The past year saw myriad conflicts within California politics as a returning governor took on the mantle of a state mired in deep financial shortfall.  
But it also saw substantial change in the form of redistricting of political lines and the passage of the Dream Act.
 
Gov. Jerry Brown, who last held the role of state leader in 1983, took on a Golden State reeling from a $26 billion budget deficit, and political discord over spending, taxes and a growing pension problem.
 
Before the end of the year, Brown introduced plans to rein in the deficit through shutting down redevelopment agencies, shifting prison responsibility to local authorities and increasing taxes.
 
Brown returned to Sacramento with the hope lawmakers could allow voters to extend existing tax increases, reduce spending, and pass a controversial plan to kill the state's redevelopment agencies.
 
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans called for pension reform, fewer business regulations and more spending limits instead of a continuation of tax hikes.
 
Brown's initial budget plan proposed deep cuts with extensions of currently existing taxes.
 
But he said Republicans refused to allow the tax measures to come to a vote unless he agreed "to an ever-changing list of collateral demands."
 
Republicans countered that Democrats didn't want to allow voters to weigh in on a state spending cap or on reforms to public employee pensions.

State Sen. Republican leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said the list was submitted because Republicans wanted to be on the same page with Brown on government reform.
 
"I wasn't making any demands," Dutton said at the time. "We laid out the challenges we had talked about in order to have a successful budget."
 
Failing to secure enough Republican votes for the tax-increase legislation, Brown and Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento went ahead in approving a budget that shuts down the state's redevelopment agencies in order to divert funds to education.
 
The ongoing budget deficit, according to officials, was cut by more than half, to $10 billion, with a reduction in the state's workforce by 5,500 positions and discontinuation of state cellphones and state cares.
 
But the new budget, approved in July, meant deep cuts to state spending on schools and other services. Further, automatic state funding cuts to public schools, higher education and social services are expected in 2012 because revenue projections are falling short of projections, according to a report by the state's financial analysts.
 
"The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and our courts," Brown said in a statement.
 
Having failed to reach legislative agreement on tax extensions earlier in 2011, Brown said he will file a state ballot initiative that would raise about $7 billion a year for five years to help pay for schools and public safety. Millionaires and other high-income earners would pay up to 2 percent higher income taxes for five years, according to Brown's plan.
 
Opponents said the proposal would mean more state government spending, less consumer spending and raise the cost of doing business in a challenging economy.
 
Prison system undergoes change
 
While the state dealt with less money, its prison system faced crowded conditions and a Supreme Court order to reduce its population in response to unconstitutional conditions.
 
Democratic legislators passed Brown's proposal to shift state responsibility of low-level inmates to local authorities in order to save billions and meet a federal court-order to lighten its inmate load.
 
The state must comply with a federal court order to reduce by 2013 its prison population by about 40,000 in order to relieve crowding and improve conditions. The 2011-2012 state budget provides $5billion from sales and vehicle taxes to local governments in order to implement the transfer plan.
 
Lawmakers delayed the program so it will now begin Oct. 1 to provide time for the state and local agencies to prepare for the transfers.
 
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department houses 5,500 inmates, with a capacity for 6,100. Lance Clark, deputy chief in charge of detentions and corrections for the department, said realignment could bring up to an additional 8,500 inmates to the county, and local agencies are working to mitigate that impact.
 
But some local and law enforcement officials, like San Bernardino District Attorney Michael A. Ramos and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley fear a rise in crime as reduced space in the jails could mean existing inmates serving less time.
 
"I can tell you we send about 4,300 (low-level) prisoners to prison every year, so those 4,300 are going to come to local county jails, and there's no room in the jail, so something's gonna give," said Ramos earlier this year, before also expressing hope that a joint partnership between his office, law enforcement, and probation would help reduce recidivism.
 
Redevelopment agencies takeaway also not popular
 
While local officials deal with the additional costs of the unprecedented prison realignment, they have slammed the loss of property tax funds going to their local redevelopment agencies. As part of Brown's 2011-12 fiscal year budget, legislators in June passed two bills that would change or eliminate the more than 400 redevelopment agencies in the state.
 
Brown defended his plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies - local agencies that some praise as engines of economic development while others deride as bastions of corporate welfare.
 
Brown, the former mayor of Oakland, said he understands why local officials are up in arms over the proposal but that schools, public safety and other basic services are more important than redevelopment.
 
"Redevelopment funds come directly from local property taxes that would otherwise pay for schools and core city and county services such as police and fire protection and care for the most vulnerable people in our society," Brown said. "So it is a matter of hard choices, and I come down on the side of those who believe that core functions of government must be funded first."
 
The first bill eliminates redevelopment agencies altogether but allows cities to continue some form of redevelopment agency or go without. The second bill forms an alternate redevelopment agency for cities that decide to continue with redevelopment.
 
However, they will be required to pay 40 percent of its revenue to the state.
 
The payments to the state would total $1.7 billion in the first fiscal year and about $400 million per subsequent year.
 
California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities filed a lawsuit in July citing the second of the two bills violates Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was passed by voters in November prohibiting the state from taking redevelopment fund money.
 
"Unless overturned by the courts, this legislation will result in the elimination of redevelopment agencies and also force `ransom' payments by local agencies to fund state obligations to schools," according to a statement by the League of California Cities. "This will devastate many critical local job-creating revitalization projects throughout California."
 
The state Supreme Court expects to have a decision by Jan. 15, which is the deadline for the first payment to the state.
 
Redistricting headed to court as well
 
As local officials take the redevelopment battle to court, Republicans have taken their issue over the electoral redistricting to court as well.
 
Voters tasked a Redistricting Commission to draw new legislative and congressional districts in response to decades of gerrymandering by lawmakers that preserved districts for incumbents and their parties.
 
In July, panel members approved final versions of the district maps for the House, the Assembly, the state Senate and the state Board of Equalization, which administers sales and use taxes.
 
The new maps are expected to lead to more Democratic- leaning districts than the current lines as a result of the state's demographic changes. In the Legislature, Democrats have a better chance at reaching the critical two-thirds majority in the state Senate than under the old maps. Such a threshold would move the party one step closer to the ability to pass taxes without Republican assistance.
 
The California Supreme Court rejected two lawsuits challenging newly drawn political districts for the House of Representatives and the state Senate.
 
Two petitions backed by Republicans had challenged the validity of new districts created by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
 
The Supreme Court also rejected their requests for an emergency stay that would have halted use of the maps.
 
The court voted 7-0.
 
Opponents claimed the new maps didn't meet constitutional requirements for redistricting and obligations under the Voting Rights Act, which outlaws discriminatory electoral procedures. The Redistricting Commission, which drew the new districts after voters stripped the Legislature of its power to do so, said all criteria were reasonably considered and applied.
 
Additional lawsuits have been filed.
 
Dream Act leads to backlash
 
In one of the most contentious moves of the year, Brown signed the California Dream Act, which will provide state financial aid to undocumented college students.
 
The move sparked an immediate backlash from opponents.
 
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, initiated an efforts to overturn the act.
 
A.B. 131 provides undocumented students in California who meet in-state tuition requirements the opportunity to apply for public financial aid to help pay for college.
 
The bill's author, Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, said there's about $20 million to $35 million available for financial aid for the students - about 1 percent of the $3.5 billion in funds set aside for students in public education.
 
But opponents said the bill disenfranchises legal resident students at a time of deep fiscal difficulty for the state.
 
"We have 2.5million people out of work in California," Donnelly said. "You would think our priority would be to get these folks back to work. Why would we spend any resources for people who are here in the country illegally?"
 
Cedillo called the legislation reflective of American values and an inclusive vision important for the future of the economy.
 
"We have to make smart decisions, and this is one we need for an educated workforce to compete with the global economy," Cedillo said.
 
A referendum needs about 504,000 signatures, Donnelly said, but the assemblyman expects to obtain more than a million.
 
Occupy movement hopes to change status quo
 
The constant partisan nature in politics played a part in the rise of the Occupy movement that made its way to the Inland Empire.
 
Local groups - such as those in Claremont, Redlands, Fontana and Riverside - were inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest, which began in the latter half of the year in New York City to protest corporate greed and bring attention to increasing poverty and wealth disparity in the nation. The movement swept across the nation with participants camping or "occupying" in their respective cities.
 
Occupy meetings throughout the nation take place as a "general assembly" in which participants meet to air concerns and grievances. Decisions are made through group consensus, participants said. The use of social media is another major means of communication between Occupy groups throughout the nation, in a way that mirrors the Arab Spring movement of North Africa and the Middle East.
 
Sara Goose is a public school teacher who participates in the Occupy Redlands group, which meets off Cajon Street across from City Hall. Goose, 33, said she's lucky to be employed, but worries about her college loan payments and being able to pay for her daughter's college education in a few years.

"I feel like I'm what's left of the middle class," Goose said. "I feel fortunate enough to still have a job and health care insurance, but I look around and the prospects are not the same for many of the people in my demographic."