ReportWire

Tag: ballot measure

  • Republicans, including ‘cowardly’ Schwarzenegger, take heat for lopsided loss on Prop. 50

    Republican infighting crescendoed in the aftermath of California voters overwhelmingly approving a Democratic-friendly redistricting plan this week that may undercut the GOP’s control of Congress and derail President Trump’s polarizing agenda.

    The state GOP chairwoman was urged to resign and former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the state’s independent redistricting commission, was called “cowardly” by one top GOP leader for not being more involved in the campaign.

    Leaders of the Republican-backed committees opposing the ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, were questioned about how they spent nearly $58 million in the special election after such a dismal outcome.

    Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the once-prodigious Republican fundraiser, reportedly had vowed that he could raise $100 million for the opposition but ended up delivering a small fraction of that amount.

    Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, called on state GOP Chair Corrin Rankin to step down and faulted other Republican leaders and longtime party operatives for their failure to defeat the measure, calling them “derelict of duty and untrustworthy and incompetent.”

    “Unless serious changes are made at the party, the midterms are going to be a complete disaster,” DeMaio said, also faulting the other groups opposing the effort. “We need accountability. There needs to be a reckoning because otherwise the lessons won’t be learned. The old guard needs to go. The old guard has failed us too many times. This is the latest failure.”

    Rankin pushed back against the criticism, saying the state party was the most active GOP force in the final stretch of the election. Raising $11 million during the final three weeks of the campaign, the party spent it on mailers, digital ads and text messages, as well as organizing phone banks and precinct walking, she said.

    Former Speaker of the House and California Republican Kevin McCarthy speaks to the press at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 19, 2023.

    (Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images)

    “We left it all on the field,” Rankin said Wednesday morning at a Sacramento news conference about a federal lawsuit California Republicans filed arguing that Proposition 50 is unconstitutional. “We were the last man standing … to reach out to Republicans and make sure they turned out.”

    Responding to criticism that their effort was disorganized, including opposition campaign mailers being sent to voters who had already cast ballots, Rankin said the party would conduct a review of its efforts. But she added that she was extremely proud of the work her team did in the “rushed special election.”

    Barring successful legal challenges, the new California congressional districts enacted under Proposition 50 will go into effect before the 2026 election. The new district maps favor Democratic candidates and were crafted to unseat five Republican incumbents, which could erase Republicans’ narrow edge in the the U.S. House of Representatives.

    If Democrats win control of the body, Trump’s policy agenda will probably be stymied and the president and members of his administration could face multiple congressional investigations.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats proposed Proposition 50 in response to Trump urging elected officials in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to the House next year.

    The new California congressional boundaries voters approved Tuesday could give Democrats the opportunity to pick up five seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

    Proposition 50 will change how California determines the boundaries of congressional districts. The measure asked voters to approve congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission.

    Some Republicans lamented that Schwarzenegger was not more involved in the election. The movie star championed the creation of the independent commission in 2010, his final year in office. He campaigned for the creation of similar bodies to fight partisan drawing of district lines across the nation after leaving office.

    Shawn Steel, one of California’s three representatives on the Republican National Committee, called Schwarzenegger “a cowardly politician.”

    “Arnold decided to sit it out,” Steel said. “Arnold just kind of raised the flag and immediately went under the desk.”

    Steel said that the former governor failed to follow through on the messages he repeatedly delivered about the importance of independent redistricting.

    “He could have had his name on the ballot as a ballot opponent,” Steel said. “He turned it down. So I’d say, with Arnold, just disappointing but not surprised. That’s his political legacy.”

    Schwarzenegger’s team pushed back at this criticism as misinformed.

    “We were clear from the beginning that he was not going to be a part of the campaign and was going to speak his mind,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesman for the former governor. “His message was very clear and nonpartisan. When one campaign couldn’t even criticize gerrymandering in Texas, it was probably hard for voters to believe they actually cared about fairness.”

    Schwarzenegger spoke out against Proposition 50 a handful of times, including at an appearance at USC that was turned into a television ad by one of the anti-Proposition 50 committees that appeared to go dark before election day.

    On election day, he emailed followers about gut health, electrolytes, protein bars, fitness and conversations to increase happiness. There was no apparent mention of the Tuesday election.

    The Democratic-led California Legislature in August voted to place Proposition 50 on the November ballot, costing nearly $300 million, and setting off a sprint to Tuesday’s special election.

    The opponents were vastly outspent by the ballot measure’s supporters, who contributed nearly $136 million to various efforts. That financial advantage, combined with Democrats’ overwhelming edge in voter registration in California, were main contributors to the ballot measure’s success. When introduced in August, Proposition 50 had tepid support and its prospects appeared uncertain.

    Nearly 64% of the nearly 8.3 million voters who cast ballots supported Proposition 50, while 36% opposed it as of Wednesday night, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

    In addition to the state Republican Party, two main campaign committees opposed Proposition 50, including the one backed by McCarthy. A separate group was funded by more than $32 million from major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man; he bankrolled the creation of the independent congressional redistricting commission in 2010.

    Representatives of the two committees — who defended their work Tuesday night after the election was called moments after the polls closed, saying that they could not overcome the vast financial disadvantage and that the proposition’s supporters must be held to their promises to voters such as pushing for national redistricting reform — did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Wednesday.

    Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50 had prominent Democrats stumping for the effort, including former President Obama starring in ads.

    That’s in stark contrast to the opposition efforts. Trump was largely absent, possibly because he is deeply unpopular among Californians and the president does not like to be associated with losing causes.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, trailblazing Democratic leader from San Francisco, won’t seek reelection

    SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

    The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

    With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

    “With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

    Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

    “As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

    Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

    Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

    However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

    Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

    In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

    Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

    In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

    “I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

    While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

    Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

    However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

    That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

    Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

    By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

    Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

    The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

    On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

    In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

    She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with University of California San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

    She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

    “It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman Speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

    After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

    “She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

    The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

    Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

    “She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

    “Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Election Day 2025: Live updates of key races, storylines and ballot measures around the country

    Former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who was outraised by the Democrat and failed to earn the endorsement of President Donald Trump.The win flips control of the commonwealth’s governor’s mansion. While local issues and the biographies of the candidates played a strong role in the race, the results also reflect a contest where Trump’s presence loomed.Virginia has a concentration of federal workers in the north and has deeply felt both the impact of the president cutting the workforce and of the government shutdown.Virginia was one of two states, along with New Jersey, where voters were picking a governor on Tuesday. Voters were also selecting a new mayor in New York City, and in California, were deciding whether to approve a new congressional map that is designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections. Here are the latest time-stamped updates from Election Day 2025 (ET): 8:15 p.m.Results for two high-profile mayoral races have come in.According to AP, Democrat Aftab Pureval has won the Cincinnati mayoral election over Cory Bowman, who is the half-brother of Vice President JD Vance.And in Atlanta, Democrat Andre Dickens won reelection over three challengers.8 p.m.Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial election, becoming the first female governor in the commonwealth’s history, according to AP projections.Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA case officer, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.Spanberger ran a mostly moderate campaign, offering a model for Democrats who want the party anchored by center-left candidates.Spanberger tied Earle-Sears to President Donald Trump but kept her arguments mostly on Trump’s economic policy and her support for abortion rights.Notably, Trump did not endorse Earle-Sears.7:30 p.m. Economic worries were the dominant concern as voters cast ballots for Tuesday’s elections, according to preliminary findings from the AP Voter Poll.The results of the expansive survey of more than 17,000 voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City suggest they are troubled by an economy that seems trapped by higher prices and fewer job opportunities.The economic challenges have played out in different ways at the local level. Most New Jersey voters said property taxes were a “major problem,” while most New York City voters said this about the cost of housing. Most Virginia voters said they’ve felt at least some impact from the recent federal government cuts.7 p.m.Polling locations have closed in Virginia.Polls across the commonwealth’s counties and cities were open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters in line at a polling place at 7 p.m. can still cast ballots.Virginia voters are choosing a new governor and lieutenant governor. They’re also deciding whether Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares should get another term or if Democratic challenger Jay Jones should replace him. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates are also up for election.There are well over 6 million registered voters in Virginia. The last time these statewide races were on the ballot in 2021, overall voter turnout was 55%.This year, nearly 1.5 million people have cast absentee ballots, mostly through the mail or in person.Video below: Spanberger makes last push before Tuesday’s election for VA governor6:55 p.m.New York City’s Board of Elections released another turnout update Tuesday evening.As of 6 p.m., 1.7 million people have voted in the mayoral election.That’s the biggest turnout in a New York City mayoral election in at least 30 years. Just under 1.9 million people voted in the 1993 race, when Republican Rudy Giuliani ousted Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat.6:45 p.m.Here is when polls close in states with key races. New York: 9 p.m.New Jersey: 8 p.m.Virginia: 7 p.m.California: 11 p.m. (8 p.m. PT)6:30 p.m.It’s not a presidential election year or even the midterms, but the stakes for Election Day 2025 remain undeniably high, with outcomes that could leave a lasting impact on the nation’s direction.Will California redefine the congressional landscape ahead of 2026? Could New York City elect a democratic socialist as its next mayor? And how will the perception of the Trump administration impact critical gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia?This week holds the answers to those pressing questions. Here’s what you need to know before the results start rolling in Tuesday night.

    Former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who was outraised by the Democrat and failed to earn the endorsement of President Donald Trump.

    The win flips control of the commonwealth’s governor’s mansion. While local issues and the biographies of the candidates played a strong role in the race, the results also reflect a contest where Trump’s presence loomed.

    Virginia has a concentration of federal workers in the north and has deeply felt both the impact of the president cutting the workforce and of the government shutdown.

    Virginia was one of two states, along with New Jersey, where voters were picking a governor on Tuesday. Voters were also selecting a new mayor in New York City, and in California, were deciding whether to approve a new congressional map that is designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections.

    Here are the latest time-stamped updates from Election Day 2025 (ET):

    8:15 p.m.

    Results for two high-profile mayoral races have come in.

    According to AP, Democrat Aftab Pureval has won the Cincinnati mayoral election over Cory Bowman, who is the half-brother of Vice President JD Vance.

    And in Atlanta, Democrat Andre Dickens won reelection over three challengers.

    8 p.m.

    Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial election, becoming the first female governor in the commonwealth’s history, according to AP projections.

    Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA case officer, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.

    Spanberger ran a mostly moderate campaign, offering a model for Democrats who want the party anchored by center-left candidates.

    Spanberger tied Earle-Sears to President Donald Trump but kept her arguments mostly on Trump’s economic policy and her support for abortion rights.

    Notably, Trump did not endorse Earle-Sears.

    7:30 p.m.

    Economic worries were the dominant concern as voters cast ballots for Tuesday’s elections, according to preliminary findings from the AP Voter Poll.

    The results of the expansive survey of more than 17,000 voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City suggest they are troubled by an economy that seems trapped by higher prices and fewer job opportunities.

    The economic challenges have played out in different ways at the local level. Most New Jersey voters said property taxes were a “major problem,” while most New York City voters said this about the cost of housing. Most Virginia voters said they’ve felt at least some impact from the recent federal government cuts.

    7 p.m.

    Polling locations have closed in Virginia.

    Polls across the commonwealth’s counties and cities were open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters in line at a polling place at 7 p.m. can still cast ballots.

    Virginia voters are choosing a new governor and lieutenant governor. They’re also deciding whether Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares should get another term or if Democratic challenger Jay Jones should replace him. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates are also up for election.

    There are well over 6 million registered voters in Virginia. The last time these statewide races were on the ballot in 2021, overall voter turnout was 55%.

    This year, nearly 1.5 million people have cast absentee ballots, mostly through the mail or in person.

    Video below: Spanberger makes last push before Tuesday’s election for VA governor

    6:55 p.m.

    New York City’s Board of Elections released another turnout update Tuesday evening.

    As of 6 p.m., 1.7 million people have voted in the mayoral election.

    That’s the biggest turnout in a New York City mayoral election in at least 30 years. Just under 1.9 million people voted in the 1993 race, when Republican Rudy Giuliani ousted Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat.

    6:45 p.m.

    Here is when polls close in states with key races.

    New York: 9 p.m.

    New Jersey: 8 p.m.

    Virginia: 7 p.m.

    California: 11 p.m. (8 p.m. PT)

    6:30 p.m.

    It’s not a presidential election year or even the midterms, but the stakes for Election Day 2025 remain undeniably high, with outcomes that could leave a lasting impact on the nation’s direction.

    Will California redefine the congressional landscape ahead of 2026? Could New York City elect a democratic socialist as its next mayor? And how will the perception of the Trump administration impact critical gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia?

    This week holds the answers to those pressing questions. Here’s what you need to know before the results start rolling in Tuesday night.

    Source link

  • Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris rally Californians to vote on Prop. 50

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and a slew of other national and California Democrats on Saturday rallied supporters to stay fired up in seeking passage of a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the midterm elections.

    While polling suggests Proposition 50 is likely to pass Tuesday, volunteers must continue knocking on doors, phone banking and motivating voters through Election Day, they said. Newsom told volunteers they ought to follow the model of sprinters, leaving it all on the field.

    “We cannot afford to run the 90-yard dash. You Angelenos, you’ve got the Olympics coming in 2028. They do not run the 90-yard dash. They run the 110-yard dash. We have got to be at peak on Election Day,” Newsom told hundreds of supporters at the Convention Center in downtown Los Angeles. “We cannot take anything for granted.”

    Hours earlier, Republicans spoke out against the ballot measure at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach, before sending teams into neighborhoods to drum up votes for their side.

    “What Proposition 50 will do is disenfranchise, meaning, disregard all Republicans in the state of California,” state Assembly member Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach) said. “Ninety percent of 6 million [Californian Republicans] will be disenfranchised.”

    Prop. 50 would redraw California’s congressional districts in an attempt to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. The effort was proposed by Newsom and other California Democrats in hope of blunting President Trump’s push in Texas and other GOP-led states to increase the number of Republicans elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections. But even if voters approve the ballot measure that could flip five California districts currently represented by Republicans, it’s unclear whether that will be enough to shift control of the House unless there is a blue wave in the 2026 elections.

    The party that wins control of the House will shape Trump’s final two years in the White House and determine whether he is able to continue enacting his agenda or whether he faces a spate of investigations and possibly another impeachment attempt.

    The special election is among the costliest ballot measures in state history. More than $192 million has flowed into various campaign committees since state lawmakers voted in August to put the proposition on the ballot. Supporters of the redistricting effort raised exponentially more money than opponents, and polling shows the proposition is likely to pass.

    As of Friday, more than a quarter of the state’s 23 million registered voters had cast ballots, with Democrats outpacing Republicans.

    Newsom was joined Saturday by Harris, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, other Democrats and labor leaders.

    Harris, in a surprise appearance at the gathering, argued that the Trump administration is implementing long-sought GOP goals such as voter suppression.

    “This fight is not about sitting by and complaining, ‘Oh, they’re cheating,’” the former vice president said. “It’s about recognizing what they are up to. There is an agenda that we are witnessing which feels chaotic, I know, but in fact, we are witnessing a high-velocity event that is about the swift implementation of a plan that has been decades in the making.”

    Several speakers referred to the immigration raids that started in Los Angeles in June and deep cuts to federal safety nets, including the nutrition assistance program for low-income families and healthcare coverage for seniors and the disabled.

    “We know there’s so much on the line this Tuesday. And a reminder, Tuesday is not Election Day — it’s the last day to vote,” Padilla said. “Don’t wait till Tuesday. Get your ballots in, folks…. As good as the polls look, we need to run up the score on this because the eyes of the country are going to be on California on Tuesday. And we need to win and we need to win big.”

    Padilla, a typically staid legislator, then offered a modified riff of a lyric by rapper Ice Cube, who grew up in South Los Angeles.

    “Donald Trump — you better check yourself before you wreck America,” said Padilla, who is considering running for governor next year.

    Nearly 50 miles southeast, about 50 Republican canvassers fueled up on coffee and doughnuts, united over the brisk weather and annoyance about Newsom’s attempt to redraw California’s congressional districts.

    Will O’Neill, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, equated this final push against Prop. 50 as the California GOP’s Game 7 — a nod to Friday night’s World Series battle between the Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays.

    “Orange County right now is the only county in Southern California that has a shot of having more Republicans than Democrats voting,” O’Neill said. “We expect that over the next three days, around 70% of everyone who votes is gonna vote no on 50. But we need them to vote.”

    Ariana Assenmacher, of California Young Republicans, center, organizes during a gathering of Republican Party members pressing to vote no on Proposition 50 in the upcoming California Statewide Special Election at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach on Saturday, November 1, 2025.

    (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

    O’Neill labeled the measure a “hyper-partisan power grab.” If Prop. 50 passes, it will dilute Republican power in Orange County by splitting communities and roping some residents into districts represented by Los Angeles County politicians.

    Dixon also rallied volunteers — which included a handful of college students from across the state: “Be polite. Just say thank you very much. Just like Charlie Kirk would. Don’t [stimulate] an argument. Just be friendly.”

    “They’re squeezing out what very little representation Republicans have in the state,” said Kristen Nicole Valle, president of the Orange County Young Republicans.

    “We will not be hearing from 40% of Californians if Prop. 50 passes.”

    Randall Avila, executive director of the Orange County GOP, said the measure disenfranchises Latino GOP voters like himself.

    Nationally, Trump managed to gain 48% of the Latino vote, a Pew Research study showed, which proved crucial to his second presidential victory.

    “Obviously our community has kind of shown we’re willing to switch parties and go another direction if that elected official or that party isn’t serving us,” Avila said. “So it’s unfortunate that some of those voices are now gonna be silenced with a predetermined winner in their district.”

    Not all hope is lost for Republicans if Prop. 50 is approved, Avila said. A handful of seats could be snagged by Republicans, including the districts held by Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

    “If the lines do change, that doesn’t mean we pack up and go home,” he said. “Just means we reorganize, we reconfigure things, and then we keep fighting.”

    Seema Mehta, Andrea Flores

    Source link

  • Proponents of Nov. 4 redistricting ballot measure vastly outraise opponents

    Supporters of Proposition 50, California Democrats’ ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts to help the party’s effort to take power in the U.S. House of Representatives, raised more than four times the amount that rivals raised in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee supporting the redistricting measure raised $36.8 million between Sept. 21 and Oct. 18, bringing its total to $114.3 million, according to the report filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday, which was not available until Monday. It had $37.1 million in the bank and available to spend before the Nov. 4 special election.

    “We have hit our budget goals and raised what we need in order to pass Proposition 50,” Newsom emailed supporters on Monday. “You can stop donating.”

    The two main opposition groups raised a total of $8.4 million during the 28 days covered by the fundraising period, bringing their total haul to $43.7 million. They had $2.3 million in cash on hand going into the final stretch of the campaign.

    “As Gavin Newsom likes to say, we are not running the 90-yard dash here. We’ve seen a groundswell of support from Californians who understand what’s at stake if we let [President] Trump steal two more years of unchecked power,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign. “But we are not taking anything for granted nor taking our foot off the gas. If we want to hold this dangerous and reckless president accountable, we must pass Prop. 50.”

    Newsom and other California Democrats decided to ask voters to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, which are currently drawn by a voter-approved independent commission, in a mid-decade redistricting after Trump urged GOP-led states to redraw their districts in an effort for Republicans to retain control of Congress in next year’s midterm election.

    The balance of power in the narrowly divided House will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years of office, or is the focus of investigations and possibly an impeachment effort.

    Major donors supporting Proposition 50 include billionaire financier George Soros; the House Majority PAC, the campaign arm of congressional Democrats; and labor unions.

    Among the opponents of Proposition 50, top contributors include longtime GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of the investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett; and the Congressional Leadership Fund, Republicans’ political arm in the House.

    “While we are being outspent, we’re continuing to communicate with Californians the dangers of suspending California’s gold-standard redistricting process,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the committee funded by Munger. “With just ten days to go, we are encouraging all voters to make their voice heard and to vote.”

    Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the committee that received $5 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, said the organization was committed to continuing to raise money to block Newsom’s redistricting effort in the days leading up to the election.

    “His costly power grab would silence millions of Californians and deny them fair representation in Congress, which is why grassroots opposition is gaining momentum,” Hockenbury said. “In the final push, our data-driven campaign is strategically targeting key voters with our message to ensure every resource helps us defeat Prop. 50.”

    There are several other committees not affiliated with these main campaign groups that are receiving funding. Those include one created by billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who donated $12 million, and the California Republican Party, which received $8 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund.

    These reports come a little more than a week before the Nov. 4 special election. More than 4 million mail ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties returned 21% of the ballots that have been received.

    The turnout figures are alarming Republican leaders.

    “If Republicans do not get out and vote now, we will lose Prop 50 and Gavin Newsom will control our district lines until 2032,” Orange County GOP Chair Will O’Neill wrote to party members on Friday, urging them to cast ballots this past weekend and sharing the locations of early voting centers in the county.

    Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was more blunt on social media.

    “Right now we’re losing the fight against Prop 50 in CA, but turnout is LOW,” he posted on the social media platform X on Friday. “If every Republican voter gets off their ass, returns their ballot and votes NO, we WIN. IT. IS. THAT. SIMPLE.”

    More than 18.9 million ballots are outstanding, though not all will be completed. Early voting centers opened on Saturday in 29 California counties.

    “Think of Election Day as the last day to vote — not the only day. Like we always do, California gives voters more days and more ways to participate,” Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a statement. “Don’t Delay! Vote today!”

    The U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday that it plans on monitoring polling sites in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties at the request of the state GOP.

    “Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

    Newsom, in a post on X on Friday, said the Trump administration is sending election monitors to polling places in California as part of a broader effort to stifle the vote, particularly among Californians of color, in advance of next year’s midterm election.

    “This is about voter intimidation. This is about voter suppression,” Newsom said, predicting that masked border agents would probably be present at California polling places through the Nov. 4 election. “I hope people understand it’s a bridge that they’re trying to build the scaffolding for all across this country in next November’s election. They do not believe in fair and free elections. Our republic, our democracy, is on the line.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • California ballot design prompts false conspiracy theories that the November election is rigged

    California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Monday pushed back against a torrent of misinformation on social media sites claiming that mail-in ballots for the state’s Nov. 4 special election are purposefully designed to disclose how people voted.

    Weber, the state’s top elections official, refuted claims by some Republicans and far-right partisans that holes on ballot envelopes allow election officials to see how Californians voted on Proposition 50, the ballot measure about redistricting that will be decided in a special election in a little over three weeks.

    “The small holes on ballot envelopes are an accessibility feature to allow sight-impaired voters to orient themselves to where they are required to sign the envelope,” Weber said in a statement released Monday.

    Weber said voters can insert ballots in return envelopes in a manner that doesn’t reveal how they voted, or could cast ballots at early voting stations that will open soon or in person on Nov. 4.

    Weber’s decision to “set the record straight” was prompted by conspiracy theories exploding online alleging that mail ballots received by 23 million Californians in recent days are purposefully designed to reveal the votes of people who opposed the measure.

    “If California voters vote ‘NO’ on Gavin Newscum’s redistricting plan, it will show their answer through a hole in the envelope,” Libs of TikTok posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, in a post that has 4.8 million views. “All Democrats do is cheat.”

    GOP Texas Sen. Ted Cruz earlier retweeted a similar post that has been viewed more than 840,000 times, and Republican California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator, called for the November special election to be suspended because of the alleged ballot irregularities.

    The allegation about the ballots, which has been raised by Republicans during prior California elections, stems from the holes in mail ballot envelopes that were created to help visually impaired voters and allow election workers to make sure ballots have been removed from envelopes.

    The special election was called for by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats in an effort to counter President Trump urging GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election to boost GOP ranks in the House and buttress his ability to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

    California Democrats responded by proposing a rare mid-decade redrawing of California’s 52 congressional boundaries to increase Democratic representation in Congress. Congressional districts are typically drawn once a decade by an independent state commission created by voters in 2010.

    Nearly 600,000 Californians have already returned mail ballots as of Monday evening, according to a ballot tracker created by Political Data, a voter data firm that is led by Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional boundaries on the November ballot.

    Republican leaders in California who oppose the ballot measure have expressed concern about the ballot conspiracy theories, fearing the claims may suppress Republicans and others from voting against Proposition 50.

    “Please don’t panic people about something that is easily addressed by turning their ballot around,” Roxanne Hoge, the chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party, posted on X. “We need every no vote and we need them now.”

    Jessica Millan Patterson, the former chair of the state GOP who is leading one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50, compared not voting early to sitting on the sidelines of a football game until the third quarter.

    “I understand why voters would be concerned when they see holes in their envelopes … because your vote is your business. It’s the bedrock of our system, being able to [vote by] secret ballot,” she said in an interview. “That being said, the worst thing that you could do if you are unhappy with the way things are here in California is not vote, and so I will continue to promote early voting and voting by mail. It’s always been a core principle for me.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Billionaire Tom Steyer drops $12 million to support November redistricting ballot measure

    As California voters receive mail ballots for the November special election, which could upend the state’s congressional boundaries and determine control of the House, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer said Thursday he will spend $12 million to back Democrats’ efforts to redraw districts to boost their party’s ranks in the legislative body.

    The ballot measure was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats after President Trump urged Texas leaders to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election. Buttressing GOP numbers in Congress could help Trump continue enacting his agenda during his final two years in office.

    “We must stop Trump’s election-rigging power grab,” Steyer said in a statement. “The defining fight through Nov. 4 is passing Proposition 50. In order to compete and win, Democrats can’t keep playing by the same old rules. This is how we fight back, and stick it to Trump.”

    Steyer’s announcement makes him the biggest funder of pro-Proposition 50 efforts, surpassing billionaire financier George Soros, who has contributed $10 million to the effort.

    Steyer founded a hedge fund whose investments included massive fossil fuel projects, but after he learned of the environmental consequences of these financial decisions, he divested and has worked to fight climate change. Steyer has spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Democratic candidates and causes and more than $300 million on his unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign.

    Steyer plans to launch a scathing ad Thursday night that imagines Trump watching election returns on Nov. 4 and furiously throwing fast food at a television when he sees Proposition 50 succeeding.

    “Why did you do this to Trump?” the president asks. The ad then shows a fictional TV anchor saying that the ballot measure’s success makes it more likely that Trump will be investigated for corruption and that the records of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein will be released. “I hate California,” Trump responds.

    The advertisement is scheduled to start airing Thursday night during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The late-night show was in the spotlight after it was briefly suspended by Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC last month under pressure from the Trump administration because of a comment Kimmel made about the slaying of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    The esoteric process of redistricting typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. Census to account for population shifts. The maps, historically drawn in smoke-filled backrooms, protected incumbents and created bizarrely shaped districts, such as the “ribbon of shame” along the California coast.

    In recent decades, good-government advocates have fought to create districts that are logical and geographically compact and do not disenfranchise minority voters. At the forefront of the effort, California voters passed a 2010 ballot measure to create an independent commission to draw the state’s congressional boundaries.

    But this year, Trump and his allies urged leaders of GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to boost Republicans’ prospects in next year’s midterm election. The House is closely divided, and retaining Republican control is crucial to Trump’s ability to enact his agenda.

    California Democrats, led by Newson, responded in kind. The state Legislature voted in August to call a special election in November to decide on redrawn districts that could give their party five more seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation, the largest in the nation.

    Supporters of Proposition 50 have vastly outraised the committees opposing the measure. Steyer’s announcement came one day after Charles Munger Jr., the largest donor to the opposition, spoke out publicly for the first time about why he had contributed $32 million to the effort.

    “I’m fighting for the ordinary voter to have an effective say in their own government,” Munger told reporters. “I don’t want Californians ignored by the national government because all the districts are fortresses for one party or the other.”

    A longtime opponent of gerrymandering, the bow-tie-wearing Palo Alto physicist bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure that created the independent commission to draw California’s congressional districts.

    Munger, the son of a billionaire who was the right-hand man of investor Warren Buffett, declined to comment about whether he planned to give additional funds.

    “I neither confirm nor deny rumors that involve the tactics of the campaign,” Munger told reporters. “Talk to me after the election is over.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Independent redistricting commission, nonpartisan voting ballot measures proposed in Nevada

    Lawmakers after a joint committee on redistricting in 2021. (Photo: April Corbin Girnus/Nevada Current)

    Hoping to capitalize on public interest in, and outrage over, partisan gerrymandering, a grassroots group of Nevadans has filed a proposed ballot measure to establish an independent redistricting commission and prohibit mid-cycle redistricting.

    The group, Vote Nevada PAC, also filed a second proposed ballot question to amend the state’s Voter Bill of Rights to include a provision that could force the two major political parties to open their primaries.

    Both petitions were filed with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office on Tuesday, according to members of the political action committee. Both proposals involve amending the Nevada State Constitution, meaning  if they qualify for the ballot, they will have to be approved by voters twice in subsequent elections — 2026 and 2028.

    Sondra Cosgrove and Doug Goodman, both longtime advocates for statewide election reform in the Silver State, are behind the efforts. Joining their cause this election cycle is former state Assemblymember Claire (Clara) Thomas, who since leaving office in 2024 has left the Democratic party and registered as a nonpartisan.

    The independent redistricting commission proposed by Vote Nevada would be composed of a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and non-major-party voters, reflecting active voter registration splits in the state.

    Currently in Nevada, redistricting — that is, the redrawing of the political district boundary lines in order to even out respective populations as regions grow or shrink — is the purview of the Nevada State Legislature, where  lawmakers are, with minimal exceptions, able to draw new maps for their own political gain. The governor can veto the maps.

    It is an “indefensible, corrupt process that must change,” argues Vote Nevada.

    Nonpartisan and third-party voters comprise 43% of the 2.1 million active registered voters as of August 2025, according to the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office.

    The proposed ballot question would limit redistricting to the 180 days following the release of the U.S. Census, essentially barring mid-cycle redistricting efforts like those recently undertaken by the Republican-controlled Texas State Legislature.

    Cosgrove believes the blatant political gerrymandering in Texas has brought unprecedented interest in redistricting across the country, making it an ideal time to discuss the issue in Nevada.

    In previous years, pitching the independent redistricting commission ballot measure to voters involved a lot of explaining, she said, but right now “it’s not hard to say we want to get rid of gerrymandering in Nevada.”

    She continued, “People are at least aware that it’s a thing that’s happening and it’s probably bad. It’ll be easier to educate the public now because it’s in the news everywhere.”

    Vote Nevada filed proposed ballot measures to form an independent redistricting commission — in 2020, 2022, and 2024. All three efforts failed to make it in front of voters, either because opponents successfully challenged it in court or because they failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

    In 2024, under the name Fair Maps Nevada, two nearly identical ballot measures to form independent redistricting commissions were deemed “legally deficient” by the Nevada Supreme Court because they did not establish a revenue source to pay for the new body they created.

    Cosgrove disagrees with the ruling but in an attempt to address it, the new measure transfers existing funding for redistricting from the legislative process to the independent redistricting commission.

    After the filing of a proposed ballot measure, there is a 15-day window for legal challenges. Those legal challenges, which go before a district court and often to the Nevada Supreme Court on appeal, can be a death sentence for proposals, either directly through an unfavorable ruling or indirectly by sucking up time and resources.

    The Vote Nevada PAC, in a lengthy brief on the history of efforts to form a commission, urged both major political parties to forgo a legal challenge this time around.

    The language of the bill has survived the standard legal challenge just five years ago, they point out. The language was also considered by the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel Bureau earlier this year when Republican state Sen. Ira Hansen sponsored the proposal as a piece of legislation. (Democrats did not give that resolution a hearing.)

    It has been thoroughly vetted, the organizers argue, and the political parties should “let the people debate this idea and then cast their votes, as is their right in the Nevada Constitution.”

    “I am daring them to sue me,” Cosgrove told the Current. “Sue me and I’m going to spend this whole election cycle ripping them to shreds.”

    Cosgrove said she’d be happy to point out to voters that Democrats oppose creating an independent redistricting commission in Nevada where they are the majority party but support creating one in Ohio where they are the minority party.

    Similarly, Republicans in Nevada are more supportive of the proposal while their counterparts in red states are opposed.

    Thomas, the former Democratic assemblymember, says the leaders of her former party should consider the possibility they might one day find themselves reckoning with a Republican trifecta in Carson City.

    “I keep saying that the pendulum is getting ready to swing in a different way,” she said. “Republicans stand a great chance in taking over the leadership. And when that happens they will want to do redistricting, and it will not fare well for the communities that I see.”

    In 2021, Democrats controlled the legislature and governor’s mansion and passed a series of new maps that were widely criticized by Republicans, progressive groups, and election advocates.

    Thomas’ two terms in the Assembly included that 5-day redistricting special session.

    She said the lack of transparency criticized by Republicans and observers also extended into the chambers themselves. Assemblymembers like herself, who did not hold a leadership position, had no say in the process. They were simply expected to show up and vote with what leadership presented.

    “We didn’t know anything about how they were divvying up the communities until they divided it up,” she said. “Then it was, ‘This is what it is.’”

    Thomas ultimately voted for the maps, as did all Democrats except one, then-Assemblymember (now state Sen.) Edgar Flores. But now she is hoping the process can be changed to get closer to the people.

    Vote Nevada doesn’t have deep financial pockets to fight legal battles or pay signature-gathering companies.  “We have $0,” Cosgrove acknowledged.  But the PAC is hoping the moment is right for a grassroots movement to form.

    Voter Bill of Rights amendment

    Vote Nevada’s second ballot measure would amend the Voter Bill of Rights, which was enshrined in the state constitution in 2020.

    The proposed ballot measure would add that all eligible voters have a right “to fully participate in all publicly funded elections without limitation, including, but not limited to, any requirement to affiliate with any private organization, such as a political party.”

    The ballot measure would upend the state’s presidential preference primaries, which are publicly funded but only open to voters who register with either of the two major political parties.

    Vote Nevada notes that the political parties would be free to engage in privately funded nominating processes. The Nevada Republican Party last year did just that despite the state mandating a presidential preference primary be held. (That split resulted in “none of these candidates” winning the nonbinding state-run primary and Donald Trump winning the party-run caucus.)

    Cosgrove and Goodman have long argued that the growing number of nonpartisan voters are being disenfranchised because they cannot participate in primaries, which are often competitive and sometimes decide the general election.

    The duo was heavily involved in 2022 and 2024’s Question 3, which proposed a ranked choice voting and open primary election system. The proposal passed in 2022 but failed to pass in 2024. It faced fierce opposition from both major parties.

    Many opponents of that measure suggested they were okay with open primaries and that the problem lay with using ranked choice.

    During this year’s legislative session, Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager acknowledged those frustrations. He sponsored a bill to allow nonpartisan voters to participate in either Republican or Democratic non-presidential primaries. The bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo.

    When pitching the legislation, Yeager told his peers he feels the dam to open primaries is “going to break one way or another.”

    Thomas leaves Democratic party

    Thomas described making the decision to register as nonpartisan as “hard pressed.” She had been a loyal Democrat her whole life but became “disenchanted” by what she sees as the party’s lack of leadership and prioritization of lobbyists and special interests.

    “It is not the party that my parents taught me about,” she said. “It’s not the party that I grew up with in Nevada.”

    Thomas said the decision was not a direct response to the Nevada Senate Democratic Caucus endorsing her competitor last year for the state Senate District 1 Democratic primary, though she acknowledged there was conflict.

    “Did I appreciate the leadership telling lobbyists not to support me? And (saying) if they do support me that their bills would not be heard? Those are tactics that I think we see in the Republican party. Never did I think the Democratic party would do that. But they did.”

    Thomas lost the Democratic primary in June last year to Michelee Cruz-Crawford, who would go on to win the general election in the solid blue district. Thomas said she didn’t decide to leave the party until later, following a “really thoughtful process” about where the party was headed.

    Source link

  • California Republicans energized by their opposition to Newsom’s redistricting special election

    Generally speaking, it’s a grand time to be a Republican in the nation’s capital.

    President Trump is redecorating the White House in his gold-plated image. The GOP controls both houses of Congress. Two-thirds of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republican presidents.

    In California, the outlook for the GOP is far bleaker. The party hasn’t elected a statewide candidate in almost two decades; Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration edge and have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.

    That’s long been the story for a state party stuck in the shadows in a deep-blue coastal state.

    Will O’Neill, chairman, Republican Party of Orange County, Mark Mueser, Dhillon Law Group, Shawn Steel, RNC National Committeeman, Garrett Fahy, chair, Republican National Lawyers Association, and California State Assembly member David Tangipa during the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove on Saturday.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    However, amid a sea of “Trump 2028” T-shirts, red MAGA hats and sequined Americana-themed accessories, California Republicans had a brief reprieve from minority status this weekend at their fall convention in Orange County.

    Members of the California GOP — often a fractious horde — were energized and united by their opposition to Proposition 50, the ballot measure crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders to redraw the state’s congressional districts to counter gerrymandering efforts in GOP-led states. Newsom accused Republicans of trying to “rig” the 2026 election at Trump’s behest to keep control of Congress.

    Voters will decide its fate in a Nov. 4 special election and receive mail ballots roughly four weeks prior.

    “Only one thing really matters. We’ve gotten people in the same room on this issue that hated each other for 20 years, probably for good reasons, based on ego,” said Shawn Steel, one of California’s three members of the Republican National Committee and the chairman of the party’s anti-Proposition 50 campaign, on Saturday. “But those days are over, at least for the next 58 days. … This is more than just unity. It’s survival.”

    If approved, Proposition 50 could cost Republicans five seats in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives and determine control of Congress during Trump’s final two years in office.

    More than $40 million has already poured into campaigns supporting and opposing the effort, according to reports of large donations filed with the secretary of state’s office through Saturday.

    Spending has been evident as glossy pamphlets opposing the effort landed in voters’ mailboxes even before lawmakers voted to put Proposition 50 on the ballot. This weekend, ads supporting the measure aired during the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Oklahoma.

    At the state GOP convention, which drew 1,143 registered delegates, alternates and guests to the Hyatt Regency in Garden Grove, this priority was evident.

    Republican candidates running for governor next year would normally be focused on building support among donors and activists less than a year before the primary. But they foregrounded their opposition to Proposition 50 during the convention.

    “I’m supposed to say every time I start talking, the No. 1 most important thing that we can talk about right now is ‘No on 50,’” Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a GOP gubernatorial candidate, said Saturday as he addressed the Log Cabin Republicans meeting. “So every conversation that you have with people has to begin with ‘No on 50.’ So you say, ‘No on 50. Oh, how are you doing?’”

    Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the two most prominent Republican candidates in the crowded race to succeed Newsom, who will be termed out in 2026.

    The walls of the convention hotel were lined with posters opposing the redistricting ballot measure, alongside typical campaign fliers, rhinestone MAGA broaches and pro-Trump merchandise such as T-shirts bearing his visage that read “Daddy’s Back!” and calling for his election to an unconstitutional third term in 2028.

    Though California Republicans last elected statewide candidates in 2006, they have had greater success on ballot measures. Since 2010, the party has been victorious in more than 60% of the propositions it took a position on, according to data compiled by the state GOP.

    “We need you to be involved. This is a dire situation,” state Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Fresno) told a packed ballroom of party activists.

    The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    The California GOP Convention in Garden Grove, CA on Saturday, September 6, 2025. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove .

    Attendees of the Redistricting Lawfare in 2025 session at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove. (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    Tangipa urged the crowd to reach out to their friends and neighbors with a simple message that is not centered on redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts that typically occurs once every decade following the U.S. census to account for population shifts.

    “It’s too hard to talk about redistricting. You know, most people want to get a beer, hang out with their family, go to work, spend time,” he said. “You need to talk to the Republicans [and ask] one question: Does Gov. Newsom and the legislative body in Sacramento deserve more power?”

    “No!” the crowd roared.

    Should the measure pass, lawyers would challenge the new lines in federal court the next day, attorney and former GOP candidate Mark Meuser said during a separate redistricting panel.

    But rather than rely on the courts, panelists hoped to defeat the measure at the ballot box, outlining various messaging strategies for attendees to adopt. Voter outreach trainings took place during the convention, and similar virtual classes were scheduled to begin Monday.

    Even with the heavy focus on the redistricting ballot measure, gubernatorial candidates were also skittering around the convention, speaking to various caucuses, greeting delegates in the hallways and holding private meetings.

    More than 80 people have signaled their intent to run for governor next year, according to the secretary of state’s office, though some have since dropped out.

    Despite being rivals who both hope to win one of the top two spots in the June primary and move on to the November 2026 general election, Bianco and Hilton amicably chatted, a two-man show throughout some of the convention.

    Hilton, after posing alongside Bianco at the California MAGA gathering on Friday, argued that the number of Californians who supported Trump in the 2024 election shows that there is a pathway for a Republican to be elected governor next year.

    Pointing to glittery gold block letters that spelled MAGA, he said he wanted to swap the first A for a U, so that the acronym stood for “the most useless governor in America, Gavin Newsom.”

    “The worst record of any state, the highest unemployment, the highest poverty, the highest taxes, the highest gas prices,” Hilton said. “If we can’t rip these people apart, then we don’t deserve to be here. They’re going to be asking for another four years. They don’t deserve another four minutes.”

    California gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks while standing near people seated at a table.

    California gubernatorial candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    At a Saturday gathering of roughly 60 delegates from the conservative northern swath of California, Bianco said he would never say a bad word about his Republican opponents. But, he argued, he was the only candidate who could win the election because of his ability to siphon off Democratic votes because of his law enforcement bona fides.

    “Democrats want their kids safe. They want their businesses safe. They want their neighborhoods safe. And they can say, ‘I’ll vote for public safety.’ They’re not even going to say I’m voting for a Republican,” Bianco promised.

    As he raised his hands to the crowd with a grin, Bianco’s closely cropped high-and-tight haircut and handlebar mustache instantly telegraphed his law enforcement background, even though his badge and holstered pistol were hidden beneath a gray blazer.

    Later, after Bianco addressed a crowd of Central Coast delegates sporting more cowboy hats and fewer button-down shirts, Hilton walked to the front of the room and spoke in his clipped British accent about how another attendee had promised to take him pig hunting.

    A man in a suit and a man in a cowboy hat sit next to each other at a table.

    California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the California GOP Convention in Garden Grove.

    (Eric Thayer / For The Times)

    “We weren’t talking about police officers, I want to make that clear!” a man yelled from the crowd.

    “Exactly,” Hilton continued, explaining how his family had a salami business in Hungary and he had gotten his hands plenty dirty in the past, “doing every aspect of making sausage, including killing the pigs.”

    Seema Mehta, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Millions of dollars flow into redistricting battle on the November ballot

    Millions of dollars began flowing into campaigns supporting and opposing an effort to redraw California’s congressional districts on the November ballot, notably $10 million from independent redistricting champion Charles Munger Jr.

    The checks, reported Friday in state campaign finance disclosures, were made on Thursday, the day the state Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom called a special election to replace the congressional districts drawn by an independent commission in 2021 with new districts that would boost the number of Democrats elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election.

    The move is an effort by California Democrats to counter Texas Republicans’ and President Trump’s efforts to boost the number of GOP members.

    Munger, a GOP donor and the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure that created independent congressional redistricting in California. He donated $10 million to the “No on Prop. 50 – Protect Voters First” campaign,” which opposes the proposed redistricting.

    “Charles Munger Jr. is making good on his promise to defend the reforms he passed,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, which opposes the ballot measure and includes Munger.

    A spokesperson for the campaign supporting the redrawing of congressional boundaries accused Munger of trying to boost the GOP under the guise of supporting independent redistricting.

    “It’s no surprise that a billionaire who has given extensively to help Republicans take the house and [former Republican House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy would be joining forces to help Donald Trump steal five House seats and rig the 2026 midterm before a single American has voted,” said Hannah Milgrom, spokesperson for “Yes on 50: the Election Rigging Response Act.” “Prop 50 is America’s best chance to fight back – vote yes on November. 4.”

    The campaign backing the ballot measure received $1 million on Thursday from a powerful labor group, SEIU’s state council; $300,000 from businessman Andrew Hauptman; and a flurry of other donations, according to the California secretary of state’s office. That is on top of the $5.8 million the campaign reported having in the bank as of July 30, including millions of dollars in contributions from House Majority PAC, which is focused on electing Democrats to Congress, and Newsom’s 2022 gubernatorial reelection campaign.

    Redistricting typically happens once a decade after the U.S. census. Trump asked Texas lawmakers to redraw their congressional districts earlier this year, arguing that the GOP was entitled to five more members from the state. In response, California Democrats have pitched new district boundaries that could result in five more Democrats being elected to Congress.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • L.A. County wants to crack down on corruption. Is it worth up to $21 million?

    L.A. County wants to crack down on corruption. Is it worth up to $21 million?

    As local government careens from one corruption scandal to the next, the city and county of Los Angeles each charged forward this election season with ballot measures to try to crack down on unethical behavior by public officials.

    The city wants to bolster its nearly 35-year-old ethics commission with Charter Amendment ER, which would give the watchdog body a minimum yearly budget of $7 million.

    The county, meanwhile, wants to create its first ethics commission with Measure G.

    The county ethics commission, along with an office of ethics compliance, would come with no set budget. But according to a Thursday county analysis reviewed by The Times, the ethics reforms in Measure G could cost as much as $21.9 million a year, with salaries and employee benefits making up most of the price.

    If voters approve Measure G on Nov. 5, a task force would be set up to determine the shape of the ethics commission — for example, how many members it should have.

    The cost estimate has left supporters and detractors with sticker shock.

    “That is so absurd,” said Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig LA, which has advocated for measures to eliminate corruption in the city and county. “I’m baffled by this.”

    “We’re not even in the right ballpark,” said Quan, who previously told the county supervisors that he thought the ethics reforms in Measure G were “half-baked.”

    “If the city could do it for $7 million, why is it going to cost so much more than the county?” said political science professor Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles. at Loyola Marymount University.

    But Guerra, who co-wrote the ballot argument in favor of Measure G, said he still thought the ethics reform package was a no-brainer for a county with a budget of $49 billion.

    “Even if it’s that amount, that’s so cheap for what you’re going to get,” added Guerra. “It’s a drop in the bucket.”

    The five county supervisors are divided on Measure G, which in addition to creating an ethics commission would nearly double the size of the Board of Supervisors and bring on an elected executive who would act as a quasi-mayor.

    Supervisors Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn and Lindsey Horvath pushed for the measure, arguing it would make the county more responsive to its 10 million constituents. Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly Mitchell said it was misguided, with too vague a price tag.

    Everyone, however, said they could get on board with the idea of an ethics commission. Last month, the board voted unanimously to ask county lawyers to look at what it would cost to carry out the ethics reforms — regardless of whether Measure G passed.

    That preliminary report, returned last week, put the yearly cost at between $16.8 million with 73 employees and $21.9 million with 93 employees.

    “Wow, that is a big staff,” said David Tristan, head of the city’s ethics commission, which has a budget of $6.3 million and employs 45 people. “I’d love to have that budget.”

    About 13% of the yearly cost would go to services and supplies, while the rest would pay for staff, according to the county report.

    The report does not include a cost for setting up the commission. The auditor’s office previously said that one-time costs to implement all of the proposals in Measure G — which would include expanding the board — would be about $8 million.

    The Yes on Measure G campaign lambasted the county’s report as rushed and simplistic, “meant to dissuade voters before a critical election.”

    “Measure G is historic and it’s no secret that special interests and long-time bureaucrats are scared of real accountability and reform,” said campaign chair Morgan Miller.

    A majority of the supervisors said they still wanted to move forward.

    “The cost estimate provided in this report seems high and I wonder how they landed on this number,” Hahn said. “But we can’t afford not to do this.”

    Barger and Mitchell, who have opposed Measure G, similarly said they saw the need for an ethics commission, though Barger called the cost range “concerning given our county’s fiscal forecast” and Mitchell said she would look for places to make “cost-efficient adjustments.”

    For those already skeptical that the commission would do much to root out corruption, the high cost was further proof that it was a bad idea.

    “What can they cut? Firefighters? Child welfare workers? The sheriff’s budget? I don’t see them proposing to cut their salaries,” said former Los Angeles City Councilmember Ruth Galanter. “If they have that much money lying around in the county budget, they should all be fired, for crying out loud.”

    Galanter, who held office from 1987 to 2003, vehemently opposed the city’s ethics commission when it was created in 1990, convinced it would do little to squash corruption.

    Following the corruption-related convictions of two former city council members, a former deputy mayor and a former city commissioner, Galanter said her fears were borne out. She suspects the same will be true for the county’s attempt.

    “What an incredible waste of time and money this ethics things is,” said Galanter. “It does not produce more ethical elected officials. What’s the point?”

    If Measure G passes, the county would need to create the independent ethics commission and the office of ethics compliance by 2026. The commission would be responsible for investigating misconduct by county employees and updating county rules regarding conflicts of interest and lobbying, among other duties. The office of ethics compliance, led by an ethics compliance officer, would provide support to the commission.

    The language in the ballot measure prohibits the county from raising taxes to pay for the changes.

    Horvath, who spearheaded the measure, said there is enough money in the county budget to pay for the reforms, since the county could tap staff who are already doing similar ethics-related work in the executive office, the Registrar-Recorder and the Auditor Controller’s office.

    “Nothing is more important than safeguards against corruption,” she said. “The staff and funding already exist in our current form of government.”

    Sean McMorris, who specializes in ethics and accountability issues for the advocacy group California Common Cause, said the price tag doesn’t faze him. A robust ethics commission is expensive, he said, which is why only bigger cities typically create them.

    He’s more concerned about what shape the commission will take. Many of the details around the ethics commission are meant to be hammered out once voters have already approved the measure, he said.

    “It’s just like, wait and see,” he said. “It makes me nervous.”

    Rebecca Ellis

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris still won’t weigh in on California’s tough-on-crime ballot measure

    Kamala Harris still won’t weigh in on California’s tough-on-crime ballot measure

    DETROIT — 

    Vice President Kamala Harris, who is registered to vote in California, said Wednesday that she still needs to take a look at Proposition 36, a tough-on-crime measure on California’s Nov. 5 ballot that would reverse some progressive criminal justice reforms voters approved a decade ago.

    “I’ve not voted yet and I’ve actually not read it yet,” Harris told reporters ahead of a flight from Detroit to New Jersey, in response to a question about Proposition 36. “But I’ll let you know.”

    Harris’ campaign has previously declined to answer questions from The Times about how she will vote on Proposition 36. Continued silence from the Democratic presidential nominee, who has touted her record as California’s top law enforcement official, comes as Republicans work to make crime a key point of attack this election season.

    At a campaign rally in California over the weekend, former President Trump, the GOP nominee, cast the state as a lawless mess with “the most homelessness, the most crime, the most decay and the most illegal aliens.”

    Helmed by a group of prosecutors, and financed by WalMart, In-N-Out Burger and the California Republican Party, Proposition 36 would impose harsher sentences for repeat offenses of drug possession and retail theft, and would turn some crimes involving fentanyl and shoplifting from misdemeanors into felonies.

    It would also give people who routinely commit drug crimes the option to receive substance abuse treatment, but skeptics have raised questions about how counties would pay for treatment.

    The California GOP endorsed Proposition 36 and, according to state campaign finance reports, has spent more than $1 million in favor of the measure. The political committee behind Proposition 36, which has promoted its bipartisan support, donated $1 million to the California Republican Party in recent weeks.

    Several polls have found strong voter support for Proposition 36, despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders of the state Legislature.

    If passed, Proposition 36 would change key parts of Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that was overwhelmingly approved by Californians. As attorney general at the time, Harris did not take a position on Proposition 47. She had decided it would be a conflict of interest to weigh in, a top aide said, because she was in charge of writing the title and ballot summaries that are presented before voters.

    Proposition 47 reduced the number of people serving prison sentences for nonviolent theft and drug offenses, and redirected millions of dollars each year into anti-recidivism programs. Instead, Proposition 47 called for misdemeanor charges for individuals who steal merchandise valued under $950 or commit some drug crimes.

    Anabel Sosa, Noah Bierman

    Source link

  • Mayor Karen Bass vetoes ballot proposal to let police chief fire problem officers

    Mayor Karen Bass vetoes ballot proposal to let police chief fire problem officers

    Mayor Karen Bass has vetoed a proposed ballot measure to rework the disciplinary process at the Los Angeles Police Department — a step that could result in its removal from the Nov. 5 ballot.

    In her veto letter to the City Council, Bass said the proposal, which would have allowed the police chief to fire officers accused of committing serious misconduct, “risks creating bureaucratic confusion” within the LAPD.

    Bass said the proposal, which also would have reworked the composition of the department’s three-member disciplinary panels, provided “ambiguous direction” and “gaps in guidance.”

    “I look forward to working with each of you to do a thorough and comprehensive review with officers, the department, and other stakeholders to ensure fairness for all,” she wrote. “The current system remains until this collaborative review is complete and can be placed before the voters.”

    Bass issued her veto during the council’s summer recess, when meetings are canceled for three weeks. The deadline for reworking the language of the ballot proposal has already passed, City Clerk Holly Wolcott said.

    “If the council does not override the veto or take any action, the measure will be pulled from the ballot,” Wolcott said in an email.

    The council’s next meeting is scheduled for July 30. Whether it can muster 10 votes to override the mayor’s veto is unclear.

    By issuing the veto, Bass effectively sided with top LAPD brass, who warned last month that the proposal would create a two-tier disciplinary system, with some offenses resulting in termination by the chief and others heading to a disciplinary panel known as a Board of Rights.

    The mayor’s appointees on the Board of Police Commissioners also criticized the ballot proposal, saying they felt excluded from the deliberations. At least one commissioner voiced concern about the proposal’s creation of a binding arbitration process to resolve cases where an officer files an appeal of his or her termination.

    Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez expressed similar worries, arguing that binding arbitration would lead to more lenient outcomes for officers accused of serious wrongdoing. Soto-Martínez, who voted against the proposal last month, had also argued that the range of offenses that would lead to termination by the police chief was too narrow.

    An aide to Soto-Martínez said Tuesday that his boss supports the veto.

    Councilmember Tim McOsker, who spearheaded the ballot proposal, said he is “deeply disappointed” with the mayor’s action, arguing that it threatens the most significant reform of the LAPD’s disciplinary system in more than two decades.

    If the council fails to override the veto, the next opportunity for major reform would not occur until the 2026 election, McOsker said.

    “What this veto would do is put us back in the status quo for at least two years,” he said in an interview.

    McOsker said he is still looking at the options for responding to the mayor’s veto. During the council’s deliberations last month, four council members — Soto-Martínez, Nithya Raman, Eunisses Hernandez and Curren Price — backed a proposal to seek additional changes to the ballot measure.

    Soto-Martínez took aim at the decision to let a police chief fire officers for some offenses but not others, saying it would create “ambiguity” in the disciplinary system.

    That proposal was defeated on a 9 to 4 vote. Had it passed, it would have effectively killed the ballot measure for this year’s election, since the deadline had passed for making extensive changes.

    The proposal vetoed by Bass had been billed as a way to undo some of changes brought by Charter Amendment C, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2017, which paved the way for all-civilian disciplinary panels at the LAPD.

    The ballot proposal would have reworked the system, ensuring that each panel would have have two civilian members and one commanding officer.

    Representatives of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 8,800 rank-and-file officers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Last month, the union issued a statement saying the ballot proposal struck “the right balance” on disciplinary issues, ensuring that officers who are terminated by a chief have access to an appeal process with binding arbitration.

    David Zahniser, Libor Jany

    Source link

  • If FL Supreme Court approves cannabis ballot language, will voters go for recreational weed or not? – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    If FL Supreme Court approves cannabis ballot language, will voters go for recreational weed or not? – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





    If FL Supreme Court approves cannabis ballot language, will voters go for recreational weed or not? – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





























    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • A bird’s eye view of proposed Bay Area utopian community

    A bird’s eye view of proposed Bay Area utopian community

    Tech billionaire backers of a sweeping proposal to build an idealistic community from the ground up in the Bay Area released an aerial view of the project’s plans for tens of thousands of homes surrounded by open space, trails and using renewable energy sources.

    In the photo and an accompanying ad released Wednesday, California Forever showcased the community’s proximity to the broader Bay Area, while touting that the Solano County project would convert unused farmland into “walkable middle class neighborhoods with homes we can afford.”

    The new material comes as California Forever is gathering signatures for a ballot initiative in Solano County that would amend zoning codes to allow the project to be built on agricultural land. With 13,000 valid signatures, the ballot measure titled the East Solano Homes, Jobs, and Clean Energy Initiative would go before voters in November.

    Backers of the project include Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader who is chief executive of California Forever; LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman; venture capitalist Marc Andreessen; and Patrick and John Collison, who founded the payment-processing company Stripe.

    The new ad and renderings of the proposed utopia attempt to answer some of the questions locals have had about the project, which for years was shrouded in secrecy as tech billionaires quietly bought up farmland.

    The proximity of the project to Travis Air Force Base has been one point of contention. California Forever said the new community would be 4.5 miles from the base with a security buffer zone where there would be nothing other than agriculture and solar farms. The community would create an open space of 712 acres featuring sports fields and trails between itself and neighboring city Rio Vista, a town of about 10,000 people on the Sacramento River.

    Renderings of the community show picturesque open spaces where families could host birthday parties and go on bike rides, along with tree-lined neighborhoods and a bustling downtown.

    In the newly released ad, backers say the project would use unused land “rated among the worst for agriculture in all of Solano County, land where for years and years, nothing much has been able to grow.” The project promises to provide $500 million for down-payment assistance, scholarships and parks for Solano County residents and 15,000 new higher-paying jobs in manufacturing and technology.

    The community would be designed to have 50,000 residents at first, then grow to as many as 400,000.

    The campaign faces opposition from the Solano County chapter of the Sierra Club, which said housing should not be built on agricultural land. Residents in the area have also expressed concerns about the effect on traffic.

    If the ballot measure is approved by voters, other government approvals would then be required. Environmental groups have signaled lawsuits are possible, which could tie up the matter in court.

    “A knowledgeable voter is the best kind of voter, and we find that the more Solano County residents learn about our project, the more they like it,” said Matt Rodriguez, campaign manager for the East Solano Homes, Jobs, and Clean Energy Initiative. “We’re excited to be engaging with members of the Solano County community and this is another opportunity for us to continue sharing information about how we plan to bring middle class homes and good paying jobs to Solano County.”

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Ken Bennett runs out of anti-trans venom, kills Arizona ballot measure

    Ken Bennett runs out of anti-trans venom, kills Arizona ballot measure

    A lone Republican lawmaker blocked the passage of a ballot referral that would have given Arizona voters the chance to kill trans-inclusive school policies across the state.

    If it had been approved by voters in November, the mandates in Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013 would have eliminated a wide range of inclusive practices used by teachers and school officials to help trans and gender nonconforming students feel more welcome. 

    Teachers would have been prevented from using a student’s preferred pronouns or name without first obtaining written parental permission, which critics warned might endanger youth with hostile families. And schools would have been forced to strictly monitor bathrooms, locker rooms, multi-occupancy showers and sleeping quarters on school trips to bar trans students from entering spaces inconsistent with their biological sex, or else face lawsuits from offended cisgender students seeking monetary damages for “psychological, emotional and physical harm.”

    The initiative’s author, Sen. John Kavanagh, sought to combine two bills vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs last year. By sending them to Arizona voters, the Fountain Hills Republican hoped to avoid any rejection from the Democratic governor, who has said she will veto any and all anti-LGBTQ+ measures. Legislatively referred initiatives don’t require the governor’s approval before being placed on the November ballot. 

    But early on, the proposal’s fate was unclear. Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, shared during the initiative’s hearing in the Senate Education Committee that he had family members who would have been affected by its provisions if they were still in school. And despite voting for it in committee, he warned that his support on the Senate floor was not guaranteed. 

    Republicans control the upper chamber with a slim one vote majority, and any holdouts have the power to kill legislation. 

    On Monday, Bennett delivered on his warning, voting against the measure. While he agreed with the intent of the underlying legislation, he said, wrapping it up in a ballot initiative was the wrong move. 

    “If something goes awry, if there are unintended consequences, we can’t do anything about it here,” Bennett said. “We have to go back to the people to fix something and I am very concerned about that.”

    That’s because Arizona voters in 1988 approved the Voter Protection Act, which amended the state constitution to forbid lawmakers from modifying voter approved initiatives without going back to the ballot for permission, unless those changes advance the purpose of the original initiative.

    The initiative failed by a vote of 15-14, one vote shy of the 16 needed for passage, with Bennett joining Democrats to vote it down. Every other Republican in the chamber voted to approve the measure.

    click to enlarge

    Sen. John Kavanagh said he’s likely to introduce a ballot measure targeting transgender students again during the 2024 legislative session.

    Elias Weiss

    Ken Bennett not first GOP lawmaker to buck his own party

    Bennett told the Arizona Mirror that the resolution, which combines two bills that he voted in favor of last year, was simply too “extensive” to support, and threatened to result in problems that would be difficult for lawmakers to resolve.

    “I’m always very cautious of putting complicated legislation in a referral to the voters because, if something goes awry, we can’t fix it,” he said. “We would have to wait two years, and I don’t want to fix things every two years.”

    Bennett couldn’t share any specific issues he foresaw occurring, saying only that the legislation seeks to govern complicated areas of student life. 

    “You’re talking about very delicate situations, about kids wanting to be called by nicknames or pronouns or whatever,” he said. 

    Kavanagh said he was disappointed in the proposal’s failure to move forward, but told the Mirror it’s not entirely dead yet. While it’s unlikely that it will be resurrected this year, as Kavanagh is unwilling to make any more amendments to the proposal, he noted that he anticipates introducing it again next year if he can secure the votes.

    This is the second time a GOP lawmaker has bucked their party’s support to defeat culture war inspired legislation since the party adopted a vehemently anti-LGBTQ+ stance two years ago. 

    In 2022, Sen. Tyler Pace, a Mesa Republican, cast the deciding vote to kill a proposal that would have outlawed puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, saying he was unwilling to support a bill that over a dozen speakers testified would increase suicidality among trans youth. A week later, the proposal was revived as a ban on gender-affirming surgeries for minors which Pace voted to approve and then Gov. Doug Ducey later signed into law. 

    But the damage was done; the move contributed to Pace being labeled a RINO, and conservative spending campaigns donated to primary opponents, leading to his loss in that year’s primary election. 

    Bennett said supporters have already reached out to him expressing concerns about a similar fate, but said he stands by his decision and doesn’t vote based on his reelection bids. The multi-term legislator has served at the state Capitol in two different stints as a lawmaker since 1999, and represents a staunchly Republican district based in Yavapai County.

    click to enlarge Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association

    Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, called on Republican lawmakers to protect LGBTQ+ students.

    Sheenae Shannon

    ‘The stakes here can be literally life or death’

    LGBTQ+ and education advocacy groups celebrated the initiative’s defeat. Bridget Sharpe, director for the state chapter of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ lobbying organization, called it a win for students across Arizona.

    “After courageous advocacy from LGBTQ+ advocates and bipartisan rejection in the state Senate, this dangerous anti-equality ballot measure is now dead,” she said in an emailed statement. “All students deserve to feel safe and secure in school as their authentic selves, and (Monday’s) vote sends a powerful message that discrimination has no place in our state.”

    Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, denounced anti-LGBTQ_ legislation, calling on GOP lawmakers to protect students, not continually enact measures that jeopardize their ability to focus on school. 

    “LGBTQ students who experience discrimination at school are 3 times more likely to be absent, and they have lower GPAs, are less likely to graduate and experience more anxiety and depression,” she wrote, in an emailed statement. “As the tragic death of Nex Benedict in Oklahoma earlier this month reminds us, the stakes here can be literally life or death.”  

    Benedict, a 16-year-old nonbinary student from Oklahoma, was beaten unconscious in the school bathroom by three girls, and died the next day. Their death ignited student protests and criticism against Oklahoma lawmakers, who have introduced more than 50 anti-LGBTQ+ proposals this year.

    The defeated ballot initiative isn’t the only anti-LGBTQ+ proposal being pushed through the Arizona legislature this year, but it was the likeliest to succeed. Hobbs has repeatedly vowed to veto any anti-LGBTQ+ bills that end up on her desk. Still, Arizona Republicans continue advancing the bills, largely as a signal to their conservative constituents. 

    On Monday, the GOP majority in the Senate did greenlight Senate Bill 1166, which would require teachers to notify parents of their child’s preferred pronoun or name use within five days. They also approved Senate Bill 1182, which would keep trans students out of school shower facilities consistent with their gender identity. 

    Kavanagh introduced the bills as revised versions of the pronoun and bathroom ban he sponsored last year that were vetoed by Hobbs, and has framed them as more tailored proposals that seek to address the concerns previously raised by opponents, including the governor.   

    But for trans Arizonans like Kanix Gallo, a 16-year-old Chandler High School student, the bills are a terrifying and disheartening example that lawmakers still don’t see him for who he is. 

    As a freshman student, Gallo experienced the misgendering and deadnaming that GOP proposals would effectively lead to for students without understanding parents. Some of Gallo’s teachers in his first year of high school repeatedly used the wrong pronouns and name, which left him feeling disillusioned in his education and unwilling to go to their classes. His intense discomfort resulted in a streak of absences. Gallo described being referred to by the wrong name as a “physical pain” and said it hurt to repeatedly correct one teacher in particular who refused to use the right pronouns and often dismissed his objections. 

    By contrast, his senior year has been improved with teachers who do respect his identity, drastically raising his commitment to school. 

    “It makes me want to be in their class,” he said. “It makes me want to learn what they’re teaching me and it makes me feel respected and not just a student to them, but a person.” 

    But while Gallo now feels more accepted in class, the rhetoric at the state Capitol conflicts with that welcoming policy, spreading onto the school grounds and changing how his peers view him. Gallo said he’s seen kids who previously weren’t interested in LGBTQ+ issues voicing vitriol after hearing about discriminatory legislation. 

    And the teen, who has at times spoken at school board meetings to request more support for LGBTQ+ students amid the hostility at the state house, has even been met with verbal attacks from a classmate who told him he didn’t “deserve to live”. 

    “It’s terrifying, walking around school knowing that there are people who would physically harm you because of your gender,” Gallo said.

    This story was first published by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

    Gloria Rebecca Gomez | Arizona Mirror

    Source link

  • 3 bills targeting transgender students approved by Arizona Senate panel

    3 bills targeting transgender students approved by Arizona Senate panel

    Faced with the certainty of Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto, GOP lawmakers are hoping to circumvent her entirely by sending a proposal to voters in November that would restrict how teachers respect the identities of their trans students, and bar those same students from using school facilities that best fit who they are.

    “This bypasses the governor and goes right to the ballot, where — if all the polling I’ve seen is correct —  it’ll probably pass with 60, 65 percent of voters who don’t really believe that this type of stuff should be going on in our schools,” said Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, the proposal’s sponsor, during a Senate Education Committee hearing on Feb. 7. 

    Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013 combines two bills rejected by Hobbs last year that targeted preferred pronoun use and inclusive policies in schools. The proposal would ask voters to require that teachers obtain written parental permission before using a student’s preferred pronouns or name and mandate that schools separate their restrooms, locker rooms and sleeping accommodations by biological sex and provide a single-occupancy alternative for trans students. 

    Schools that allow trans students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity would open themselves up to lawsuits from cisgender students, who could win monetary damages for their “psychological, emotional and physical harm.” And school employees with a “religious or moral conviction” against using preferred pronouns or names would be protected from being forced to comply with a student’s request — even if that student’s parents gave their express written permission. 

    Samual Kahrs, a trans teen, implored lawmakers on the panel to kill the measure, saying that schools are often the only supportive places for young people navigating their identities. Kahrs first came out at school at 11, and the acceptance of his teachers helped persuade his mother. 

    Making it more difficult for teachers to create an affirming environment in school is a mistake, he warned, and jeopardizes the mental health of trans youth across the state. 

    “I remember the first day my teachers called me Samual, and it was the best day of my life,” Kahrs said. “I’m begging you to vote no on this. I’m begging you to just leave trans kids alone.”

    click to enlarge

    Transgender teen Samual Kahrs spoke out against anti-trans bills during a legislative hearing on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Measure will ‘harm god knows how many kids’

    The committee, which is made up of four Republicans and three Democrats, voted 4-3 along party lines to approve the measure and send it to the full Senate for consideration.

    Sen. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, denounced the GOP’s push to move its legislative hostility directly to voters. She said she fears what the effects will be on trans youth if they’re forced to contend with an anti-trans ballot campaign. 

    While Arizona Republicans have increasingly focused on anti-trans laws and rhetoric in recent years — succeeding in passing a trans athletic ban and a prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries for minors under former Republican governor Doug Ducey — LGBTQ+ advocates hoped the election of Hobbs, a Democrat, would help prevent any more discriminatory laws. And that has largely been the case, with Hobbs vetoing a bevy of anti-LGBTQ proposals last year, including several that sought to criminalize drag performers and another that would have allowed domestic violence shelters to discriminate against trans women. 

    But, if GOP lawmakers send Kavanagh’s proposal to the November ballot, it’s likely that a wide-reaching messaging effort from anti-LGBTQ+ groups to convince voters to support it would emerge. 

    “This will become a debate on a statewide level, harming god knows how many kids, forcing them into further isolation and harassment,” Marsh said. “I think that the effect of that will be incalculable.” 

    Also considered and approved by the Republican-majority Senate Education Committee on Feb. 7 were two revised iterations of Kavanagh’s pronoun and bathroom ban from last year. Kavanagh reworked the bills on the off-chance that, in their pared down forms, Democrats and Hobbs might be more amenable to supporting them. 

    Senate Bill 1166 requires a public school to notify a parent within five days of the first time their child requests the use of preferred pronouns or a name that doesn’t match the biological sex or given name the child was enrolled under. The caveat shielding school employees who refuse to honor the student’s request was still included in the new version. 

    Kavanagh said he hopes the revisions will result in less opposition from Hobbs, noting that this year’s iteration simply requires a parental notification and doesn’t prevent teachers from using a student’s preferred pronouns or name until parental permission is obtained, like last year’s version. 

    Parents need to be kept in the loop, he added, pointing to gender dysphoria as the reasoning for the notification requirement. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition in which a person feels extreme discomfort when their biological sex isn’t aligned with their gender identity.

    “Students that identify with a different gender than their biological sex at birth have a recognized psychiatric disorder called gender dysphoria, which sometimes manifests itself with depression and even suicidal thoughts,” Kavanagh said. “So, if the school knows that a student has this, I think it’s really incumbent (on them) and their responsibility to at least let the parents know what’s going on.” 

    But LGBTQ+ Arizonans, who crowded the hearing room to speak out against the proposals, disputed that justification. Erica Keppler, a trans woman, said that suicidality among trans youth isn’t caused by gender dysphoria, but rather by the lack of social acceptance and sometimes outright hostility they deal with.

    “No one commits suicide because they are gender dysphoric. They do it because family and society won’t accept them or allow them to live as their true selves,” she said. “The biggest threat to the lives and futures of gender dysphoric youth are unaccepting parents.”

    Removing the ability of schools to be welcoming, Keppler added, would only exacerbate the distress trans youth feel. A 2022 national survey from the Trevor Project found that only 32% of transgender respondents thought of their homes as supportive, compared to 51% who found their schools to be affirming.

    And while suicidality among transgender youth is disproportionately high, research shows that simply respecting their preferred pronouns and names can decrease that risk by as much as 65%.

    click to enlarge Sen. Ken Bennett

    Sen. Ken Bennett, chair of the Senate Education Committee, voiced concerns about the bills targeting transgender students. But he voted for them anyway on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Senator concerned about bills, OKs them anyway

    The testimony from several speakers echoed the criticism made against last year’s bills. Both measures were denounced for threatening to expose the identities of questioning students to their parents without their consent, and both were accused of greenlighting the disrespect of LGBTQ+ students by protecting school employees who disagree with preferred pronoun use.

    Skylar Morrison, a trans teenager, urged lawmakers not to make high school more difficult for her and her gender nonconforming classmates. She warned that the bill forces trans youth to come out to their parents, and not all families are welcoming. 

    “Requiring a parent or guardian to be notified puts vulnerable students at risk — particularly those with unsupportive families — jeopardizing their mental health and, unfortunately, in a lot of cases their physical well-being,” she said. 

    Kavanagh disputed that claim, however, arguing that the vast majority of parents are supportive. And he defended the provision that protects dissenting school employees by saying that many laws include religious carve-outs to acknowledge the rights of Arizonans with different beliefs. 

    The bill received lukewarm approval from Sen. Ken Bennett, Senate Education Committee chair, who said he objected to the religious and moral shield because it was too broad. The Republican from Prescott similarly criticized last year’s version, but repeatedly voted for it anyway. 

    With his voice shaking from emotion, Bennett told lawmakers on the committee that he found it difficult to consider the bill, despite being an advocate for parental rights, both because of his Mormon faith and because he has close relatives who would have been affected by the bill if it had become law when they were still attending school. 

    “The author of the faith that I believe said, at least in my opinion, about the worst thing you can do in this thing we call life, is offend a child,” he said. “So, I find myself nearing that point where it’s very difficult to advance this legislation in the way that it’s written.”

    Ultimately, Bennett joined the other Republicans on the panel to move the measure out of the committee on a 4-3 vote, with the addendum that significant changes would need to be made to earn his support on the Senate floor.

    click to enlarge Sen. Justine Wadsack

    Sen. Justine Wadsack, who targeted LGBTQ+ people in the 2023 legislative session, was among Republicans who voted for three anti-transgender bills on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Bills criticized for targeting trans youth

    Senate Bill 1182, focuses on mandating that schools separate shower facilities by biological sex, and prohibit transgender students from accessing shower areas consistent with their gender identity. Schools would be required to provide a separate showering space for transgender students who refuse to use the areas designated for them on the basis of their biological sex, or else face lawsuits from uncomfortable cisgender students.

    Kavanagh noted that he would have preferred that the proposal retain its original form, which required the same rules for bathrooms, locker rooms and sleeping areas, whether on school grounds or during school trips, but said he felt it was necessary to focus on the most “egregious” issue. 

    “This bill simply says a 15-year-old biological female should not have to stand next to, terrified or certainly very uncomfortable, a 20-year-old biological male who identifies as a different gender,” he said. 

    Kavanagh has frequently invoked alarming imagery to defend his school facilities bills — of which this is the third iteration — but has been unable to provide any examples of the hypothetical situation occurring in an Arizona public school. When pressed for evidence by Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday, he was still unable to offer any.

    Lisa Bivens, an attorney who has represented teachers in court, warned lawmakers that the bill is too vague and would burden schools with lawsuits until the legal parameters can be clarified by the courts. 

    The proposal prohibits transgender students from using showers consistent with their gender identity if people of the opposite biological sex “are or could be” present. That language, Bivens said, depends on a theoretical possibility that would be hard for judges to determine. And a provision stating that the bill doesn’t seek to prevent schools from accommodating young children in need of physical assistance during showers only adds further questions, she said. 

    “How are my clients supposed to know when the child is young enough or the need is great enough?” she asked. “I am worried our educators will be put into positions where they hesitate to help students because they are unsure what is permitted.” 

    Dawn Shim, a Chandler High School student who is nonbinary and founded a student-led organization to call for protections for LGBTQ+ Arizonans and speak out against hostile legislation, pushed back on Kavanagh’s claims. There is no problem for the proposal to resolve, she said, because shower facilities in schools already have single-occupancy, separated stalls.  

    “Every single year, we hear bills that needlessly target trans youth and demonstrate ignorance towards the basic functions of public schools,” they said. “This anti-trans shower bill is a needless measure that only serves one purpose: to exclude transgender youth.”

    Gaelle Esposito, a trans woman and a lobbyist for the Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the bill likely violates federal nondiscrimination protections. Title IX prohibits schools that receive federal funds from engaging in sex-based discrimination, including on the basis of gender identity. Ultimately, Esposito said, the proposal would only serve to hurt trans youth still navigating their identities and the reactions of those around them. 

    “It is stigmatizing and it is discriminatory to expel trans young people from common spaces. No one should be told that they are so shameful that they shouldn’t be allowed in the proximity of their peers,” she said. 

    The committee voted to approve the bill 4-3, with only Democrats in opposition. Bennett once more warned that his vote on the Senate Floor is not guaranteed.

    This story was first published by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

    Gloria Rebecca Gomez | Arizona Mirror

    Source link

  • Why a Blue-Leaning Swing State Is Getting Redder

    Why a Blue-Leaning Swing State Is Getting Redder

    Last week, when The New York Times and Siena College released a poll that showed President Joe Biden in trouble in battleground states, Democrats began to sound apocalyptic. The panic, turbocharged by social media, was disproportionate to what the surveys actually showed. Although the results in my home state, Nevada, were the worst for the president out of the six swing states that were polled, the findings are almost certainly not reflective of the reality here, at least as I’ve observed it and reported on it.

    Nevertheless, they bring to the surface trends that should worry Democrats—and not just in Nevada.

    The Times/Siena data show Donald Trump ahead of Biden in Nevada 52 percent to 41 percent, a much larger margin than the former president’s lead in the other battleground states. Could this be true? I’m skeptical, and I’m not alone. After the poll came out, I spoke with a handful of experts in both parties here, and none thinks Trump is truly ahead by double digits in the state, where he lost by about 2.5 points in the previous two presidential cycles. But Nevada is going to be competitive, perhaps more so than ever.

    Some of the Times/Siena poll’s internal numbers gave me pause. Among registered voters in Clark County, where Las Vegas is located and where 70 percent of the electorate resides, the poll found Trump ahead of Biden 50–45. But Democrats make up 34 percent of active voters in the county, compared with Republicans’ 25 percent, and Biden won Clark by nine percentage points in 2020.

    Other recent polls, not quite as highly rated as Times/Siena’s, have found the presidential race here to be much closer than the Times did. Last month, a CNN poll of registered Nevada voters found Biden and Trump virtually tied. Recent surveys from Emerson College, which has been unreliable in the state in the past, and Morning Consult/Bloomberg both had Trump up three points among likely voters. The Times/Siena polling outfit has a good reputation, but shortly before the 2020 election, it found Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada by six percentage points, more than double Biden’s eventual margin of victory.

    Read: Is Biden toast?

    Nevada is difficult to poll for a variety of reasons. Here as much as anywhere else, pollsters tend to underestimate the number of people they need to survey by cellphone to get a representative sample, and they generally don’t do enough bilingual polling in Nevada, where nearly a third of the population is Hispanic. Nevada also has a transient population, lots of residents working 24/7 shifts, and an electorate that’s less educated than most other states’. (“I love the poorly educated,” Trump said after winning Nevada’s Republican caucuses in 2016.) The polling challenge has become only more acute, because nonpartisan voters now outnumber Democrats and Republicans in Nevada, making it harder for pollsters to accurately capture the Democratic or Republican vote. (Since 2020, a state law has allowed voters to register at the DMV, and if they fail to do so, their party affiliation is defaulted to independent.)

    Nevada matters in presidential elections, but we are also, let’s face it, a tad weird.

    Still, Democrats have reasons to worry. Nevada was clobbered by COVID disproportionately to the rest of the country, because our economy is so narrowly focused on the casino industry. The aftereffects—unemployment, inflation—are still very much being felt here. Nevada’s jobless rate is the highest in the country, at 5.4 percent. That’s down dramatically from an astonishing 28.2 percent in April 2020, when the governor closed casinos for a few months. Although the situation has clearly improved, many casino workers still haven’t been rehired.

    Democrat Steve Sisolak was the only incumbent governor in his party to lose in 2022, and his defeat was due at least partly to the fallout from COVID. Fairly or not, President Biden wears a lot of that too, as all presidents do when voters are unhappy with the economy. The Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll illuminated the bleak pessimism of Nevada voters, 76 percent of whom think the U.S. economy is going in the wrong direction.

    Here, as elsewhere, voters are also concerned about Biden’s age, and that informs their broader views of him. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans disapprove of Biden’s performance, according to the Times, and only 40 percent have a favorable impression of him. Trump’s numbers, although awful—44 percent see him favorably—are better than Biden’s here, as well as in some blue or bluish states.

    In Nevada, and in general, Biden is losing support among key groups—young and nonwhite voters. The Times/Siena poll found Biden and Trump tied among Hispanics in the state, despite the fact that Latinos have been a bedrock of the Democratic base here for a decade and a half. In the 2022 midterms, polls taken early in the race showed Catherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina elected to the U.S. Senate, losing Hispanic support, though her campaign managed to reverse that trend enough to win by a very slim margin.

    Democratic presidential nominees have won Nevada in every election since 2008. Democrats also hold the state’s two U.S. Senate seats and three of the four House seats, and the party dominates both houses of the legislature. But the state has been slowly shifting to the right—not just in polling but in Election Day results. In 2020, Nevada was the only battleground state that saw worse Democratic performance compared with 2016, unless you include the more solidly red Florida. Nevada’s new Republican governor, Joe Lombardo, is building a formidable political machine. Republicans have made inroads with working-class white voters here, leaving Democrats with an ever-diminishing margin of error.

    Ronald Brownstein: Republicans can’t figure it out

    Abortion, an issue that was crucial to Cortez Masto’s narrow victory, could help Biden in Nevada. The Times/Siena poll showed that only a quarter of Nevadans think abortion should be always or mostly illegal. A 1990 referendum made abortion up to 24 weeks legal here, and the law can be changed only by another popular vote. Democrats in Nevada, though, want to take those protections a step further next year and are trying to qualify a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to guarantee the right to abortion. As the off-year elections last week showed, that issue, more than the choice between Biden and Trump, could be what saves the president a year from now. Nevada also has a nationally watched Senate race in 2024, in which the incumbent Democrat, Jacky Rosen, has already signaled that she will mimic her colleague Cortez Masto and put abortion front and center in her campaign.

    So many events could intervene between now and next November, foreign and/or domestic, and we have yet to see how effective the Trump and Biden campaigns will be, assuming that each man is his party’s nominee. Democratic Senator Harry Reid was deeply unpopular here in 2009, then got reelected by almost six percentage points; Barack Obama was thought to be in trouble in 2011, then won Nevada and reelection.

    Democrats clearly hope that if Trump becomes the Republican nominee, many voters will see the election as a binary choice and will back Biden. But if the election instead becomes a referendum on Biden’s tenure, including the economy he has presided over, Trump could plausibly win Nevada—and the Electoral College.

    Jon Ralston

    Source link

  • Ohio Approves Adult-Use, The Legislative Clock Starts Ticking Today – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Ohio Approves Adult-Use, The Legislative Clock Starts Ticking Today – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news





    Ohio Approves Adult-Use, The Legislative Clock Starts Ticking Today – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news































    Tom Hymes

    Source link

  • South Dakota voters to try again on Marijuana Reforms – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    South Dakota voters to try again on Marijuana Reforms – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    PIERRE, S. D. (KCAU) — As marijuana supporters in South Dakota make another run at making recreational marijuana legal in the state Attorney General Marty Jackley is working to clear up any misconceptions about what a proposed ballot issue really means.

    This latest push for approval follows a 2022 initiated measure that failed to get enough votes to become law.

    The draft-initiated measure would allow people 21-year-old and older to possess, grow, sell, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia.

    Jackley says this does not affect current laws that deal with hemp and does not change South Dakota laws concerning the state’s medical marijuana program.

    People have until the close of business on August 21 to comment on the explanation of the ballot measure. The proposed amendment needs more than 17,500 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot.

    In November 2022, 47 percent of voters approved of legalizing recreational marijuana.

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    MMP News Author

    Source link