Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that California will review the safety of all COVID-19 vaccines that receive federal approval before distributing them to the public, adding an extra safeguard amid concerns that the White House could rush the process.

The governor announced the creation of a new group of physicians and scientists working with the California Department of Public Health that will “independently review” all federal Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccines, he said.

“Of course, we don’t take anyone’s word for it,” Newsom said at a news conference on Monday. “We will do our own independently reviewed process with our world-class experts that just happen to live here in the state of California.”

Vaccines, like many other aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic, have become increasingly politicized. President Trump for months pushed for the speedy development of a vaccine, leading to clashes with public health officials who disagreed with his timeline. Now Newsom is insisting on a state review at a time when polls show declining confidence in future COVID-19 vaccines.

The governor’s decision mirrors a September announcement from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who said he would create a task force of health experts to review the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine approvals.

Newsom’s announcement added to the uncertainty about COVID-19 vaccines just days after Dr. Anthony Fauci said he felt “strong confidence” in the safety of those approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told “CBS Evening News” that he expects to know in November or December if some potential COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

He said that if all six vaccine candidates currently undergoing clinical trials are proven to be safe and effective, they could be widely available by April.

But the governor on Monday said mid-2021 is a realistic projection for when a vaccine would be distributed to the public. Newsom acknowledged the “political polarization” around vaccines and said the state needs to monitor the safety, distribution and health effects.

“So, no matter who the next president is, we’re going to maintain our vigilance,” Newsom said. “We are going to do what California is well known to do and that is to make sure that we have a redundancy and that we maintain our vigilance to have a second set of eyes on the things that are being asserted and the information that’s being provided.”

LaVonna B. Lewis, a professor of public policy with an emphasis on healthcare at the USC Sol Price School, said it’s too early to tell if Newsom’s announcement will instill more faith in COVID-19 vaccines, or add legitimacy to the concerns.

“To assume that people will just automatically shake off all of the misinformation that has been part of this process and all the viciousness that has been part of this process and just stand in line and take the vaccine, I think is unrealistic,” Lewis said. “And, so, trying to find ways to again restore some confidence in the process is necessary.”

To those who are opposed to all vaccines, the governor’s call for another layer of scrutiny may reaffirm their belief that vaccines are dangerous. But to other Californians, who may typically have confidence in vaccines but do not trust the federal government under Trump, the state’s seal of approval could encourage them to get vaccinated, Lewis said.

“Trusted agents make a difference,” Lewis said. “If I don’t trust the messenger, then it’s very difficult for me to believe the message.”

Since taking office, Newsom’s public position on vaccines hasn’t always been clear.

Newsom initially raised concerns about a 2019 bill that tightened immunization rules for California schoolchildren. His office negotiated changes that narrowed the focus of the legislation and the governor told reporters that he would sign the bill.

Then shortly after the Assembly approved the bill and his changes, the governor backtracked on his support and asked for more changes. The back-and-forth energized anti-vaccine activists at the Capitol, giving them hope that Newsom might veto the legislation.

In the end, Newsom signed SB 276 and a second bill the Legislature approved with the extra amendments the governor wanted. The governor said repeatedly that his signature on the bills proved his support for vaccines, but his handling of the legislation created a feeling of distrust among lawmakers.

Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), who introduced the 2019 legislation, said this time Newsom’s intervention will require the state to review the data the FDA used to approve the vaccines as a means to build more confidence in the science.

“If they don’t provide the data, California is not the only one who’s going to be raising a lot of questions,” Pan said. “He’s calling for scientists to review data so that people have confidence in the vaccine because unfortunately the president has politicized this and therefore has created a level of distrust.”

Though the governor’s announcement raised questions about whether the review would delay the distribution of the vaccine in California, Pan argued that it’s more important for people to trust the vaccine and want to take it.

State public health officials last spring started having early discussions about how vaccines and therapeutic medicines to treat people with the coronavirus would be distributed in California once developed and approved.

Among the priorities would be to provide the vaccines to people considered most at risk from the virus, along with ensuring equitable distribution to people across the state, regardless of income or geography. In May, a top Newsom administration official said that this sort of planning is done whenever a new vaccine or medicine in great need to protect the public health is developed.

Those efforts came together in an 84-page draft proposal of a plan to distribute and administer vaccines that the California Department of Public Health submitted last week to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The broad outline, dated Friday, includes goals to prioritize vaccines while doses are limited for healthcare personnel at risk of contracting the virus, those at risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19, and essential workers. When vaccines become more widely available, the population of eligible recipients will grow to nonessential workers and the general public.

As states begin formalizing plans for vaccine distribution, governors are also calling for the federal government to provide more detailed guidelines and oversight.

Cuomo published a list of questions about vaccine distribution on Sunday that he said the National Governors Assn. sent to the Trump administration.

The association, which includes Republican and Democratic governors, asked the federal government about federal funding, insurance coverage, prioritization, monitoring health effects and other critical issues related to the distribution and implementation of future vaccines.

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

One of the most complicated measures on California’s ballot this November is Proposition 19, which gives new property tax breaks to older homeowners, increases property taxes for those inheriting their parents’ properties and tacks on some tax relief for those affected by wildfires.

The measure is the product of more than two years of work by the California Assn. of Realtors to give a larger tax incentive to homeowners 55 and older to move into new homes. The Realtors also were behind Proposition 5, a failed 2018 initiative that would have done the same thing. But Proposition 19 adds many other elements — notably a tax increase for the heirs of some homeowners — in an effort to make it more fiscally sound and palatable to voters.

Here’s a breakdown of how Proposition 19 works, including who benefits from the measure and who doesn’t.

The winners

The biggest winners under Proposition 19 would be homeowners 55 and older who would pay lower property taxes when moving to a new, more expensive residence.

Proposition 19 builds off the property tax system inaugurated more than four decades ago when Californians passed Proposition 13, which limits property taxes to 1% of a home’s taxable value, based on the year the house was purchased. The 1978 ballot measure also restricts how much that taxable value can go up every year, even if a home’s market value increases much more.

Homeowners receive more benefits the longer they remain in their homes because their tax bills stay restricted even as their home’s market value goes up. So residents could face a surge in tax payments if they move to a new home — this is the issue that Proposition 19 seeks to address.

Currently, homeowners who are 55 or older have a one-time opportunity to retain their existing tax benefits if they move to a home of equal or lesser value within the same county. They can do the same when moving between Los Angeles and nine other counties.

Proposition 19 would further ease the tax burden by allowing the same group of senior homeowners to blend the taxable value of their old house with the purchase price of a new, more expensive home, reducing the property tax payment they’d otherwise face. Disabled homeowners would receive the benefit as well. The rules under Proposition 19 would extend to every county in the state, and homeowners could take advantage of the break as many as three times when they decide to move.

For example, a qualifying homeowner who owns a home with a taxable value of $200,000 that is worth $600,000 on the market would pay roughly $2,200 in property taxes now. If the homeowner moves to a $700,000 house, the homeowner would pay $3,300 a year in property taxes under Proposition 19. Without the initiative, the same homeowner would pay $7,700 annually at the new home.

Jeanne Radsick, president of the Realtors group, said it’s vital for homeowners who may be empty nesters or who are looking to move for health reasons to have more options.

“If they can maintain a stable tax basis, they can live a similar life,” Radsick said. “There’s not enough senior housing to accommodate them otherwise.”

Still, the beneficiaries of Proposition 19 are those who already benefit the most under the state’s existing property tax rules. Homeowners 55 and older in California are much more likely to be white and wealthy than younger renters, according to an analysis of Proposition 19 by the California Budget and Policy Center, a nonprofit that advocates for working low-income Californians.

“By expanding tax breaks for this economically advantaged group, Prop. 19 would make California’s tax system less progressive and more inequitable,” the analysis said.

Also, the real estate industry stands to benefit from the increase in home sales that is expected as a result of the measure. State and national Realtor groups are funding the Proposition 19 campaign, contributing more than $37 million so far to secure its passage.

Radsick said that protecting Realtors’ interests was not a driving force behind the push for Proposition 19.

“It is not about making money for the Realtors, for crying out loud,” she said. “It’s about tax fairness for people who need help.”

The losers

Those who stand to lose the most under Proposition 19 would be children who inherit their parents’ home and intend to keep it as a second home or rent it out. Their property taxes would go up a lot.

About 650,000 California homeowners over the last decade received a tax break that allows them to maintain their parents’ low property tax payments when they inherit their homes, according to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. As detailed in a 2018 Times investigation, a large number of those inherited homes along the coast are probably used as investment properties.

The provision has since been dubbed “the Lebowski loophole” after The Times found that “The Big Lebowski” actor Jeff Bridges and his siblings had advertised a beachfront home in Malibu inherited from their parents for nearly $16,000 a month in rent despite an annual property tax bill that’s a fraction of that amount.

Proposition 19 would eliminate this property tax break for investment homes and commercial properties, meaning that heirs who inherit their parents’ properties would pay taxes based on market value. With some limitations, children who move into homes inherited from their parents would be able to retain the tax break.

Curtailing the inheritance property tax break would generate more than enough revenue to make up for the loss in tax dollars from the new tax relief offered to older homeowners in Proposition 19, the legislative analyst found.

Radsick said it’s reasonable to cap heirs’ tax benefits, especially when children are using their parents’ homes as vacation or investment properties.

Opposition to this portion of Proposition 19 comes from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., the anti-tax organization founded by the driving force behind Proposition 13. The group supports further tax breaks for older homeowners but does not believe they should be funded by raising property taxes on heirs.

“It’s a billion-dollar tax increase on California families,” said Susan Shelley, the group’s spokeswoman.

What about wildfire victims and wildfire funding?

Many of the advertisements for Proposition 19 say the measure will benefit wildfire victims and create new funding to fight wildfires.

That’s true, but wildfire victims are not the primary beneficiaries of Proposition 19, and the money may not materialize as backers have touted.

For those who’ve lost their homes in wildfires or other natural disasters, the measure would give them the same benefits as people 55 and older. But disaster-affected homeowners comprise well under 1% of those eligible for tax relief under Proposition 19, according to the California Budget and Policy Center analysis.

Proposition 19 requires the state to put increased tax revenues that may be generated from the measure into wildfire response. But most of that cash is allocated only when the state does not have to put additional tax dollars into public schools to meet existing constitutional guarantees for education funding. Though the COVID-19 pandemic has created significant uncertainty for the state budget, the legislative analyst believes that the vast majority of the wildfire funding will not start flowing until 2025 at the earliest.