阜阳市哪里医院可以看痤疮阜阳治疗痘痘一共需要多少钱,阜阳皮肤瘙痒专业医院,阜阳脱发医院哪家好,阜阳怎么样治花斑癣,阜阳什么地方治荨麻疹好,阜阳市哪里医院治疗痤疮好,阜阳正规医院治痘痘价格

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California may join many other states in allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections, if they will turn 18 before the following general election, under a proposed amendment to the state constitution approved Thursday by the state Assembly.If two-thirds of senators agree, the measure would to go to voters for their consideration in California's March primary election, but it would not affect next year's elections.The measure passed, 57-13, over objections from Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher of Nicolaus that it's a ploy to lure more Democratic-leaning young voters.RELATED: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill on presidential tax returnsThe measure "is being veiled as something that helps expand the franchise" but "has mostly a more political ulterior motive in the long term," Gallagher said. "That's what is really going on here."Democratic Assemblyman Kevin Mullin of San Francisco said the practice has been adopted in other states that lean Republican, and the goal of his measure is to "empower California's youngest voters" and encourage a habit of life-long voting."The time has come for California to join in pursuing what so many other states have done," Mullin said.The National Conference of State Legislatures says the practice is permitted in at least 17 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states that use caucuses also allow 17-year-olds to participate, though the rules are generally set by each political party."It's not driven by a Democratic idea in California," said Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, listing some of the more conservative states. "To suggest that there's some political play going on I think is disingenuous. ... It's good for the process, it's good for them, and it's our way to develop lifelong voters."The measure is supported by groups including the League of Women Voters of California. It's opposed by the Election Integrity Project California Inc., which noted that 17-year-olds are still considered children, mostly in high school, who may be easily influenced by their parents and teachers.The measure is separate from another proposed amendment to the California constitution that would lower the voting age from 18 to 17 even in general elections. That measure is awaiting an Assembly vote.California is among 14 states that allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote, but they can't currently vote until they turn 18. Nine other states set different pre-registration ages.Berkeley voters in 2016 allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local school board elections, but a similar measure failed in nearby San Francisco. 2861

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) -- The man who bought two rifles that terrorists used to kill 14 people in a 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.Enrique Marquez Jr. supplied the weapons that Syed Rizwan Farook and Farook's wife used to open fire on a meeting and holiday gathering of San Bernardino County employees who worked with Farook.The couple fled after killing 14 people and wounding 22 and died later that day in a gunbattle with authorities.Marquez showed no emotion during the federal court hearing Friday as relatives of the victims asked a judge to give him a lengthy sentence. 637

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The U.S. government says California must change how it issues identification cards that comply with stricter federal requirements.The so-called Real ID cards will be needed to board airplanes or enter federal buildings by October 2020 under security enhancements following 9/11. California already has issued 2.3 million cards.Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman Marty Greenstein said Friday that those IDs will remain valid and changes will apply going forward.The DMV had required one document proving residency and counted on delivery by the post office as secondary proof of someone's address.Emails show the Department of Homeland Security approved that process last year. But it told the DMV in November that was no longer acceptable and two documents proving residency are required.The change will be implemented next spring. 869

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

SACRAMENTO -- State water regulators met in Sacramento Tuesday to consider making water wasting rules permanent state law, according to The Mercury News.The State Water Resources Control Board held the public hearing, but it’s unclear whether a final vote would come Tuesday, or at a later date.The talks come amid one of the driest winters in modern California history. The rules being discussed were originally enacted during the last drought.RELATED: San Diego County moves a step up in drought severityIf the rules were made into state law, offenders could be fined up to 0 per violation.The rules were originally put into place between 2014 and 2017 under orders from Governor Jerry Brown but expired November 25.Environmentalists supported the rules and asked that they be made even stricter. The groups supported a rule that would have prohibited restaurants from serving water to customers who didn’t ask for it.Cities have also thrown their support behind the rules, but say they object to the way they’re legally framed.RELATED: Plan to replace dead, drought-stricken trees in Balboa Park speeds upThe board has the authority to pass water rules in power granted to them by voters in 1928. According to The Mercury News, cities and farmers have feared that the authority could be used to limit water rights.The rules that could be made into state law are: 1386