Tesla has secured a ruling to strip a claiming a racist work environment of its class-action status, as reported by . California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon, appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, ruled that the lawsuit could not proceed with class-action status because the plaintiffs’ attorneys had failed to find 200 class members willing to testify. The judge said he could not assume that the experiences of a select group of workers could be applied to the entire class of would-be plaintiffs.
The 2017 lawsuit began with a single employee who filed suit alleging Tesla’s Fremont production floor was a “hotbed for racist behavior,” and that over 100 employees had experienced racial harassment.
In 2024, a lower court judge ruled the case could move forward as a class action, a decision that Tesla had been appealing since. A trial in the case was scheduled to begin in April, though now that the case has lost its class-action status, each plaintiff would have to bring their case against Tesla separately.
This is not the first time that Tesla has found itself in court over alleged racial misconduct. In 2023, the automaker by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over allegations that Black employees were subjected to racial slurs and retaliation.
Last year, Tesla with a single employee who said he faced discrimination at the same California plant, reporting that his coworkers left drawings of swastikas and racist figures on his workspace.
Podcast host Stephen A. Smith claimed that high-profile Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have been ignoring invitations to appear on his show.
During his show on Friday, Smith addressed the backlash he’s received from close friends over his critiques of Democratic politicians like Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett.
He stood by his comments and claimed that he had invited several Democrats, like Crockett, AOC and Newsom, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to appear on his show, only to be met with silence.
Stephen A. Smith asked Democrats why they seemed more reluctant to come on his show than Republicans.(Lou Rocco/American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. via Getty Images)
“Jasmine Crockett has been on this air — invited on this show for four months,” Smith said. “AOC has been invited on this show for four months. Gavin Newsom has been invited on this show longer than that. Props to Hakeem Jeffries. He’s a friend of the show, always welcome on here. I like that man. I respect him. Chuck Schumer has been invited on this show. Hasn’t shown up. Where they at?”
He added, “Every single Republican I have asked to show up on this show has either said yes, or that they’re coming. Not the Dems. Why?”
Fox News Digital reached out to Crockett, Ocasio-Cortez, Newsom, Jeffries and Schumer’s offices for comment.
Stephen A. Smith claimed Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Gavin Newsom, have ignored invitations to come onto his podcast.(Shutterstock/AP)
Of those he referenced, Jeffries was the only Democrat who appeared on his show recently after being interviewed by him in October. However, in the past month, Smith has interviewed other Democrats such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean, Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
Regarding Republicans, Smith recently interviewed Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this month. He also spoke to Texas Rep. Chip Roy in October.
Smith has drawn criticism from other folks in the media after he called out Crockett last month for focusing on what he considered performative politics over helping her constituents.
Stephen A. Smith later apologized to Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett for his comments.(Paras Griffin/Getty Images; Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
California governor appointee seen escorting former chief of staff at federal court
Newsom’s communications director told KCRA 3 the governor was not aware Deborah Hoffman would be there.
BATTERY. SHE WILL BE ARRAIGNED TOMORROW. WE HAVE CONFIRMED A GOVERNOR NEWSOM APPOINTEE WAS WITH THE GOVERNOR’S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF OUTSIDE COURT YESTERDAY. THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, DANA WILLIAMSON, IS ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION, STEALING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CAMPAIGN FUNDS AND TAX FRAUD. WELL, DEBORAH HOFFMAN, SHE’S A WOMAN. YOU’LL SEE HER RIGHT HERE WITH A BLOND HAIR. SHE WAS SEEN HELPING ESCORT WILLIAMSON OUT OF THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE. WELL, THE GOVERNOR APPOINTED HOFFMAN EARLIER THIS YEAR AS THE CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF TAX APPEALS. WE ASKED THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE WHY AN OFFICIAL WHO OVERSEES TAXES FOR THE STATE WOULD BE WITH SOMEBODY ACCUSED OF TAX FRAUD. THE GOVERNOR’S COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR TOLD US. GOVERNOR NEWSOM WAS NOT AWARE HOFFMAN WOULD BE THERE. WE THEN HEARD FROM THE OFFICE OF TAX APPEALS, WHO TOLD US IN A STATEMENT MISS HOFFMAN WAS NOT PRESENT IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND HAS LONG PLANNED HER LAST DAY IN OFFICE I
California governor appointee seen escorting former chief of staff at federal court
Newsom’s communications director told KCRA 3 the governor was not aware Deborah Hoffman would be there.
An appointee of California Gov. Gavin Newsom was seen with the governor’s former chief of staff at federal court on Thursday. Deborah Hoffman, who was appointed by Newsom as the chief deputy director of the Office of Tax Appeals, was seen escorting Dana Williamson out of federal court yesterday. Williamson is facing public corruption charges. Newsom’s communications director told KCRA 3 the governor was not aware Hoffman would be there.The Office of Tax Appeals released a statement saying, “Ms. Hoffman was not present in any official capacity and as long planned, her last day in office is tomorrow as part of her expected retirement.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
An appointee of California Gov. Gavin Newsom was seen with the governor’s former chief of staff at federal court on Thursday.
Deborah Hoffman, who was appointed by Newsom as the chief deputy director of the Office of Tax Appeals, was seen escorting Dana Williamson out of federal court yesterday. Williamson is facing public corruption charges.
Newsom’s communications director told KCRA 3 the governor was not aware Hoffman would be there.
The Office of Tax Appeals released a statement saying, “Ms. Hoffman was not present in any official capacity and as long planned, her last day in office is tomorrow as part of her expected retirement.”
The Department of Justice intervened Thursday in a lawsuit against Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom that is challenging California’s efforts to redraw the state’s congressional map in time for the next election.
DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyers argued in a complaint that race was “used as a proxy” in California to justify creating districts favorable to Democrats, a move that served to offset the redistricting showdown in Texas that resulted in more Republican-leaning districts.
“In the press, California’s legislators and governor sold a plan to promote the interests of Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections,” the DOJ lawyers wrote. “But amongst themselves and on the debate floor, the focus was not partisanship, but race.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
They added the Constitution “does not tolerate this racial gerrymander” and cited several remarks from lawmakers and others involved in the process about how they prioritized creating a Latino-majority district to counter Texas’ perceived attempt to “silence the voices of Latino voters.”
The federal government has authority to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which has a provision designed to make sure voters are not disenfranchised based on their race. But the law’s language has long been a point of controversy and is now under review by the Supreme Court in a separate redistricting case about Louisiana’s map.
California’s ballot measure, called Proposition 50, passed on Election Day, and clears the way for the state legislature to redraw districts that could flip five Republican seats. Newsom said in celebratory remarks after the measure’s passage that it was California’s answer to Trump “trying to rig the midterm elections before one single vote is even cast.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a bill signing event related to redrawing the state’s congressional maps on Aug. 21, 2025 in Sacramento, California.(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Opponents of California Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act, a California ballot measure that would redraw congressional maps to benefit Democrats, rally in Westminster, Calif., on Sept. 10, 2025.(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
“One thing he never counted on, though, was the state of California,” Newsom said. “Instead of agonizing over the state of our nation. We organized in an unprecedented way, in a 90-day sprint.”
California Assembly member David Tangipa, a Republican, responded by suing, and the DOJ joined in that lawsuit Thursday.
A spokesperson for Newsom told Fox News Digital: “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”
The legal battle comes as redistricting fights have intensified in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections. In addition to Texas and California, Louisiana’s fight before the Supreme Court could affect its map by the next election, depending on when the high court rules. In Utah, Republicans were just dealt a blow by a state judge who approved a new map that will tip one of the state’s four districts in favor of Democrats.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
WASHINGTON (AP) — For a day, at least, beleaguered Democrats are hopeful again. But just beneath the party’s relief at securing its first big electoral wins since last November’s drubbing lay unresolved questions about its direction heading into next year’s midterm elections.
The Election Day romp of Republicans stretched from deep-blue New York and California to swing states Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia. There were signs that key voting groups, including young people, Black voters and Hispanics who shifted toward President Donald Trump’s Republican Party just a year ago, may be shifting back. And Democratic leaders across the political spectrum coalesced behind a simple message focused on Trump’s failure to address rising costs and everyday kitchen table issues.
The dominant performance sparked a new round of debate among the party’s establishment-minded pragmatists and fiery progressives over which approach led to Tuesday’s victories, and which path to take into the high-stakes 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The lessons Democrats learn from the victories will help determine the party’s leading message and messengers next year — when elections will decide the balance of power in Congress for the second half of Trump’s term — and potentially in the 2028 presidential race, which has already entered its earliest stages.
People cheer as Democrat Abigail Spanberger walks out on stage after she was declared the winner of the Virginia governor’s race during an election night watch party Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
People cheer as Democrat Abigail Spanberger walks out on stage after she was declared the winner of the Virginia governor’s race during an election night watch party Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
“Of course, there’s a division within the Democratic Party. There’s no secret,” Sen. Bernie Sanders told reporters at a Capitol Hill press conference about the election results.
Sanders and his chief political strategist pointed to the success of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, as a model for Democrats across the country. But Rep. Suzan Del Bene, who leads the House Democrats’ midterm campaign strategy, avoided saying Mamdani’s name when asked about his success.
Del Bene instead cheered the moderate approach adopted by Democrats Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill in successful races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey as a more viable track for candidates outside of a Democratic stronghold like New York City.
“New York is bright blue … and the path to the majority in the House is going to be through purple districts,” she told The Associated Press. “The people of Arizona, Iowa and Nebraska aren’t focused on the mayor of New York.”
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a likely Democratic presidential prospect who campaigned alongside Democrats in several states leading up to Tuesday’s elections, noted the candidates hit on a common issue that resonated with voters, regardless of location.
“All of these candidates who won in these different states were focused on peoples’ everyday needs,” Shapiro said. “And you saw voters in every one of those states and cities showing up to send a clear message to Donald Trump that they’re rejecting his chaos.”
Intraparty criticism
Amid Democrats’ celebratory phone calls and news conferences, members of the party’s different wings had some sharp critiques for each other.
While Shapiro cheered the party’s success during a Wednesday interview, he also acknowledged concerns about Mamdani in New York.
Shapiro, one of the nation’s most prominent Jewish elected leaders, said he’s not comfortable with some of Mamdani’s comments on Israel. The New York mayor-elect, a Muslim, has described Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks as “genocide” against the Palestinian people and has been slow to condemn rhetoric linked to anti-Semitism.
“I’ve expressed that to him personally. We’ve had good private communications,” Shapiro said of his concerns. “And I hope, as he did last night in his victory speech, that he’ll be a mayor that protects all New Yorkers and tries to bring people together.”
Meanwhile, Sanders’ political strategist, Faiz Shakir, warned Democrats against embracing “cookie cutter campaigns that say nothing and do nothing” — a reference to centrist Democrats Spanberger and Sherrill.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat who defeated democratic socialist Omar Fateh to win a third term, said at a news conference Wednesday that “we have to love our city more than our ideology.”
“We need to be doing everything possible to push back on authoritarianism and what Donald Trump is doing,” Frey said. “And at the same time, the opposite of Donald Trump extremism is not the opposite extreme.”
Signs welcomes voters on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Del Mar, Calif. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
Signs welcomes voters on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Del Mar, Calif. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
Democrats win everywhere
Despite potential cracks in the Democratic coalition, it’s hard to understate the extent of the party’s electoral success.
In Georgia, two Democrats cruised to wins over Republican incumbents in elections to the state Public Service Commission, delivering the largest statewide margins of victory by Democrats in more than 20 years.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats swept not only three state Supreme Court races, but every county seat in presidential swing counties like Bucks and Erie Counties, including sheriffs. Bucks County elected its first Democratic district attorney as Democrats there also won key school board races and county judgeships.
Maine voters defeated a Republican-backed measure that would have mandated showing an ID at the polls. Colorado approved raising taxes on people earning more than $300,000 annually to fund school meal programs and food assistance for low-income state residents. And California voters overwhelmingly backed a charge led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw its congressional map to give Democrats as many as five more House seats in upcoming elections.
Key groups coming back to Democrats
Trump made inroads with Black and Hispanic voters in 2024. But this week, Democrats scored strong performances with non-white voters in New Jersey and Virginia that offered promise.
About 7 in 10 voters in New Jersey were white, according to the AP Voter Poll. And Sherrill won about half that group. But she made up for her relative weakness with whites with a strong showing among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters.
The vast majority — about 9 in 10 — of Black voters supported Sherrill, as did about 8 in 10 Asian voters.
Hispanic voters in New Jersey were more divided, but about two-thirds supported Sherrill; only about 3 in 10 voted for the Republican nominee, Jack Ciattarelli.
The pattern was similar in Virginia, where Spanberger performed well among Black voters, Hispanic voters and Asian voters, even though she didn’t win a majority of white voters.
This combination of photos taken on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, shows Abigail Spanberger in Richmond, Va., left, Zohran Mamdani in New York, center, and Mikie Sherrill in East Brunswick, N.J. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough, Yuki Iwamura and Matt Rourke)
This combination of photos taken on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, shows Abigail Spanberger in Richmond, Va., left, Zohran Mamdani in New York, center, and Mikie Sherrill in East Brunswick, N.J. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough, Yuki Iwamura and Matt Rourke)
Democrats will soon face a choice
The debate over the party’s future is already starting to play out in key midterm elections where Democrats have just begun intra-party primary contests.
The choice is stark in Maine’s high-stakes Senate race, where Democrats will pick from a field that features establishment favorite, Gov. Jan Mills, and Sanders-endorsed populist Graham Platner. A similar dynamic could play out in key contests across Massachusetts, New York, Texas and Michigan.
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who is aligned with the progressive wing of the party, said the people he speaks to are demanding bold action to address their economic concerns.
“Folks are so frustrated by how hard its become to afford a dignified life here in Michigan and across the country,” he said.
“I’m sure the corporate donors don’t want us to push too hard,” El-Sayed continued. “My worry is the very same people who told us we were just fine in 2024 will miss the mandate.”
___
Associated Press reporter Mike Catalini in Newark and Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Republicans filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block a new U.S. House map that California voters decisively approved at the ballot.
Proposition 50, backed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is designed to help Democrats flip as many as five congressional House seats in the midterm elections next year. The lawsuit claims the map-makers improperly used race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters “without cause or evidence to justify it,” and asks the court to block the new boundaries ahead of the 2026 elections. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is funded by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
The Supreme Court has ruled that “states may not, without a compelling reason backed by evidence that was in fact considered, separate citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” the lawsuit says.
There have been two analyses showing there were no voting rights problems that warranted the redrawing of the map, it adds.
The complaint was filed by The Dhillon Law Group, the California-based firm started by Harmeet Dhillon, who is now an assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.
The lawsuit also alleges that state lawmakers and a mapmaking consultant admitted in public statements that they intentionally redrew some districts to have a Latino majority. In one of the press releases from state Democrats, lawmakers said that the new map “retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters” while making no changes to Black majority districts in the Oakland and Los Angeles areas, the lawsuit says.
“The map is designed to favor one race of California voters over others,” Mike Columbo, whose plaintiffs include a state Republican lawmaker and 18 other voters, said at a news conference Wednesday. “This violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the right under the 15th Amendment.”
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, speaks to reporters during a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, speaks to reporters during a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
The mapmaking consultant Paul Mitchell declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.
Newsom’s office said on a social media post that the state hasn’t reviewed the lawsuit but is confident the challenge will fail.
“Good luck, losers,” the post reads.
Democrats said the measure is their best chance to blunt Texas Republicans’ move to redraw their own maps to pick up five GOP seats at Trump’s urging.
It’s unclear whether a three-judge panel convened to hear such cases would grant a temporary restraining order before Dec. 19, the date when candidates can start collecting voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. It’s essentially the first step in officially running in the 2026 midterm elections. Columbo said he’s hoping to get a decision in the upcoming weeks and predicted the case to reach the Supreme Court.
Republicans have filed multiple lawsuits in California to block Democrats’ plan with little success so far.
Truth be told, when California governor Gavin Newsom announced back on July 31 that he was going to pursue a constitutional amendment to retaliate against Donald Trump’s Texas gerrymandering power grab, I was very skeptical it could work.
First of all, it involved firing at a moving target. Though there was never any doubt Texas Republicans would do as they were told, the actual new congressional map wasn’t finally put into place until the end of August, nearly a month after Newsom made his move. Second of all, the time frame was really constrained: Any proposed amendment had to clear the California legislature almost instantly and then survive legal challenges. Third of all, the nonpartisan citizens redistricting commission that Newsom wanted to push aside was well-established (created by voters in 2008 and extended to congressional redistricting two years later) and widely popular, particularly among Democrats and good-government types. And fourth of all, he and his allies would have very little time to raise the vast funds necessary to explain this arcane issue to voters, persuade them to give redistricting (albeit temporarily) back to politicians, and mobilize them to vote in an off-year special election.
In addition, Newsom was picking a fight with one of the few Californians better known than himself: his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who regarded the nonpartisan redistricting system as an important part of his own legacy.
Newsom and his allies (including virtually every Democratic pol in the state, along with national Democratic celebrities and pro-Democratic constituency groups, especially unions) methodically got the job done. They didn’t wait for the Texas power grab to be consummated before laying the groundwork for the ballot initiative, making it initially contingent on what happened in the Lone Star State. They went right ahead and secured legislative approval of an actual congressional map so that voters could see what they were voting for instead of trusting the pols to get it right. Enough money was lined up to give Prop 50 (as it came to be known) a big financial advantage over its opponents (a coalition of Republicans and allegedly independent good-government advocates). And most of all, Newsom & Co. settled quickly on a message that made Prop 50 a referendum on Donald Trump and his many terrible works.
The strategy closely resembled what Newsom did to defeat a Republican-led 2021 recall effort that would have removed him from office: making it a partisan contest in which the Democrats who outnumber Republicans about five to three in the Golden State would prevail if motivated and united. But beyond that, the Prop 50 campaign focused on Trump — not just the gerrymandering scheme the initiative countered, but his ongoing battle with California across a broad landscape of legal and policy issues. So while Prop 50 opponents were consigned to abstract arguments over complex systems for drafting and approving congressional maps, Prop 50 proponents could simply produce visceral and threatening images of a very unpopular president. And because Trump really did start the redistricting fight, Prop 50 could be presented as a righteous measure to prevent a proliferation of gerrymandering this year and on into the future. The campaign turned a retaliatory power grab into a good-government measure of its own.
Prop 50 got some breaks, too. The “No on 50” coalition was divided on tactics and strategy between those who wanted to keep the high nonpartisan ground and those who wanted to demonize Newsom. Schwarzenegger, who was probably unhappy with any association, however indirect, with Trump (the nominally Republican actor went so far as to endorse Kamala Harris in 2024), gave the “No on 50” cause little more than lip service. And Trump himself seemed to be on his worst behavior in the months that preceded the vote.
In the end, it was no contest, but still, the numbers are remarkable. With 75 percent of the vote counted (California, which sends mail ballots to all registered voters, counts votes slowly), Prop 50 is leading by a margin of 63.8 percent to 36.2 percent, and the “yes” margin is likely to go up as a “blue shift” (the typical Democratic lean in the last-counted mail ballots) develops. That’s already a higher percentage of the vote than the last three Democratic presidential candidates secured in California, and for that matter, a higher percentage than Newsom’s in his two gubernatorial elections and his recall win. On a bad Election Night for Donald Trump, it was the largest and noisiest blow to the 47th president of them all. And most obviously, Prop 50, intended to flip five U.S. House seats, could pay major dividends in the 2026 midterms, particularly since Republican gerrymandering efforts are currently stalling in Indiana and Kansas.
The big win for Prop 50 will also boost Gavin Newsom’s all-but-certain 2028 presidential candidacy. To this Californian, it feels like Newsom has been running for that office for decades. But he deserves whatever juice he gets from his anti-Trump efforts in 2025. Prop 50 represented a master class in persuasion and a strategy executed to perfection. If Newsom’s future campaign is as competent, he’ll be in good shape.
Prop 50 was the only question before voters in Tuesday’s California special election.
The measure asked the state’s 23 million registered voters whether they authorize temporary changes to congressional district maps approved by state lawmakers.
Congressional district maps are usually redrawn once a decade after each census and by an independent voter-approved redistricting commission in California.
Prop 50 is a response led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats to redistricting in Texas that came at the urging of President Trump in an effort to gain Republican seats in the U.S. House.
Prop 50 opens a path to flip up to five of 435 U.S. House seats in favor of Democrats.
A federal lawsuit challenging the one measure on the November special election ballot was announced Wednesday morning by group that includes the California Republican Party.
Planning for Republican legal challenges was underway Wednesday after California voters were projected to approve a congressional redistricting measure that redraws maps in favor of Democrats, starting with the 2026 midterm elections.
A federal lawsuit challenging the one measure on the November special election ballot was announced Wednesday morning, just hours after vote centers closed on Election Day, by the Dhillon Law Group, Assemblyman David Tangipa, 18 California voters and the California Republican Party. At a news conference, they announced plans to pursue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Prop 50 from going into effect.
The group said that the measure improperly used voters’ race as a factor in drawing new district boundaries. It claims violations under the 14th Amendment, equal protections under the law, and 15th amendment, which prohibits states from denying the right to vote based on race.
Refresh this page for updates on the lawsuit.
The Dhillon Law Group, Assemblyman David Tangipa, 18 California Voters, and the California Republican Party File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Prop 50 https://t.co/ZEi5R2OXSc
Prop 50 supporters have said the measure results in “fair maps that represent California’s diverse communities and ensure our voices aren’t silenced by Republican gerrymandering in other states.”
“Yes” votes in support of Prop 50 held a 64% to 36% lead early Wednesday morning, a day after Election Day in California where statewide voter turnout was estimated at 35 percent. More than 7 million ballots had already been cast by mail and other voting options a day before Election Day.
Prop 50, named for the 50 states and the only question on ballot in the Tuesday statewide special election, was placed before the California’s 23 million registered voters as a counter to redistricting in Texas at the urging of President Trump that gives more seats to Republicans. The California measure, placed on the ballot by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature, was a yes-or-no question that asked voters whether they authorize temporary changes to congressional district maps already approved by state lawmakers.
The changes could flip as many as five of 435 U.S. House seats in favor of Democrats.
The new congressional district maps approved by lawmakers in August would be used for the next three election cycles. After the 2030 U.S. Census, California’s independent redistricting commission would resume drawing the maps.
The next election for all U.S. House seats is 2026. Republicans have a slim 219-213 margin with three vacancies.
Voting districts are typically redrawn just once a decade after each census, but a national battle erupted over partisan gerrymandering this year in Texas when the Republican-controlled state adopted a new map in August that could flip five Democratic-leaning U.S. House seats. California responded in an effort led by Gov. Newsom. Missouri and North Carolina both adopted new maps and other states may soon follow.
California Democrats already hold 43 of the state’s 52 congressional seats. That number could jump to 48, if Prop 50 is approved and voters favor the Democratic candidates in those redrawn districts.
There are 10.3 million registered Democrats and 5.8 million registered Republicans in California, according to the Secretary of State. About 5.2 million voters were not registered with any party.
Will your district change?
See how your congressional district will change if the proposed map goes into effect.
California voters have passed Proposition 50, CBS News projects, approving a measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats that will redraw the state’s congressional districts.
The measure is intended to make several Republican-held congressional districts in California more favorable to Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections in an effort to counter recent redistricting in states including Texas that favors Republicans.
Proposition 50’s passage drew swift reaction from high-profile opponents of the measure, including Republican political donor Charles Munger, Jr.
“For what looms for the people of California, I am saddened by the passage of Proposition 50,” Munger Jr. said. “But I am content in this, at least: that our campaign educated the people of California so they could make an informed, if in my view unwise, decision about such a technical but critical issue as redistricting reform, a decision forced to be made over such a very short time.”
Proposition 50 was approved by the Legislature and signed by Newsom on Aug. 21, allowing it to go before voters for a Nov. 4 special election.
Here’s what to know about Proposition 50 and California’s special election.
California Proposition 50 live election results
It could take several days to count all mail-in ballots, as California accepts ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days.
Reactions to Proposition 50 passing
Reactions from both sides quickly came pouring in once California voters passed Proposition 50.
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer has been a major supporter of the measure and called its approval “an enormous victory for our state, our country and our democracy.”
“In fact, voters all across the country tonight sent a clear signal tonight that when Democrats fight for working people and their interests, Democrats win,” Steyer said in a statement.
Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, whose District 3 will be heavily impacted by the redrawn district boundaries, called the measure “a symptom of our country’s political divisions.”
“The reason I opposed Prop. 50, even as I also oppose what’s happened in other states, is because I believe fighting fire with fire burns everything down,” Kiley said. “With California’s new gerrymander, the redistricting arms race has no end in sight… It’s a race to the bottom that degrades democracy everywhere.”
What is Proposition 50?
Proposition 50 will replace California’s current congressional district maps that were drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 U.S. Census. New maps, crafted by the state Legislature, redraw the state’s congressional districts to make five Republican-held U.S. House seats in California more favorable for Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections.
California Democrats have called Proposition 50 a countermeasure to Texas’ recent redistricting push that was backed by President Trump and created five Republican-friendly congressional seats in that state.
California voters approved the creation of the independent redistricting commission earlier this century to oversee the congressional mapmaking process. The commission uses census data and public input to set district boundaries that reflect population changes and keep communities together.
If voters had rejected Proposition 50, California would have continued using its current congressional district boundaries until new maps are drawn by the redistricting commission after the 2030 Census.
Who urged voters to vote yes on Proposition 50?
Gov. Newsom and top Democratic leaders, including many who are trying to succeed him in California’s 2026 gubernatorial race, have championed Proposition 50.
Other major supporters of Proposition 50 include billionaire investors George Soros and Steyer, and former President Barack Obama, who featured in a Yes on 50 campaign ad, calling on voters to approve the ballot measure.
Supporters argue that Proposition 50 defends democracy and restores fairness after redistricting efforts in GOP-led states like Texas.
Others who oppose the initiative include Munger, Jr., who contributed more than $32.7 million, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Opponents argue that Proposition 50 is gerrymandering and that California should maintain its standard for fair redistricting through independent, citizen-led redistricting.
How Proposition 50 got on the ballot
Proposition 50 was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature earlier this year.
Lawmakers approved the measure during a special session in August, and Newsom’s signature set the stage for this statewide special election.
Which California districts would change with Proposition 50?
Among California’s 52 congressional districts, Democrats represent 43 while Republicans represent nine.
Proposition 50 was created to redraw congressional districts to make five of them currently held by GOP House members more favorable to being won by Democrats in next year’s midterms. Still, there is no guarantee that Democrats will win the seats even though voters have approved the new maps.
The five Republican-led congressional districts most targeted under Proposition 50 are Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s District 1, Rep. Kiley‘s District 3, Rep. David Valadao’s District 22, Rep. Ken Calvert’s District 41, and Rep. Darrell Issa’s District 48.
California voters have passed Proposition 50, CBS News projects, approving a measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats that will redraw the state’s congressional districts.
The measure is intended to make several Republican-held congressional districts in California more favorable to Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections in an effort to counter recent redistricting in states including Texas that favors Republicans.
Proposition 50’s passage drew swift reaction from high-profile opponents of the measure, including Republican political donor Charles Munger, Jr.
“For what looms for the people of California, I am saddened by the passage of Proposition 50,” Munger Jr. said. “But I am content in this, at least: that our campaign educated the people of California so they could make an informed, if in my view unwise, decision about such a technical but critical issue as redistricting reform, a decision forced to be made over such a very short time.”
Proposition 50 was approved by the Legislature and signed by Newsom on Aug. 21, allowing it to go before voters for a Nov. 4 special election.
Here’s what to know about Proposition 50 and California’s special election.
California Proposition 50 live election results
It could take several days to count all mail-in ballots, as California accepts ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days.
Reactions to Proposition 50 passing
Reactions from both sides quickly came pouring in once California voters passed Proposition 50.
Billionaire investor Tom Steyer has been a major supporter of the measure and called its approval “an enormous victory for our state, our country and our democracy.”
“In fact, voters all across the country tonight sent a clear signal tonight that when Democrats fight for working people and their interests, Democrats win,” Steyer said in a statement.
Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, whose District 3 will be heavily impacted by the redrawn district boundaries, called the measure “a symptom of our country’s political divisions.”
“The reason I opposed Prop. 50, even as I also oppose what’s happened in other states, is because I believe fighting fire with fire burns everything down,” Kiley said. “With California’s new gerrymander, the redistricting arms race has no end in sight… It’s a race to the bottom that degrades democracy everywhere.”
What is Proposition 50?
Proposition 50 will replace California’s current congressional district maps that were drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 U.S. Census. New maps, crafted by the state Legislature, redraw the state’s congressional districts to make five Republican-held U.S. House seats in California more favorable for Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections.
California Democrats have called Proposition 50 a countermeasure to Texas’ recent redistricting push that was backed by President Trump and created five Republican-friendly congressional seats in that state.
California voters approved the creation of the independent redistricting commission earlier this century to oversee the congressional mapmaking process. The commission uses census data and public input to set district boundaries that reflect population changes and keep communities together.
If voters had rejected Proposition 50, California would have continued using its current congressional district boundaries until new maps are drawn by the redistricting commission after the 2030 Census.
Who urged voters to vote yes on Proposition 50?
Gov. Newsom and top Democratic leaders, including many who are trying to succeed him in California’s 2026 gubernatorial race, have championed Proposition 50.
Other major supporters of Proposition 50 include billionaire investors George Soros and Steyer, and former President Barack Obama, who featured in a Yes on 50 campaign ad, calling on voters to approve the ballot measure.
Supporters argue that Proposition 50 defends democracy and restores fairness after redistricting efforts in GOP-led states like Texas.
Others who oppose the initiative include Munger, Jr., who contributed more than $32.7 million, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Opponents argue that Proposition 50 is gerrymandering and that California should maintain its standard for fair redistricting through independent, citizen-led redistricting.
How Proposition 50 got on the ballot
Proposition 50 was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature earlier this year.
Lawmakers approved the measure during a special session in August, and Newsom’s signature set the stage for this statewide special election.
Which California districts would change with Proposition 50?
Among California’s 52 congressional districts, Democrats represent 43 while Republicans represent nine.
Proposition 50 was created to redraw congressional districts to make five of them currently held by GOP House members more favorable to being won by Democrats in next year’s midterms. Still, there is no guarantee that Democrats will win the seats even though voters have approved the new maps.
The five Republican-led congressional districts most targeted under Proposition 50 are Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s District 1, Rep. Kiley‘s District 3, Rep. David Valadao’s District 22, Rep. Ken Calvert’s District 41, and Rep. Darrell Issa’s District 48.
California’s approval of Proposition 50 sets in motion a redistricting plan that could result in pickups of five seats for Democrats in the Golden State. It’s an effort that may ripple beyond California’s borders — here’s an early look at some of Prop 50’s potential effects, not all of which are related to redistricting:
A win for Democrats
Prop 50 victory, among other things, notches a badly needed win for Democrats in the redistricting battle kicked off by President Trump earlier this year.
The president, seeking to gain up to five seats for Republicans to try to help them hold the House in the 2026 midterm elections, successfully urged Texas to undertake a mid-decade gerrymander. Newsom said he’d only go through with Prop 50 if Texas passed its new congressional map. In announcing the initiative, Newsom said Mr. Trump is “trying to rig the system,” adding “we have got to meet fire with fire.”
New lines would be temporary
The passage of the ballot measure, pending legal action, will result in a map drawn by California Democrats that takes five Republican congressional districts and makes them more favorable to Democrats. But it would only be used for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.
After the 2030 U.S. Census, according to Prop 50, the gerrymandered maps would only be used until the nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission draws new congressional maps.
Newer maps that squeeze majority’s opponents across the country
More and more states have begun trying to squeeze partisan minorities further through redistricting before next year’s midterms. A CBS News poll in October found that among voters who plan to support Proposition 50, one reason they’re doing so is to oppose the Trump administration — which they also feel generally treats California worse than other states — and to oppose national Republicans.
California’s decision to redraw its maps has already begun to exert pressure on more GOP-led states to launch their own redistricting gambits. Besides Texas, lawmakers in Missouri and North Carolina have passed new maps in recent months that shift one district apiece toward Republicans, and Ohio is considering new maps.
Republicans in Indiana signaled last month that they didn’t have the votes to redraw their maps, but after weeks of pressure from Mr. Trump, GOP Gov. Mike Braun called the legislature into a special session to consider redistricting.
And in Maryland, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore has just announced the creation of a redistricting commission to consider mid-decade redistricting.
“We will explore every avenue possible to make sure Maryland has fair and representative maps,” Moore said in a statement. But Maryland state Senate president Bill Ferguson, also a Democrat, believes mid-cycle redistricting in Maryland “is the wrong path for our State,” he said on X. He warned of legal barriers to redistricting that could result in ceding “one or two congressional seats to Donald Trump.”
“There’s fighting fire with fire, and then there’s unintentionally burning your own house down in the process,” Ferguson said.
Platform for Newsom’s political future?
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has become one of Mr. Trump’s highest-profile adversaries, was the architect of California’s mid-decade redistricting effort and fought for the Prop 50 initiative. His push for Prop 50 may for a time have been the most public example of resistance by Democrats against Mr. Trump.
Newsom has not ruled out a run for the presidency in 2028, and his success in selling Prop 50 to voters could help launch a campaign, especially if Democrats are able to take the House in 2026. And he indicated to Robert Costa in a late October interview on “CBS Sunday Morning” that he’ll give serious thought to running after the 2026 midterm elections.
Voters in Tuesday’s race were divided on whether Newsom should run for president in 2028, with 45% saying he should and 54% saying he shouldn’t, according to exit polling data.
The results of Prop 50 tracked closely with voters’ views on Newsom’s future: Some 94% of Californians who support a Newsom presidential run voted yes on Prop 50, while 65% of those who don’t want him to run voted no.
Breaking down Prop 50’s projected passage in California – CBS News
Watch CBS News
CBS News projects that California will pass Prop 50 to redraw the state’s congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. CBS News breaks down the vote.
Below are unofficial, county-by-county results in the Proposition 50 special election on congressional redistricting, updated every five minutes. The last day for vote-by-mail ballots to be counted is Nov. 11. A final, certified tally is expected Dec. 12.
Proposition 50 statewide results
Should California authorize temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas’ partisan redistricting?
Source: California Secretary of State’s Office
This story was originally published November 4, 2025 at 11:04 PM.
Prop 50 was the only question before voters in Tuesday’s California special election.
The measure asked the state’s 23 million registered voters whether they authorize temporary changes to congressional district maps approved by state lawmakers.
Congressional district maps are usually redrawn once a decade after each census and by an independent voter-approved redistricting commission in California.
Prop 50 is a response led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats to redistricting in Texas that came at the urging of President Trump in an effort to gain Republican seats in the U.S. House.
Prop 50 could open a pathway to flip up to five of 435 U.S. House seats in favor of Democrats.
California voters were asked to decide whether to reshape congressional districts in a move by leaders in the nation’s most populous state that could flip some House seats from Republican to Democratic control.
Prop 50, named for the 50 states and the only question on ballot in the Tuesday statewide special election, was placed before the California’s 23 million registered voters as a counter to redistricting in Texas at the urging of President Trump that gives more seats to Republicans. The California measure, placed on the ballot by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature, was a yes-or-no question that asks voters whether they authorize temporary changes to congressional district maps already approved by state lawmakers.
Vote centers closed at 8 p.m. Tuesday. See updated results below.
The changes could flip as many as five of 435 U.S. House seats in favor of Democrats.
The new congressional district maps approved by lawmakers in August would be used for the next three election cycles. After the 2030 U.S. Census, California’s independent redistricting commission would resume drawing the maps.
Will your district change?
See how your congressional district will change if the proposed map goes into effect.
The next election for all U.S. House seats is 2026. Republicans have a slim 219-213 margin with three vacancies.
Voting districts are typically redrawn just once a decade after each census, but a national battle erupted over partisan gerrymandering this year in Texas when the Republican-controlled state adopted a new map in August that could flip five Democratic-leaning U.S. House seats. California responded in an effort led by Gov. Newsom. Missouri and North Carolina both adopted new maps and other states may soon follow.
California Democrats already hold 43 of the state’s 52 congressional seats. That number could jump to 48, if Prop 50 is approved and voters favor the Democratic candidates in those redrawn districts.
There are 10.3 million registered Democrats and 5.8 million registered Republicans in California, according to the Secretary of State. About 5.2 million voters were not registered with any party.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.
It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.
Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.
“As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.
But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.
A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”
The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.
All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.
Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.
It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.
“The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.
“Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.
KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.
“Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.
“Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.
When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”
Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.
Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.
The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom invoked biblical teachings while criticizing Republican leadership and the Trump administration for the federal government shutdown’s impact on food assistance, arguing that Scripture commands care for the hungry and that Washington is failing that moral test.
Speaking Tuesday in Sacramento alongside state Attorney General Rob Bonta and Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Johnson, Newsom cited teachings from Matthew, Isaiah, Luke and Proverbs as evidence that feeding the poor is “core and central to what it is to align to God’s will.”
“It’s not a suggestion in the Old [and] the New Testament,” Newsom said. “These guys need to stop the B.S. in Washington. They’re sitting there in their prayer breakfasts. Maybe they got an edited version of [President] Donald Trump’s Bible, and they edited all of that out. Cruelty is the policy.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference about the legal action the state and others are taking against the Trump administration over SNAP benefits, Tuesday, in Sacramento, Calif.(Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Newsom, who was raised Catholic and graduated from Santa Clara University, a Jesuit institution, has occasionally cited his faith background and Jesuit education when discussing social issues.
In his remarks Tuesday, he referenced “a wonderful Jesuit university” and said lessons from the New Testament emphasize feeding the hungry and caring for the poor.
Newsom’s comments came as California and two dozen other states sued the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its decision to suspend November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the government shutdown.
Bonta said the agency has contingency funds and is allegedly “unlawfully withholding payments.”
While Newsom tied the issue to Scripture, he recently came under fire for pushing against White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s assertion of the power of prayer in the wake of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting in August.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference, Tuesday, in Sacramento, Calif.(Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“These children were literally praying as they got shot at,” Newsom wrote above a clip of Leavitt promoting prayer.
Newsom pressed the point repeatedly in his Tuesday remarks, saying leaders who cite religion should reflect those values in policy.
“We’re going to win this lawsuit,” he said. “It’s about serving those that are hungry.”
California officials said the state has accelerated $80 million to food banks and deployed volunteers and National Guard members to move supplies. Johnson said CalFresh serves 5.5 million residents monthly and warned that a lapse in SNAP benefits would increase poverty.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom listens during a news conference Tuesday in Sacramento, Calif.(Tayfun Cokun/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Newsom closed his remarks by again linking government action to biblical duty. “It’s around food. It’s about serving those that are hungry,” he said.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson pushed back sharply, accusing the governor of hypocrisy.
“It’s preposterous that Newsom, who shuttered churches during COVID and recently derided the power of prayer, is now attempting to manipulate religion to fit his own political agenda,” Jackson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
“President Trump wants the government open — the Democrats’ insistence on keeping it shut down is hurting the American people, but they could prevent these harms by simply reopening the government. Instead of distorting religion for political means, Newsom should urge his fellow Democrats to reopen the government.”
On Fox News’ “America Reports” Tuesday, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins blamed Democrats for refusing to vote on measures to reopen the government and restore SNAP funding.
“We are right at the cliff. And I’ve been warning about this for almost a month now, that we have enough money to get us through the end of October. But after that, the government has to reopen,” Rollins said.
The USDA and Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.
Fox News Digital’s Madison Colombo contributed to this report.
Jasmine Baehr is a Breaking News Writer for Fox News Digital, where she covers politics, the military, faith and culture.
Hosted by Jane Pauley. Featured: Combatting phobias; Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom; country superstar Kenny Chesney; “Frankenstein” director Guillermo del Toro; Ford CEO Jim Farley; Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic and an avid long-distance runner; and a Colorado town’s celebration of tarantulas.
In an exclusive interview with Robert Costa for “CBS Sunday Morning,” California Governor Gavin Newsom described the Democrats’ redistricting in his state as an effort to ensure “the future of this republic” – and a necessary measure to counter President Trump’s push to expand Republican gains in the U.S. House and secure its narrow majority.
The vote on Proposition 50 this November 4 was just one of the issues the Democrat discussed, including his own plans for the 2028 election.
Proposition 50
Newsom has been stumping across his state advocating for redistricting, in response to President Trump’s redistricting push in Republican-controlled states, like Texas.
Rather than gerrymander districts in the state legislature, as Texas did, California is putting a ballot initiative, Proposition 50, before the voters on November 4 in order to allow for redistricting in next year’s midterm election.
If Proposition 50 succeeds next week, Democrats will change the boundaries of U.S. House districts in California, making it easier for their party to win up to five more seats. (The state currently has 43 U.S. House seats held by Democrats, and 9 by Republicans.)
Newsom is framing the effort as something about more than California’s Congressional delegation, but about oversight of the Trump administration. “I think it’s about our democracy,” he said. “It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the founding fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don. This rule of popular sovereignty fundamentally, of co-equal branches of government, system of checks and balances.
Newsom believes that if his party takes back control of the House and replaces Republican Speaker Mike Johnson with a Democrat, the Trump presidency will effectively be over. “[Trump’s] presidency de facto ends, if we are successful, we the people are successful, in taking back the House,” he said. “You’ll have rebalanced the system. Co-equal branch of government begins to assert itself. It appears again.”
But he fears what may happen if Democrats do not gain control in the House: “If you have a Speaker Johnson, we may have a third-term of President Trump, I really believe that,” a nod to Mr. Trump’s public musing about seeking a third term despite the U.S. Constitution limiting presidents to two terms in office.
Trump’s military deployments
Newsom has fought Mr. Trump’s deployment of federal agents in California – from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles, to the threat of federalized National Guard troops in San Francisco and the Bay Area (which the president later pulled back). In fact, the state has filed 43 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day.
Costa asked, “What’s it’s like being the governor of the state of California, and not knowing, day-to-day, if the federal government’s going to be sending agents or not to your state?”
“It’s a hell of a way to govern,” Newsom replied. “I mean, we’re just governing just profound uncertainty, the sort of tectonic plates that we’re familiar with out here on the West Coast, but on the nature of our politics. I’ve said this – may not be a sort of prudent thing to say about a President of the United States – but I mean, he’s an invasive species.”
“For California?”
“For the country. For the world,” Newsom said. “He’s a wrecking ball. Not just the symbolism and substance of the East Wing; he’s wrecking alliances, truth, trust, tradition, institutions.”
“California cooperates as it relates to criminals,” he said. “We continue to cooperate out of our state penitentiary system hundreds of people every month that we coordinate with ICE to go after the ‘worst of the worst.’ That’s not what this is about, and everybody knows it. You don’t just randomly show up at a car wash and tell me it’s about the ‘worst of the worst.’ You don’t randomly show up at the showrooms or the parking lots of every Home Depot.”
Podcasting as a means to understand Trump supporters
Newsom isn’t just opposing Mr. Trump; he’s also trying to understand the MAGA movement. His podcast, “This Is Gavin Newsom,” not only welcomes figures on his side of the political aisle, but also the president’s allies, from Steve Bannon and Newt Gingrich to the late Charlie Kirk.
Newsom said his own son has reminded him about paying attention to other voices. “We’ve got a crisis in this country besides the crisis that we’ve discussed around the future of this republic,” he said. “We also have a crisis with masculinity and men. Men are struggling. … I mean, suicide rates are off the chart, dropout rates, suspension rates, loneliness, despair, depths of despair. It’s a serious crisis, what’s going on in this country.
“Democrats haven’t focused on that issue. And I’m very proud of the work, substantive work we’re doing in this, but I’ve also been using the podcast to highlight that.”
Mocking Trump on social media
The governor also uses satire to tweak the president, aping Mr. Trump’s prolific use of social media. Newsom’s communications team regularly parodies President Trump’s use of all-caps and AI-generated images, even signing off, “THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. — GCN”
Gavin Newsom’s social media presence mocks that of President Trump.
CBS News
Newsom has said that his social-media posts are driven by both his desire to add a sense of humor to politics, and to challenge President Trump by using Trump-style tactics.
2028 plans
This past July, “Sunday Morning” spent a day following Newsom across South Carolina, a key state in the 2028 presidential race. Newsom worked the crowds, shaking hands and even pulling espresso shots at a coffee bar.
Newsom’s visit sparked interest among those at his events and in political circles that he might be mulling his own White House bid.
“I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people. They’ll make that determination,” Newsom said in the interview this past week.
Costa asked, “Is it fair to say after the 2026 midterms, you’re going to give it serious thought?”
“Yeah. I’d be lying otherwise. I’d just be lying. And I’m – I can’t do that.”
He said it would be important for a candidate to impart to voters exactly why they are running. “Nietzsche said, ‘If you have a compelling why, you can endure any how.’ And so, I think the biggest challenge for anyone who runs for any office is people see right through you if you don’t have that why. You’re doing it for the wrong reasons.”
“When I saw you slinging shots behind the coffee bar, I thought, ‘This guy might run for president.'” Costa said.
Newsom, who as a child was diagnosed with dyslexia, said, “The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom – the idea that you even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” he laughed. “Who the hell knows?”
Story produced by Ed Forgotson and John Goodwin. Editor: Chad Cardin.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has become one of President Trump’s most high-profile adversaries, told “CBS News Sunday Morning” in an exclusive interview that he will consider whether to run for president after the 2026 midterm elections.
In an interview taped Thursday in San Jose, Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” to a White House bid once next year’s midterm elections are over.
“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”
Newsom, whose term ends in January 2027 and is prevented from running again due to term limits, cautioned that any decision is years away.
“Fate will determine that,” he said, when asked about whether he is moving closer to working out a reason for a national candidacy.
Newsom, 58, has made trips to key battleground states, including a visit this past July to South Carolina, which as of now is slated to host the first Democratic primary in the 2028 presidential election, although that could change.
During that trip, which featured multiple stops and was covered by “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom met with state Democratic leaders and stopped by a coffee shop to rally activists and help employees serve espresso drinks.
“I happen to, and thank God, I’m in the right business,” Newsom said in the interview, when asked about his evident enjoyment in meeting Democrats in South Carolina. “I love people. I actually love people.”
Newsom said talk of him possibly running for president, after facing challenges throughout his life, including dyslexia, is a reminder to him that lives can go in surprising directions.
“I have no idea,” Newsom said of whether he will decide to run. “The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary. Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.”
Newsom said his focus now is on passing Proposition 50, a California ballot measure he has championed that would allow state Democrats to temporarily change the boundaries of U.S. House districts and make them more favorable to the party. Newsom has cast his effort, which will be decided in a special election next week, as a response to Mr. Trump’s push for Republican-controlled states, like Texas, to change their congressional maps so the GOP has a better chance at holding on to its narrow House majority next year.
“I think it’s about our democracy. It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the Founding Fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don,” Newsom said.
Tensions have run high ahead of the vote, with both parties seeing redistricting efforts as critical to achieving their goal of winning the U.S. House majority next year. Whichever party holds control of the House has subpoena and oversight powers over the Executive Branch.
“We’ve got hundreds and hundreds, ICE and Border Patrol,” Newsom told Proposition 50 supporters on Thursday at a labor event, referring to federal agents in the state. Newsom predicted their presence might increase ahead of the Nov. 4 special election.
“Don’t think for a second we’re not going to be seeing more of that through Election Day,” Newsom said. “These guys are not screwing around.”
In recent days, the Justice Department said it would send its own monitors to supervise the special election in California and the gubernatorial election in New Jersey. Newsom has denounced the move, calling it a Trump administration move to intimidate Democrats. The goal, according to the Justice Department, is “to ensure transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”
While Newsom has long been a fixture in California, his foray into presidential politics generated intense interest last year when he was a fierce defender of President Joe Biden, especially in the wake of Biden’s debate performance against Mr. Trump, which prompted many Democrats to call for Biden to exit the 2024 race.
Newsom, however, never wavered on Biden’s candidacy. In the days before Biden dropped out of the race, Newsom stumped for him nationwide, including in New Hampshire.
Speaking with “CBS News Sunday Morning” there in July 2024, about a week before Biden left the race, Newsom said he was “all in” on Biden.
“No daylight,” Newsom said of his alliance with Biden at the time.
According to sources close to both Newsom and Biden, the two men are close and have stayed in touch since Biden left the White House. Newsom is also friendly with former President Barack Obama, who has offered support for Proposition 50 and joined Newsom and volunteers on a video call last week.
Story produced by Ed Forgotson and John Goodwin. Editor: Chad Cardin.
California officials are giving Planned Parenthood $140 million to keep 109 clinics open and offset the financial strain from cuts imposed by Republicans in Washington, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom announced.
Newsom said the move affirms the state’s continued commitment to abortion access for women in the Golden State amid efforts by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to shut down Planned Parenthood.
“California is a reproductive freedom state, and this latest investment continues to show our belief in protecting access to essential health care in times of distress,” Newsom said in a statement on Thursday. “Trump’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood put all our communities at risk as people seek basic health care from these community providers.”
State lawmakers will also address the issue when the legislature reconvenes in January.
California officials are giving Planned Parenthood $140 million to keep 109 clinics open.(AP/Mark Schiefelbein)
Planned Parenthood had announced it would eliminate primary care at clinics in Orange and San Bernardino counties starting in December. Five other clinics in the Bay Area, Santa Cruz and Central Valley, also shuttered in recent months over federal efforts to defund the organization.
Dr. Janet Jacobson, medical director of the Orange and San Bernardino counties clinics, told CalMatters the federal actions are “destroying our primary care program.”
“It’s inhumane to take away people’s health care,” Jacobson said. “Folks that have Medi-Cal should be able to see the provider of their choice for primary care.”
Planned Parenthood needs about $27 million a month to operate all its local facilities, Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, told CalMatters.
“The Planned Parenthood affiliates in California are grateful to Governor Newsom and our allies in the Legislature for taking this necessary step to keep Planned Parenthood health centers open and able to provide critical services as they weather the impacts of the federal defund,” Hicks said in a statement.
California is the fourth state to allocate public funds to support Planned Parenthood, joining Washington, Colorado and New Mexico. Lawmakers in Oregon and New York are also considering giving public money to the organization.
California is the fourth state to allocate public funds to support Planned Parenthood.(REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)
Republicans in the nation’s capital and across the country have targeted Planned Parenthood over abortion services. Trump’s spending bill signed over the summer prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid money for its services, including abortions, mammograms, pap smears, birth control and sexually transmitted infection testing.
Facilities in GOP-led states with abortion restrictions have also been forced to cease the procedures following the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe V. Wade and returned the power to make laws regarding abortion back to the states.
Planned Parenthood facilities have been shuttering in various states across the country, including California and New York. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte — which operates 30 health centers along the California coast, Central Valley and Nevada — shuttered five health centers in July after Trump blocked Planned Parenthood’s funding.
Mar Monte Chief of Staff Andrew Adams said the organization is working on ways to maintain its financial stability. Adams said the closures helped keep services at the organization’s other clinics until the end of the year but that it could be met with a “financial cliff” in the new year.
Republicans in the nation’s capital and across the country have targeted Planned Parenthood over abortion services.(REUTERS/Gaelen Morse)
“We are planning for an environment where there is no federal funding,” Adams told CalMatters. “What that looks like is having to potentially charge patients some amount of money for services we provide.”
The organization has claimed that abortions make up only 3% of its services, but pro-life groups contend that the clinics’ closures in states with abortion bans prove that to be false.
“If that were true, they wouldn’t be closing all these facilities in pro-life states where you can’t do abortions. So that’s hardly believable anymore in 2025,” 40 Days for Life CEO and founder Shawn Carney told Fox News Digital in August.
Newsom, California lawmakers and Planned Parenthood have spent much of the year searching for a solution to keep the organization afloat without federal dollars, according to CalMatters.
But with a multibillion-dollar state deficit, that has been a challenging goal.
