propositions? Out of the loop on the lesser-known statewide races like controller and insurance commissioner? We’ve got you. 

Check out the interactive voter guide for California and Bay Area elections.

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.