ReportWire

Tag: Golden State

  • California’s role in shaping the fate of the Democratic Party and combating Trump on full display

    California’s potential to lead a national Democratic comeback was on full display as party leaders from across the country recently gathered in downtown Los Angeles.

    But is the party ready to bet on the Golden State?

    Appearances at the Democratic National Committee meeting by the state’s most prominent Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom, crystallized the peril and promise of California’s appeal. Harris failed to beat a politically wounded Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race and Newsom, now among President Trump’s most celebrated critics, is considered a top Democratic contender to replace the Republican president in the White House in 2028.

    California policies on divisive issues such as providing expanded access to government-sponsored healthcare, aiding undocumented immigrants and supporting LGBTQ+ rights continually serve as a Rorschach test for the nation’s polarized electorate, providing comfort to progressives and ammunition for Republican attack ads.

    “California is like your cool cousin that comes for the holidays who is intriguing and glamorous, but who might not fit in with the family year-round,” said Elizabeth Ashford, a veteran Democratic strategist who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Harris when she was the state’s attorney general.

    Newsom, in particular, is quick to boast about California being home to the world’s fourth-largest economy, a billion-dollar agricultural industry and economic and cultural powerhouses in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley. Critics, Trump chief among them, paint the state as a dystopian hellhole — littered with homeless encampments and lawlessness, and plagued by high taxes and an even higher cost of living.

    Only two Californians have been elected president, Republicans Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. But that was generations ago, and Harris and Newsom are considering bids to end the decades-long drought in 2028. Both seized the moment by courting party leaders and activists during the three-day winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee that ended Saturday.

    Harris, speaking to committee members and guests Friday, said the party’s victories in state elections across the nation in November reflect voters’ agitation about the impacts of Trump’s policies, notably affordability and healthcare costs. But she argued that “both parties have failed to hold the public’s trust.”

    “So as we plan for what comes after this administration, we cannot afford to be nostalgic for what was, in fact, a flawed status quo, and a system that failed so many of you,” said Harris, who was criticized after her presidential campaign for not focusing enough on kitchen table issues, including the increasing financial strains faced by Americans.

    While Harris, who ruled out running for governor earlier this year, did not address whether she would make another bid for the White House in 2028, she argued that the party needed to be introspective about its future.

    “We need to answer the question, what comes next for our party and our democracy, and in so doing, we must be honest that for so many, the American dream has become more of a myth than a reality,” she said.

    Many of the party leaders who spoke at the gathering focused on California’s possible role in determining control of Congress after voters in November approved Proposition 50, a rare mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts in an effort to boost the number of Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation in the 2026 election.

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass rallied the crowd by reminding them that Democrats took back the U.S. House of Representatives during Trump’s first term and predicted the state would be critical in next year’s midterm elections.

    Mayor Karen Bass speaks at the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting at the InterContinental Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Friday.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    Newsom, who championed Proposition 50, basked in that victory when he strode through the hotel’s corridors at the DNC meeting the day before, stopping every few feet to talk to committee members, shake their hands and take selfies.

    “There’s just a sense of optimism here,” Newsom said.

    Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia also won races by a significant margin last month which, party leaders say, were all telltale signs of growing voter dissatisfaction with Trump and Washington’s Republican leadership.

    “The party, more broadly, got their sea legs back, and they’re winning,” Newsom said. “And winning solves a lot of problems.”

    Louisiana committee member Katie Darling teared up as she watched fellow Democrats flock to Newsom.

    “He really is trying to bring people together during a very difficult time,” said Darling, who grew up in Sacramento in a Republican household. “He gets a lot of pushback for talking to and working with Republicans, but when he does that, I see him talking to my mom and dad who I love, who I vehemently disagree with politically. … I do think that we need to talk to each other to move the country forward.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks as his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom looks on

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks as his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom looks on during an election night gathering at the California Democratic Party headquarters on November 04, 2025 in Sacramento.

    (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

    Darling said she listens to Newsom’s podcast, where his choice of guests, including the late Charlie Kirk, and his comments on the show that transgender athletes taking part in women’s sports is “deeply unfair” have drawn outrage from some on the left.

    Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, another potential 2028 presidential candidate whose family has historically supported Newsom, was also reportedly on site Thursday, holding closed-door meetings. And former Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, also a possible White House contender, was in Los Angeles on Thursday, appearing on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show and holding meetings.

    Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, cast the DNC meetings in L.A. as “anti-Trump sessions” and pointed to the homeless encampments on Skid Row, just blocks from where committee members gathered.

    “We need accountability and solutions that actually get people off the streets, make communities safer and life more affordable,” Rankin said.

    Elected officials from across the nation are drawn to California because of its wellspring of wealthy political donors. The state was the largest source of contributions to the campaign committees of Trump and Harris during the 2024 presidential contest, contributing nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Open Secrets, which tracks electoral finances.

    While the DNC gathering focused mostly on mundane internal business, the gathering of party leaders attracted liberal groups seeking to raise money and draw attention to their causes.

    Actor Jane Fonda and comedian Nikki Glaser headlined an event aimed at increasing the minimum wage at the Three Clubs cocktail bar in Hollywood. California already has among the highest minimum wages in the nation; one of the organizers of the event is campaigning to increase the rate to $30 per hour in some California counties.

    “The affordability crisis is pushing millions of Americans to the edge, and no democracy can survive when people who work full time cannot afford basic necessities,” Fonda said prior to the event. “Raising wages is one of the most powerful ways to give families stability and hope.”

    But California’s liberal policies have been viewed as a liability for Democrats elsewhere, where issues such as transgender rights and providing healthcare for undocumented immigrants have not been warmly received by some blue-collar workers who once formed the party’s base.

    Trump capitalized on that disconnect in the closing months of the 2024 presidential contest, when his campaign aired ads that highlighted Harris’ support of transgender rights, including taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates.

    “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you,” the commercial stated. The ad aired more than 30,000 times in swing states in the fall, notably during football games and NASCAR races.

    “Kamala had 99 problems. California wasn’t one of them,” said John Podesta, a veteran Democratic strategist who served a senior advisor to former President Biden, counselor to former President Obama and White House chief of staff for former President Clinton.

    He disputed the argument that California, whether through its policies or candidates, will impact Democrats’ chances, arguing there’s a broader disconnect between the party and its voters.

    “This sense that Democrats lost touch with the middle class and the poor in favor of the cultural elite is a real problem,” said Podesta. “My shorthand is, we used to be the party of the factory floor, and now we’re the party of the faculty lounge. That’s not a California problem. It’s an elitist problem.”

    While Podesta isn’t backing anyone yet in the 2028 presidential contest, he praised Newsom for his efforts to not only buck Trump but the “leftist extremists” in the Democratic party.

    The narrative of Californians being out of touch with many Americans has been exacerbated this year during the state’s battles with the Trump administration over immigration, climate change, water and artificial intelligence policy. But Newsom and committee members argued that the state has been at the vanguard of where the nation will eventually head.

    “I am very proud of California. It’s a state that’s not just about growth, it’s about inclusion,” the governor said, before ticking off a list of California initiatives, including low-priced insulin and higher minimum wages. “So much of the policy that’s coming out of the state of California promotes not just promise, but policy direction that I think is really important for the party.”

    Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Commentary: California’s first partner pushes to regulate AI while Trump and tech bros thunder forward

    California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom recently convened a meeting that might rank among the top sweat-inducing nightmare scenarios for Silicon Valley’s tech bros — a group of the Golden State’s smartest, most powerful women brainstorming ways to regulate artificial intelligence.

    Regulation is the last thing this particular California-dominated industry wants, and it’s spent a lot of cash at both the state and federal capitols to avoid it — including funding President Trump’s new ballroom. Regulation by a bunch of ladies, many mothers, with profit a distant second to our kids when it comes to concerns?

    I’ll let you figure out how popular that is likely be with the Elon Musks, Peter Thiels and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    But as Siebel Newsom said, “If a platform reaches a child, it carries a responsibility to protect that child. Period. Our children’s safety can never be second to the bottom line.”

    Agreed.

    Siebel Newsom’s push for California to do more to regulate AI comes at the same time that Trump is threatening to stop states from overseeing the technology — and is ramping up a national effort that will open America’s coffers to AI moguls for decades to come.

    Right now, the U.S. is facing its own nightmare scenario: the most powerful and world-changing technology we have seen in our lifetimes being developed and unleashed under almost no rules or restraints other than those chosen by the men who seek personal benefit from the outcome.

    To put it simply, the plan right now seems to be that these tech barons will change the world as they see fit to make money for themselves, and we as taxpayers will pay them to do it.

    “When decisions are mainly driven by power and profit instead of care and responsibility, we completely lose our way, and given the current alignment between tech titans and the federal administration, I believe we have lost our way,” Siebel Newsom said.

    To recap what the way has been so far, Trump recently tried to sneak a 10-year ban on the ability of states to oversee the industry into his ridiculously named “Big Beautiful Bill,” but it was pulled out by a bipartisan group in the Senate — an early indicator of how inflammatory this issue is.

    Faced with that unexpected blockade, Trump has threatened to sign a mysterious executive order crippling states’ ability to regulate AI and attempting to withhold funds from those that try.

    Simultaneously, the most craven and cowardly among Republican congresspeople have suggested adding a 10-year ban to the upcoming defense policy bill that will almost certainly pass. Of course, Congress has also declined to move forward on any meaningful federal regulations itself, while technology CEOs including Trump frenemy Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, Meta’s Zuckerberg and many others chum it up at fancy events inside the White House.

    Which may be why this week, Trump announced the “Genesis Mission,” an executive order that seemingly will take the unimaginable vastness of government research efforts across disciplines and dump them into some kind of AI model that will “revolutionize the way scientific research is conducted.

    While I am sure that nothing could possibly go wrong in that scenario, that’s not actually the part that is immediately alarming. This is: The project will be overseen by Trump science and technology policy advisor Michael Kratsios, who holds no science or engineering degrees but was formerly a top executive for Thiel and former head of another AI company that works on warfare-related projects with the Pentagon.

    Kratsios is considered one of the main reasons Trump has embraced the tech bros with such adoration in his second term. Genesis will almost certainly mean huge government contracts for these private-sector “partners,” fueling the AI boom (or bubble) with taxpayer dollars.

    Siebel Newsom’s message in the face of all this is that we are not helpless — and California, as the home of many of these companies and the world’s fourth-largest economy in its own right, should have a say in how this technology advances, and make sure it does so in a way that benefits and protects us all.

    “California is uniquely positioned to lead the effort in showing innovation and responsibility and how they can go hand in hand,” she said. “I’ve always believed that stronger guardrails are actually good for business over the long term. Safer tech means better outcomes for consumers and greater consumer trust and loyalty.”

    But the pressure to cave under the might of these companies is intense, as Siebel Newsom’s husband knows.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent the last few years trying to thread the needle on state legislation that offers some sort of oversight while allowing for the innovation that rightly keeps California and the United States competitive on the global front. The tech industry has spent millions in lobbying, legal fights and pressure campaigns to water down even the most benign of efforts, even threatening to leave the state if rules are enacted.

    Last year, the industry unsuccessfully tried to stop Senate Bill 53, landmark legislation signed by Newsom. It’s a basic transparency measure on “frontier” AI models that requires companies to have safety and security protocols and report known “catastrophic” risks, such as when these models show tendencies toward behavior that could kill more than 50 people — which they have, believe it or not.

    But the industry was able to stop other efforts. Newsom vetoed both Senate Bill 7, which would have required employers to notify workers when using AI in hiring and promotions; and Assembly Bill 1064, which would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors if they couldn’t prove they wouldn’t do things like encourage kids to self-harm, which again, these chatbots have done.

    Still, California (along with New York and a few other states) has pushed forward, and speaking at Siebel Newsom’s event, the governor said that last session, “we took a number of at-bats at this and we made tremendous progress.”

    He promised more.

    “We have agency. We can shape the future,” he said. “We have a unique responsibility as it relates to these tools of technology, because, well, this is the center of that universe.”

    If Newsom does keep pushing forward, it will be in no small part because of Siebel Newsom, and women like her, who keep the counter-pressure on.

    In fact, it was another powerful mom, First Lady Melania Trump, who forced the federal government into a tiny bit of action this year when she championed the “Take It Down Act, which requires tech companies to quickly remove nonconsensual explicit images. I sincerely doubt her husband would have signed that particular bill without her urging.

    So, if we are lucky, the efforts of women like Siebel Newsom may turn out to be the bit of powerful sanity needed to put a check on the world-domination fantasies of the broligarchy.

    Because tech bros are not yet all-powerful, despite their best efforts, and certainly not yet immune to the power of moms.

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • This green energy company is leaving California for Texas

    A San José-based tech company that sells roof shingles with built-in solar panels is the latest to announce plans to leave the Golden State for Texas.

    GAF Energy will relocate its headquarters to Georgetown, Texas, on Dec. 13, the company announced in a notification document filed with state officials. The company said its decision was motivated by better market opportunities in Texas, rather than an unfavorable business environment in California.

    The company will lay off 138 California-based employees, including technicians, engineers and managers.

    The San José headquarters, which is currently used for research, development and solar panel manufacturing, was opened in 2021. Both in-person and remote employees will be affected by its closure, the notice said.

    Required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN, the notice must be issued by a company 60 days before a mass layoff.

    GAF Energy, which is owned by Standard Industries, opened a manufacturing facility in Texas last year. The company plans to consolidate its operations at a new headquarters in the state, President Martin DeBono said.

    “In light of ongoing changes in the solar industry, we are aligning our business and our team to focus on key markets where solar is most compelling for builders and homeowners,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. “This decision was not taken lightly. We are grateful to our employees in San Jose for their contributions to the business and are committed to assisting those impacted through this transition.”

    GAF Energy advertises a more practical approach to rooftop solar energy by embedding solar panels directly into shingles, rather than installing them on top of a roof.

    The consolidation to a Texas headquarters will help the company “drive efficiencies, foster stronger collaboration and partnership amongst teams, and better serve customers,” the spokesperson said.

    Though Silicon Valley is known as a premier tech hub and incubator for young companies, many firms have left the state in recent years, complaining of strict regulations, high taxes and costly labor.

    Tesla moved its headquarters out of Palo Alto in 2021, the same year that financial services firm Charles Schwab relocated from San Francisco to northern Texas. Elon Musk moved the head offices of his other companies — SpaceX and X — to Texas last year, as did Chevron, the oil giant that was started in California.

    Bed Bath & Beyond’s chief executive, Marcus Lemonis, recently took aim at California and announced that the company would not reopen stores in the state, writing on X that “California has created one of the most overregulated, expensive, and risky environments for businesses.”

    Economists said the state remains the fourth-largest economy in the world, boasts a diverse pool of talent and is a hub of technological innovation.

    GAF Energy did not point to faults in California’s business environment as a reason for moving operations to Texas. However, the company will suspend all operations in the Golden State.

    Caroline Petrow-Cohen

    Source link

  • Valkyries G Veronica Burton named Most Improved Player

    (Photo credit: Jesse Johnson-Imagn Images)

    Golden State Valkyries guard Veronica Burton was named WNBA Most Improved Player by a landslide margin on Monday.

    Burton received 68 of 72 votes from a national panel of sportswriters and broadcasters after posting career highs of 11.9 points, 6.0 assists, 4.4 rebounds and 1.1 steals while starting all 44 games for the expansion franchise.

    Last season, Burton averaged 3.1 points, 1.9 assists, 1.4 rebounds and 0.5 steals in 31 games for the Connecticut Sun. According to the WNBA, she is the first player to increase her averages by at least five rebounds, two assists and two rebounds from one season to the next among players to compete in a minimum of 30 games both seasons.

    Burton, 25, helped Golden State (23-21) become the first WNBA expansion team to the reach the playoffs.

    Azura Stevens (two votes) of the Los Angeles Sparks, Allisha Gray (one) of the Atlanta Dream and Natisha Hiedeman (one) of the Minnesota Lynx also received votes.

    Burton started just 20 games over her first three seasons before breaking out this year.

    Burton was a first-round pick of the Dallas Wings in 2022 and averaged 2.6 points as a rookie and 2.4 points in 2023. She started just once in 31 games for Connecticut last season.

    She was selected in the expansion draft by the Valkyries and things came together. She made 61 3-pointers after making a combined 38 over her first three seasons, and she racked up 50 steals and 27 blocked shots on the defensive side.

    According to the WNBA, Burton will receive $5,150 and a trophy in recognition of the achievement.

    –Field Level Media

    Source link

  • California lawmakers pass SB 79, housing bill that brings dense housing to transit hubs

    California lawmakers just paved the way for a whole lot more housing in the Golden State.

    In the waning hours of the 2025 legislative session, the state Senate voted 21 to 8 to approve Senate Bill 79, a landmark housing bill that overrides local zoning laws to expand high-density housing near transit hubs. The controversial bill received a final concurrence vote from the Senate on Friday, a day after passing in the California assembly with a vote of 41 to 17.

    The bill had already squeaked through the state Senate by a narrow margin earlier this year, but since it was amended in the following months, it required a second approval. It will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk in October.

    One of the more ambitious state-imposed efforts to increase housing density in recent years, the bill was introduced in March by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who stresses that the state needs to take immediate action to address California’s housing shortage. It opens the door for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.

    Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.

    Height limits are based on tiers. Tier 1 zoning, which includes heavy rail lines such as the L.A. Metro B and D lines, allows for six- to nine-story buildings, depending on proximity to the transit hub. Tier 2 zoning — which includes light rail lines such as the A, C, E and K lines, as well as bus routes with dedicated lanes — allows for five- to eight-story buildings.

    An amateur map released by a cartographer and fact-checked by YIMBY Action, a housing non-profit that helped push the bill through, gives an idea of the areas around L.A. that would be eligible for development under SB 79. Tier 1 zones include hubs along Wilshire Blvd., Vermont Ave., and Hollywood Blvd., as well as a handful of spots in Downtown L.A. and the San Fernando Valley.

    Tier 2 zones are more spread out, dotting Exposition Blvd. along the E line, stretching toward Inglewood along the K line, and running from Long Beach into the San Gabriel Valley along the A line.

    Assembly members debated the bill for around 40 minutes on Thursday evening and cheered after it was passed.

    “Over the last five years, housing affordability and homelessness have consistently been among the top priorities in California. The smartest place to build new housing is within existing communities, near the state’s major transit investments that connect people to jobs, schools and essential services,” said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Orange County) in support of the bill.

    Other assembly members, including Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) voiced their support.

    Proponents say drastic measures are necessary given the state’s affordability crisis.

    “SB 79 is what we’ve been working towards for a decade – new housing next to our most frequently used train stations. This bill has the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of new multi-family homes,” said YIMBY Action California director Leora Tanjuatco Ross.

    Critics claim the blanket mandate is an overreach, stripping local authorities of their ability to promote responsible growth.

    Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-West Hollywood) argued against the bill, claiming it will affect lower-priced neighborhoods more than wealthy ones since land prices are cheaper for housing developers.

    The vote came a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council came out against the bill, voting 8 to 5 on a resolution opposing it.

    Councilmember Traci Park, who co-authored the resolution with Councilmember John Lee, called SB 79 a “one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento.” Lee called it “chaos.”

    The resolution called for L.A. to be exempt from the upzoning since it already has a state-approved housing plan.

    The bill has spurred multiple protests in Southern California communities, including Pacific Palisades and San Diego. Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.

    However, support for SB 79 surged in recent days after the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a powerful labor group that represents union construction workers, agreed to reverse their opposition in exchange for amendments that add union hiring to certain projects.

    In a statement after the deal was struck, the trades council president Chris Hannan said the amendments would provide good jobs and training to California’s skilled construction workforce.

    Wiener, who has unsuccessfully tried to pass similar legislation twice before, said the deal boosted the bill’s chances.

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • 2 California Powerball winners each win more than $1.5 million

    LOT RICHER TONIGHT. THERE WERE TWO WINNING TICKETS IN TONIGHT’S $1.8 BILLION POWERBALL JACKPOT. ONE IN TEXAS AND THE OTHER IN MISSOURI. WINNING NUMBERS FOR TONIGHT’S POWERBALL DRAWING WERE 11 23, 44, 61, 62. POWERBALL WAS 17. THE WINNERS WILL SPLIT THE SECOND LARGEST PRIZE IN POWERBALL HISTORY. WELL, THERE WEREN’T ANY JACKPOT WINNERS IN CALIFORNIA. TWO TICKETS WERE SOLD IN THE STATE, MATCHING THE FIRST FIVE NUMBERS, EACH WORTH MORE THAN 1.5 MILLION. THOS

    2 California Powerball winners each win more than $1.5 million

    Updated: 7:08 AM PDT Sep 7, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    California didn’t have a $1.8 billion Powerball jackpot winner after Saturday’s drawing, but two tickets worth more than $1.5 million each were sold in the Golden State.One of the tickets matching five numbers was sold at Love’s Travel Stop at 2000 East Tehachapi Boulevard in Tehachapi, the California Lottery said. The other was sold at a Circle K at 7850 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin. The tickets are each worth $1,564,348 before federal taxes. California does not have a state tax on lottery winnings. Here were the winning numbers in Saturday’s drawing: 11-23-44-61-62 Powerball 17.Jackpot-winning tickets were sold in Texas and Missouri. It was the second-largest prize in the game’s history. Those winners can split an annuitized prize estimated at $1.8 billion or a lump sum payment estimated at $826.4 million.Powerball tickets are sold in 45 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.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

    California didn’t have a $1.8 billion Powerball jackpot winner after Saturday’s drawing, but two tickets worth more than $1.5 million each were sold in the Golden State.

    One of the tickets matching five numbers was sold at Love’s Travel Stop at 2000 East Tehachapi Boulevard in Tehachapi, the California Lottery said. The other was sold at a Circle K at 7850 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin.

    The tickets are each worth $1,564,348 before federal taxes. California does not have a state tax on lottery winnings.

    Here were the winning numbers in Saturday’s drawing: 11-23-44-61-62 Powerball 17.

    Jackpot-winning tickets were sold in Texas and Missouri. It was the second-largest prize in the game’s history.

    Those winners can split an annuitized prize estimated at $1.8 billion or a lump sum payment estimated at $826.4 million.

    Powerball tickets are sold in 45 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    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

    Source link

  • ‘Path to 218 runs through California’: State races pivotal in fight to control the House

    ‘Path to 218 runs through California’: State races pivotal in fight to control the House

    Barring divine intervention or the West Coast falling into the sea, President Biden will handily win California in the November election.

    But should he — or presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump — secure a second term in the fall, the future of either’s policy agenda rests heavily on which party controls Congress, where Republicans currently hold a wafer-thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    With the Golden State home to some of the most hotly contested swing districts in the country, the House’s fate will almost certainly come down to California.

    The battle for the next two years of partisan political control will be waged door-to-door, from California’s beachside suburban cul-de-sacs to the tiny farm towns in the state’s fertile Central Valley.

    Those battlefields will look a lot like Bridgecreek Plaza — a sun-bleached shopping center a few hundred yards from a freeway onramp in Orange County’s Huntington Beach. The mall is home to a crystal store, several insurance brokers, a dentist and the local Republican Party headquarters.

    It’s also where about two dozen GOP faithful gathered on the morning of election day, bowing their heads for a quick prayer and pledging allegiance to a portable flag before turning their attention to Jessica Millan Patterson, chair of the California Republican Party.

    Patterson was in a very good mood.

    When she was first elected to lead the party, in 2019, California Republicans were “essentially the third-largest party in the state,” having sunk below the share of voters registering “decline to state” under party preference.

    But Patterson had presided over a massive voter registration drive over the last five years, and the party had moved back into second. People across the country liked to dismiss “blue California,” she said, but they were forgetting that California has more registered Republicans than any other state.

    “California Republicans are the reasons why we have a House majority,” she added, to raucous cheering.

    That majority was what they hoped to hold on to, and the group would spend the morning of the March 5 primary election canvassing for Scott Baugh, a Republican attorney and former state Assembly member vying to push Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s soon-to-be-open congressional seat back from blue to red.

    Scott Baugh is trying again to flip Orange County’s 47th District back to the red column. The seat is a chief target of state and national Republican efforts to maintain control of the House.

    (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

    The latest round of redistricting put more conservative enclaves such as Huntington Beach and Newport Beach into California’s 47th Congressional District, and Baugh lost to Porter only narrowly in 2022 despite being vastly outspent, making the coastal Orange County district one of the most competitive in the nation.

    The charismatic Porter will be out of the House picture after a failed Senate run; her seat is one of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s three offensive targets in California and top priorities. And it’s equally prized by Democrats.

    In a country where enmity and distrust separate the two major political parties on most issues, California’s utmost importance to any November House strategy is one of the few things on which Republicans and Democrats can agree.

    California is home to 10 races rated as competitive by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report — five of them in districts that are represented by Republicans but that President Biden won in 2020. In the months to come, both parties will be investing significant resources in those races, as national attention inevitably turns west.

    With an expected Biden-Trump rematch, voter turnout in 2024 is also likely to be supercharged compared with the 2022 midterm election. That could give an edge to Democrats, given the registration advantage that they hold in many of the competitive districts. Republicans gained one California House seat in the 2022 midterms, a nonpresidential election when turnout was substantially lower than when Biden and Trump topped the ballot two years prior.

    “At the end of the day, the path to 218 runs through California,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Dan Gottlieb, referring to the number of seats needed to garner a House majority.

    Dave Min, seen from the shoulders up in a blue suit jacket, looking up to his left against a backdrop of dark-wood columns

    Dave Min will face Baugh in November’s runoff for the 47th District seat, which Katie Porter is vacating. Min’s bruising primary battle for the crucial seat has already cost Democrats millions.

    (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

    Gottlieb was bullish on his party’s chances, citing the high turnout expected for the presidential election, along with strong Democratic candidates and “a bunch of dysfunctional and out-of-touch Republicans enabling the worst of their party’s chaos and dysfunction and extremism.”

    But Gottlieb’s GOP counterpart was equally roseate in his outlook, with National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Ben Petersen reveling in the ugly and expensive primary fights that consumed Democrats in several of the state’s most crucial swing districts.

    In the O.C. district where GOP volunteers fanned out for Baugh on primary morning, Democrats had sunk millions into a bruising primary battle between state Sen. Dave Min and fellow Democrat Joanna Weiss. Min ultimately emerged victorious, but only after surviving a barrage of negative advertising centered on his 2023 arrest for driving while intoxicated — arguably a gift to Republicans ahead of his fall battle with Baugh.

    “Extreme Democrats are stumbling out of their vicious primary fights broke and bested by Republicans, who saw a groundswell of support for a commonsense safety and affordability agenda,” Petersen said, adding that the primary results made clear the GOP was “playing offense in California” in a way that would set the stage for victories in November.

    Baugh, though, is not expected to go unscathed. In 2022, Porter’s ad campaign ripped the Republican for his antiabortion stance, as well as his work as a lobbyist and criminal charges he faced over campaign violations, for which he ultimately paid $47,000 in fines.

    In the San Joaquin Valley, there were last-minute fears that a bruising primary battle would lock Democrats out of one of the races where they have the best chance of flipping a seat, but those concerns proved overblown.

    Rudy Salas, backed by the Democratic establishment, vanquished fellow Democrat Melissa Hurtado to secure a spot in the fall against incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the 22nd Congressional District, but that race also put a dent in Democratic coffers.

    The November race will be a rematch of the pair’s 2022 runoff, when Salas lost to Valadao by several thousand votes. And Salas and Valadao won’t be the only rematch on the November ticket.

    In a heavily agricultural San Joaquin Valley district that includes all of Merced County and parts of Fresno, Madera, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, incumbent GOP Rep. John Duarte will once again face off against Democratic challenger Adam Gray. Duarte won the 13th Congressional District in the midterm election by fewer than 600 votes, one of the closest races in the nation.

    Several hundred miles southeast, in Southern California, Democratic challenger Will Rollins will again take on GOP incumbent Rep. Ken Calvert, the longest-serving member of the California delegation. The recently redrawn 41st Congressional District stretches from the suburban Inland Empire, where Calvert has long lived, to Palm Springs, where Rollins and his partner make their home.

    The district’s new boundaries — which now include one of the largest concentrations of LGBTQ+ voters in the nation and liberal pockets of Californians in the desert — are far more friendly to Democrats. They also set up Rollins, who is gay, as a potent challenger to Calvert, who voted against LGBTQ+ rights in the past, but who says his views have since evolved.

    One race that will have some new blood this year, after the same pair of candidates dueled in three previous elections, is California’s 27th Congressional District in northern Los Angeles County.

    Once solidly Republican, the district has been reconfigured by redistricting, and has undergone a political transition driven by younger, more diverse transplants from L.A. seeking affordable housing in Santa Clarita and the Antelope Valley. The district briefly switched from red to blue with former Rep. Katie Hill’s victory in 2018, but the young Democrat’s very public scandals and ultimate resignation helped hand the seat back to the GOP.

    Now-incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Garcia beat Democrat Christy Smith in a 2019 special election to fill the seat, then twice more for full terms in 2020 and 2022. He will face off against George Whitesides, a fresh Democratic challenger, in November.

    Ludovic Blain, executive director of the California Donor Table, a progressive group that pools donor funds, said his organization hopes to invest about $10 million in California House races in the fall, working with local nonprofits in key areas to turn out voters of color.

    They’ll be focusing on seven key races: the three aforementioned rematches, Porter’s open seat and two other Orange County races, and the Garcia-Whitesides matchup.

    One point of concern Blain raised is that Republican Steve Garvey’s place near the top of the ticket, facing off against Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) in the Senate race, might affect Democrats in House races.

    Schiff engaged in a controversial strategy in the primary, boosting Garvey to lock out Porter and his other major Democratic challenger, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), whom Blain’s organization supported.

    It was a gambit that some in the Democratic establishment said would actually help Democrats in other tight races, since a less-competitive Senate race would siphon away far less money from the party’s coffers.

    But others, like Blain, argue that Garvey’s presence could hurt down-ballot Democrats. Plus, having him on the ballot may draw in moderate Republican and independent voters who remain sour on Trump.

    “Having Garvey, I think, does spike or further encourage Republican voters to turn out, and more importantly, to vote down the ticket,” Blain said.

    Patterson agreed. Unlike Trump, Garvey will likely campaign across the state, providing a lift for other Republicans while he’s at it.

    Julia Wick

    Source link

  • From decarbonization to electric cars, California hopes to showcase climate leadership at COP28

    From decarbonization to electric cars, California hopes to showcase climate leadership at COP28

    World leaders are gearing up for COP28, an annual U.N. climate conference that will begin this week in Dubai, and California is expected to play a sizable role in the proceedings.

    Representatives from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration will attend and speak on the Golden State’s progress toward clean energy goals, zero-emission vehicles and nature-based solutions, officials said. California will also engage in continued diplomacy at the subnational level after Newsom’s recent trip to China, where he engaged in climate talks with local leaders.

    “Part of our presence in California is really to make the case that subnational governments — that is, states, provinces, cities — need to have a central role in this international collaboration to combat climate change,” Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary, told reporters Tuesday.

    Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

    But some experts have soured slightly on the conference this year, noting that Dubai is one of the world’s leading oil producers and plays an outsize role in global fossil fuel emissions, the main driver of global warming. The conference is being chaired by Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, chief executive of Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., one of the largest oil companies in the world.

    In a year expected to be the hottest ever recorded due to climate change, holding the conference in the Dubai sends mixed signals, said Cara Horowitz, executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA, who will be attending the proceedings.

    “This conference will be an especially challenging one for making real progress,” Horowitz said, not only because of Al Jaber’s role but also because this year’s agenda offers few opportunities for new breakthrough agreements such as the Paris climate agreement, which was established eight years ago at COP21.

    A car's hood is open, with a cord running from a pole to the engine.

    The electric car sharing program at Rancho San Pedro was created in September 2020 and has attracted 39 users. The program is backed by the Zero Emissions Mobility and Community Pilot Project Fund, which is launching four zero-emission mobility pilots around Los Angeles County this year.

    (Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

    The Paris agreement seeks to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and no higher than 2 degrees — a benchmark that was passed for the first time this month.

    “I doubt that this COP is going to radically change our approach to solving the problem, but hopefully it will add to incremental progress that allows us to see a way forward,” Horowitz said. “That’s deeply unsatisfying to me and to many others, but it’s a little hard to figure out how else one would go about tackling a problem of this size other than by bringing together the world’s leading experts, and the world’s most passionate advocates and policymakers, to create a space for change.”

    Indeed, California officials were emphatic that the state can get work done in Dubai. As one of the world’s largest economies, California is already a global leader in climate policy and has made great strides toward decarbonization, with the current goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

    The state has also committed to transitioning to electric vehicles with a ban on new gas car sales slated to take effect in 2035. Currently, 27% of new vehicle sales in the state are zero-emission vehicles, up from 5% when Newsom took office.

    But more collaboration will be needed to reach greater goals, said Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s senior climate advisor.

    “We could be net-zero tomorrow … but we would still need action from the world’s largest emitters, large countries and other nation states, in order to actually bend the curve of carbon emissions and keep Californians safe,” Sanchez said. “A big part of the diplomacy that we’ll be engaging in, as a subnational, is to share everything California has been working on and to continue learning from others.”

    Among the work California will be touting is its substantial investments in renewable energy. About 60% of the state’s power now comes from clean energy sources, said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission. That includes a 2,000% increase in solar power over the last decade and a 3,500% increase in energy storage over the last four years, making California the largest and fastest-growing energy storage market in the world, he said.

    At COP28, the state plans to join the Global Offshore Wind Alliance, an international consortium that seeks to achieve 2,000 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2050, with 25 gigawatts coming from California, Hochschild said.

    But energy is just one of California’s offerings at COP28, formally called the 28th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The state is planning presentations on its healthy soils program and on nature-based climate solutions, including habitat restoration work and the “30 by 30” plan to conserve 30% of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030. For the first time, California will also send its tribal affairs secretary, Christina Snider-Ashtari, to the conference.

    “This is actually the first point in history where globally, national and subnational governments have recognized the importance of Indigenous voices in this space, understanding too that Indigenous peoples are disproportionately impacted by the impacts of climate change,” Snider-Ashtari said.

    Horowitz, of UCLA, said other states and nations are listening and following California’s lead. She said she has been pleased by the state’s presence and authority at COP gatherings in the past.

    “California’s influence in global climate policymaking is real,” Horowitz said. “California continued to grow its economy as it shrank its greenhouse gas emissions, and in doing so, it serves as a model for the world that this is possible.”

    But the state also has lessons to learn at COP28 and will be launching an international climate partnership focused on reducing methane emissions. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that lasts about a dozen years in the atmosphere but traps 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide.

    Three yellow school buses are parked behind two white, short, vertical structures with cords attached.

    Electric school buses sit idle because battery chargers are not yet functional at Lassen High School on Sept. 26, 2023, in Susanville, Calif.

    (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times)

    “We will be significantly expanding our collaborations in this space and really sharing information and strategies and understanding how data can help us tackle the problem of methane,” said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board.

    The state will also launch an international climate partnership among subnational jurisdictions with similar Mediterranean climates and will participate in a local climate action summit.

    “We’ll be lifting up what we’re doing in California on wildfires, drought, floods, extreme heat, sea level rise, but also developing and announcing collaborations with other governments across the world that are working on these issues as well,” Crowfoot said.

    He added that he is looking forward to the results of a “global stocktake” that will occur in Dubai — an inventory of climate progress that he and other officials hoped will prompt countries to update their climate targets to be more ambitious.

    But even as California looks to serve as an international climate model, the state is also grappling with its role as an oil producer and consumer. Sanchez said the state will attend COP28 “with a lot of humility” as it works to transform how it produces and consumes energy.

    The United States too is not without reproach, as it continues to produce and consume more oil than any other nation. Just weeks ago, the Biden administration released the country’s Fifth National Climate Assessment, a sobering report that showed the nation and the world are far from meeting climate goals.

    President Biden’s landmark climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, received considerable acclaim for its environmental plans and targets. But while international figures such as Pope Francis and King Charles III are slated to attend the conference in Dubai, Biden has opted to skip this year’s proceedings and send U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and other officials in his place.

    Despite the controversies surrounding this year’s COP, Horowitz said she is optimistic that the state and the nation can draw value from the event.

    “Often it’s states and cities and counties who are making nitty-gritty decisions about how to run their transit, and what to do with their waste, and what electricity supplies to purchase,” she said. “And it’s those kinds of decisions that really make a huge difference when aggregated globally, and that’s why cooperative efforts among local jurisdictions really matter.”

    In many cases, she added, it is the side conversation among states and provinces — as opposed to the high-level negotiations among countries — “where the real work of achieving climate emission reductions happens.”

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • New poll finds that California voters disapprove of Newsom’s performance as governor

    New poll finds that California voters disapprove of Newsom’s performance as governor

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s standing among California voters has hit an all-time low, with 49% disapproving of his performance as governor, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

    The survey showed Newsom’s popularity has tumbled this year as he continues to amplify his national profile and campaign outside of the Golden State to support President Biden and attack Republican governors and their conservative political agendas.

    Newsom’s approval rating was 44% in the late October poll, an 11-point slide from February when 55% of voters approved of his performance. His disapproval among California voters increased 10 percentage points from earlier this year.

    “He’s kind of taking on a new persona,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley poll and a longtime California pollster. “He’s no longer just the governor of California. He’s a spokesperson for the national party and basically voters are being asked to react to that.”

    Despite the negative perception of his leadership, the Berkeley poll offered a key upside for the Democratic governor: Voters overwhelmingly support Proposition 1, his $6.4-billion mental health bond on the March 2024 ballot.

    Only 15% of voters said they had heard about the proposal, which is estimated to generate enough funding for 10,000 new treatment beds across the state. After reading a description of the measure, 60% of likely voters backed the idea, 17% were opposed and 23% remained undecided. The survey questions did not mention that Newsom backs Proposition 1.

    DiCamillo noted that the initial support for the ballot measure was broad-based, though Republicans and conservatives were more divided.

    Newsom’s decline in popularity spans nearly every major voter category and includes significant drops among his Democratic base and voters who aren’t affiliated with either party, DiCamillo noted.

    Though Newsom still enjoys 66% approval from voters in his own party, his support from Democrats fell 16 points from February. Now a quarter of Democrats disapprove of his performance compared with 12% earlier this year. The poll found similar dips among moderate and liberal voters.

    The governor’s support from voters without a party preference declined from 49% to 37% approval over the same period.

    Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the governor, pointed to a separate poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California in late August and early September that found Newsom’s support to be much higher at 56% among likely voters overall. That PPIC poll was based on the opinions of likely voters. The Berkeley poll’s findings were among registered voters, a broader pool of Californians. Newsom’s approval among likely voters surveyed in the Berkeley poll was 48%, slightly higher than among registered voters.

    Though Newsom insists he is not interested in running for president, the governor has been raising money for Biden and Democratic candidates in other states and elevating his role in the culture wars with conservatives. Newsom also inserted himself into the presidential contest by setting up a debate with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican contender for president, in Georgia at the end of the month.

    DiCamillo said it’s not uncommon for governors to experience a decline in popularity if they campaign outside of the state.

    Former Gov. Jerry Brown received low marks as governor in April of 1980, the same month he ended his second presidential campaign. At the time, 38% of Californians approved of his performance and 61% disapproved.

    Voters offered mixed reviews of Newsom taking on an increasingly prominent role in national Democratic politics, with 45% approving and 43% disapproving. Half of the respondents approved of his recent trip to China to while 39% disapproved.

    When asked about his appointment of U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler to fill the late Dianne Feinstein’s seat in Congress, 37% approved, 30% disapproved, while 1 in 3 voters offered no opinion.

    “Fox News is going to feast on these numbers,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant, about Newsom’s ratings.

    Stutzman chalked up some of Newsom’s fall to coming down from a natural “sugar high” of largely positive public perception since his reelection last year.

    Newsom’s popularity as governor peaked in September 2020, shortly after his initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, putting him in such good graces with California voters that his approval rating was among the highest of any governor in the last 50 years at the same point in their first term.

    Voters’ opinion of Newsom plummeted months later, however, after a massive outbreak of a new variant and growing voter dissatisfaction with state restrictions. Newsom also had come under intense criticism in November 2020 for violating the spirit of his own public health guidelines by dining out with a group of friends at the posh French Laundry restaurant in the Napa Valley.

    Both Stutzman and DiCamillo said economic concerns in California and across the nation could account for some of the recent drop. Californians are also frustrated with the state of California, particularly about the issues of crime and homelessness, Stutzman said.

    The recent PPIC poll found that 55% of California adults think the state is going in the wrong direction. Jobs, the economy and inflation, and homelessness were cited as the top concerns among residents.

    “I think the real wake-up call is how dramatically Democrat voters seem to be shifting underneath him,” Stutzman said. “I’m not surprised his numbers are down. I’m surprised his numbers are down that far. He’s clearly upside down.”

    The new polling comes after the governor split with the progressive wing of his party on his solutions to California’s homelessness and mental health crisis. He roiled the far left when a provision was added to Proposition 1 that allows the funding to support mental health beds in locked facilities, which has become controversial in health care. His CARE Court plan approved in 2022 could force Californians struggling with mental illness and drug addiction into treatment as an alternative to jail, which similarly ran afoul of civil liberties organizations.

    He also ran afoul of environmentalists and some Democrats in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region earlier this year over his failed plan to streamline the construction of a controversial $16-billion tunnel to transport water south.

    Newsom terms out of office in 2026 and doesn’t have a reelection to worry about in California.

    But he has about a year left until he enters the lame-duck phase of his governorship, when a politician’s power decreases as his term nears an end. As his governorship begins to wind down, losing the backing of the public will affect his ability to get things done with the Legislature.

    “It affects his political capital, he’s not interested in expediting his lame duck status and he probably has a very difficult budget year ahead of him, which is not going to buoy his approval ratings,” Stutzman said.

    After closing a nearly $32-billion deficit in the state spending plan approved in June, the Newsom administration anticipates that California will still face an additional shortfall of at least $14.3 billion next year.

    The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 6,342 California registered voters, including a weighted sub-sample of 4,506 considered likely to take part in the March primary. The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish, Oct. 24-30. The results were weighted to match census and voter registration benchmarks, so estimates of the margin of error may be imprecise; however, the results for the full sample have an estimated margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction. The estimated margin of error for the likely voter sub-sample is 2.5 points.

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Living in Phoenix Makes Perfect Sense

    Living in Phoenix Makes Perfect Sense

    In Phoenix, a high of 108 degrees Fahrenheit now somehow counts as a respite. On Monday, America’s hottest major city ended its ominous streak of 31 straight days in which temperatures crested past 110. The toll of this heat—a monthly average of 102.7 degrees in July—has been brutal. One woman was admitted to a hospital’s burn unit after she fell on the pavement outside her home, and towering saguaros have dropped arms and collapsed. Over the past month, hospitals filling up with burn and heat-stroke victims have reached capacities not seen since the height of the pandemic.

    “Why would anyone live in Phoenix?” You might ask that question to the many hundreds of thousands of new residents who have made the Arizona metropolis America’s fastest-growing city. Last year, Maricopa County, where Phoenix sits, gained more residents than any other county in the United States—just as it did in 2021, 2019, 2018, and 2017.

    At its core, the question makes a mystery of something that isn’t a mystery at all. For many people, living in Phoenix makes perfect sense. Pleasant temperatures most of the year, relatively inexpensive housing, and a steady increase in economic opportunities have drawn people for 80 years, turning the city from a small desert outpost of 65,000 into a sprawling metro area of more than 5 million. Along the way, a series of innovations has made the heat seem like a temporary inconvenience rather than an existential threat for many residents. Perhaps not even a heat wave like this one will change anything.

    My first morning in Phoenix, more than 20 years ago, the sun broke the horizon two miles up a trail in South Mountain Park, one of the largest municipal parks in the United States. I had arrived the previous night from Michigan, leaving behind the late-March dreariness that passes for spring in the Midwest for several months of research that would become my book, Power Lines. As the sun turned the mountain golden and I stripped down to short sleeves for the first time in months, I realized the Valley of the Sun’s charms.

    Outside the summer months, the quality of life in Phoenix is really quite high—a fact that city boosters have promoted stretching back to before World War II. They traded the desiccated “Salt River Valley” for the welcoming “Valley of the Sun.” Efforts to downplay the dangers of Phoenix’s climate go back even further. In 1895, when Phoenix was home to a few thousand people, a local newspaper reported that it had been proved “by figures and facts” that the heat is “all a joke,” because the “sensible temperature” that people experienced was far less severe than what the thermometers recorded. “But it’s a dry heat” has a long history, one in which generations of prospective newcomers have been taught to perceive Phoenix’s climate as more beneficial than oppressive.

    Most people surely move to Phoenix not because of the weather, but because of the housing. The Valley of the Sun’s ongoing commitment to new housing development continues to keep housing prices well below those of neighboring California, drawing many emigrants priced out of the Golden State. Subdivisions have popped up in irrigated farm fields seemingly overnight. In 1955, as the home builder John F. Long was constructing Maryvale, then on Phoenix’s western edge, he quickly turned a cantaloupe farm into seven model homes. Five years later, more than 22,000 people lived in the neighborhood; now more than 200,000 do. Even today, the speed of construction can create confusion, as residents puzzle over the location of Heartland Ranch or Copper Falls or other new subdivisions that include most of the 250,000 homes built since 2010.

    Even in the summer, you might not always notice just how harsh of a terrain Phoenix can be. Developers engage in a struggle to secure water rights, tapping groundwater aquifers, drawing water from the Colorado River brought to the city by aqueduct, and purchasing water from local farmers. Air-conditioning is the lifeblood of Phoenix, as much a part of the city as the subway system is in New York. In 1961, Herbert Leggett, a Phoenix banker, spoke of his normal summer day to The Saturday Evening Post: “I awake in my air-conditioned home in the morning … I dress and get into my air-conditioned automobile and drive to the air-conditioned garage in the basement of this building. I work in an air-conditioned office, eat in an air-conditioned restaurant, and perhaps go to an air-conditioned theater.”

    In the kind of air-conditioned bubbles Leggett described, it is actually possible for people like me, who work indoors, to forget the heat and oppression of Phoenix’s summer—that is, until we have to scurry across a parking lot or cross concrete plazas between buildings. Starting in late April, when high temperatures regularly hit over 90, many residents fire up their AC, using it until October, when highs once again drop into the 80s. At the height of summer, Phoenix becomes virtually an indoor city during the day. Remote car starters become valuable amenities for taking the edge off the heat. Runners wake before dawn to exercise, and dogs are banned from hiking trails in city parks on triple-digit days. With air-conditioning, the benefits of Phoenix outweigh the drawbacks for many residents.

    But this lifestyle comes with a cost. Electricity consumption has soared in Phoenix, almost doubling in the average home from 1970 to today. At the height of its operation, Four Corners Power Plant, only one of five such coal-fired power plants built north of Phoenix to help power the region’s growth, emitted 16 million tons of carbon annually, equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 3.4 million cars. Even today, with most coal-fired generation retired, Phoenix relies heavily on carbon-emitting natural gas for its electricity. Both the past and present of Phoenix’s energy worsens the very heat its residents are trying to escape.

    Air-conditioning protects most people, but especially as the heat intensifies, those without it are left incredibly vulnerable. Elderly women living alone, many of whom struggle to maintain and pay for air-conditioning, are particularly susceptible, accounting for the majority of indoor heat-related deaths. Unhoused people, whose population in Phoenix has increased by 70 percent in the past six years, suffer tremendously and make up much of the death toll. One unhoused man recently compared sitting in his wheelchair to “sitting down on hot coals.”

    This heat wave will end, but there will be another. Still, the horror stories of life in 115 degrees is hardly guaranteed to blunt Phoenix’s explosive growth. There are currently building permits for 80,000 new homes in the Phoenix metro area that have not yet commenced construction—homes that will require more water, more AC, and more energy.

    But in a sense, nothing about Phoenix is unusual at all. The movement from air-conditioned space to air-conditioned space that Leggett described—and the massive energy use that makes it all run—is now typical in a country where nearly 90 percent of homes use air-conditioning. Clothing companies such as Land’s End advertise summer sweaters that “will come to your rescue while you’re working hard for those eight hours in your office, which might feel like an icebox at times.” And heat has claimed lives in “temperate” cities such as Omaha, Seattle, and Boston. Indeed, one 2020 study concluded that the Northeast had the highest rate of excess deaths attributable to heat.

    “Why would anyone live in Phoenix?” serves as nothing more than a defensive mechanism. It makes peculiar the choices that huge numbers of Americans have made, often under economic duress—choices to move to the warm climates of the Sun Belt, to move where housing is affordable, to ignore where energy comes from and the inequalities it creates, and, above all, to downplay the threats of climate change. In that way, Phoenix isn’t the exception. It’s the norm.

    Andrew Needham

    Source link

  • Abortion Could Define California’s Elections

    Abortion Could Define California’s Elections

    CERRITOS, Calif.—Abortion rights dominated the message when the Democratic congressional candidate Jay Chen sent off a small group who had gathered to canvass for him here early on Sunday morning.

    “A right that we had all assumed we would have, the right of a woman to have control of her own health-care decisions, was taken away after 50 years,” Chen told the volunteers. He reminded them that his opponent, Republican Representative Michelle Steel, had co-sponsored “a federal ban on abortion” that would prohibit the procedure even in deep-blue California.

    “You name it, she’s on the extreme end of all these issues,” Chen said. “She’d be a complete outlier even in deep-red Kansas because even in Kansas they protected the right to an abortion. So for her to try to represent [this district] does not make any sense.”

    Chen’s exhortation captured the outsize role abortion rights could play across this year’s unusually large field of competitive U.S. House races in California, after the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority overturned Roe v. Wade earlier this summer. The Golden State offers Democrats the nation’s single largest concentration of opportunities to offset losses elsewhere by flipping House seats now held by Republicans. And the abortion-rights issue offers Democrats their best chance to do so—particularly with a state constitutional amendment protecting access to the procedure also on the November ballot as Proposition 1.

    “Because we have this on the ballot, Republicans cannot run away from this issue,” says Dave Jacobson, a Democratic consultant who is advising Christy Smith, the party’s nominee against Republican Representative Mike Garcia in another Los Angeles–area district. “Every Republican in a competitive district is vulnerable with this issue at the top of the ballot as a constitutional amendment. I think it is going to drive turnout.”

    California will provide a crucial measure of how broadly the abortion issue may benefit Democrats this year. On both sides, there’s agreement that abortion’s increased prominence will strengthen Democrats in districts with a large number of white-collar voters—including the coastal seats south of Los Angeles now held by Democratic Representatives Katie Porter and Mike Levin. Less clear is whether the issue will prove as powerful in districts, such as those held by Republican Representatives Garcia and David Valadao, with larger numbers of blue-collar and Latino voters who may be acutely feeling the effects of inflation. The district in which Chen is challenging Steel demographically falls somewhere in between.

    “Presumably you’ll see coastal Republicans split with the party on things like choice,” predicts Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist and the publisher of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which analyzes state elections. “On the other hand, when you are looking at some inland and Central Valley districts, they are very different,” he told me. Although “there’s all this chatter that abortion is so important,” Sragow added, “I suggest most Americans do not wake up with abortion the thing they are most worried about,” particularly in working-class communities.

    Though solidly Democratic at the state level—Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is cruising to reelection this year without serious Republican opposition after defeating a GOP-backed recall effort—congressional contests in California have proved highly susceptible to swings in the national mood. As part of the “blue wave” in 2018, the party flipped seven Republican-held seats, reducing the GOP to its smallest share of California’s congressional delegation since the 1880s. But in 2020, Republicans recaptured four of those districts—a key part of their unusual success at gaining House seats nationwide while losing the White House.

    Earlier this year, when inflation was raging and the Democratic legislative agenda seemed stalled, Republicans were optimistic about advancing farther across California by potentially ousting Democratic Representatives Josh Harder in the Central Valley and Porter and Levin in Orange and San Diego Counties. Although Democrats acknowledge that those races (and another Democratic-held open seat) remain competitive, they now see the opportunity to go on the offensive against Steel, Valadao, and Garcia, as well as potentially Representatives Ken Calvert and Young Kim in Southern California; they also see an opportunity to contest a Republican open seat in the Sacramento area.

    Several other issues have also contributed to this reversal of fortune: increased attention to gun violence after the Uvalde, Texas, school shooting; renewed focus on Donald Trump amid the revelations from the House January 6 committee and the firestorm over his mishandling of classified documents; and climate change after the passage of the Democrats’ slimmed-down reconciliation bill. But analysts in both parties see the Supreme Court decision reversing Roe as the pivotal factor shifting the congressional landscape across California. “We are just seeing an unprecedented level of outrage,” Representative Levin told me in an interview.

    As in other states, Republicans continue to express cautious optimism that frustration over inflation and disenchantment with the performance of President Joe Biden will outweigh views on abortion. “Of course [abortion] is going to be an issue, way more than it was in May of this year,” Lance Trover, a Republican consultant advising Representative Steel, who ousted a Democratic incumbent in 2020, told me. “But at the end of the day, the fundamentals of the economy are going to be key.”

    California Republicans face an unusually powerful headwind in moving beyond the abortion issue. Almost all Republicans holding or seeking congressional seats have staked out hard-line anti-abortion positions that directly collide with polls showing deep and broad support for abortion rights across the state.

    Polling in July by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that more than two-thirds of state residents opposed the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe. That included about three-fourths of African Americans and Asian Americans, seven in 10 white voters, and just over three-fifths of Latino voters. About three-fourths of independents, whom Republicans need to compete in California, because they are so outnumbered by registered Democrats, opposed the ruling. Opposition to the decision was greatest in the big blue metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, but even in areas where Republicans have traditionally performed somewhat better, such as Orange and San Diego Counties and the Central Valley, preponderant majorities opposed the decision.

    In another survey released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and the Los Angeles Times, more than seven in 10 California voters said they intended to support the constitutional amendment inscribing abortion rights into the state constitution.

    “From a public-opinion perspective, it’s a settled issue in California,” Mark Baldassare, the PPIC president, told me. “We have seen what we would describe as overwhelming support for abortion rights in California consistently in our polls over many, many years … That’s pretty consistent across demographic groups and regions of the state.”

    The state’s Republican congressional delegation—as well as the party’s challengers in the key races—have placed themselves firmly on the opposite side of that consensus. Four of the House Republicans facing the potentially toughest contests—Steel, Garcia, Valadao, and Calvert—signed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. All of them but Calvert have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a Republican bill that would define the unborn as a person under the Constitution from “the moment of fertilization” and effectively ban abortion nationwide, legal scholars say. Representative Kim, another Republican facing a potentially competitive race in an Orange County district, did not co-sponsor that bill, but has described herself as a “proud pro-life woman” who believes “the rights of the child must be respected.” The GOP challengers to Harder, Levin, and Porter have also publicly declared their opposition to legal abortion.

    As signs have grown of the backlash to the Supreme Court decision—including the Democratic victory in a New York congressional special election and the resounding defeat of a Kansas ballot initiative that would have opened the door to state abortion restrictions—several of the California Republicans have tried to obscure their positions. For instance, although the Life at Conception Act offers no exceptions and Steel earlier this year said she supported legal abortion only when the mother’s health was endangered, she told me in a statement, “I am pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother, and baby.” In a statement to the Los Angeles Times this week, Representative Garcia backed the same exceptions—which, again, are not included in the “life begins at conception” bill he is co-sponsoring.

    In her statement, Steel downplayed the possibility that a Republican-controlled Congress would seek to ban abortion nationwide, though notably without disavowing the idea: “Discussions surrounding a nationwide ban on abortion are purely hypothetical at this point,” she declared.

    But such vague dismissals may not dispel the vulnerability California Republicans face over the possibility of a national ban on abortion, particularly amid the parallel debate over amending the state constitution.

    Though neither supporters nor opponents of the constitutional amendment have yet raised much money, Newsom, who is emerging as a national leader for Democrats on cultural issues, is expected to campaign heavily for it and raise its visibility this fall. “I don’t want to give away our plans … but I would expect him to play a very prominent role,” Sean Clegg, a senior strategist for Newsom, told me. Abortion rights and the constitutional amendment to protect them, he added, are “going to have an effect in every single race in California.”

    The proposed amendment on the ballot in November represents the third level of protection for abortion rights in California. In earlier rulings, the state supreme court has already decided that the procedure is protected under the state constitution’s guarantees of liberty and privacy. This amendment, placed on the ballot by Newsom and the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature, adds an explicit guarantee that “the state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom … which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

    Yet even all those reinforcing levels of protection for abortion rights in the California constitution would be preempted if Congress approved a national ban, legal analysts agree. The Life at Conception Act would surely face legal challenges if a future Republican-controlled Congress passes it, but should the law be upheld, it would override any California action to guarantee abortion rights, according to Cary Franklin, a constitutional-law professor at UCLA and the faculty director of its Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. “If Congress were to pass a national ban on abortion, that would trump state law, even state constitutional law,” she told me.

    That’s a message Democrats are likely to pound across the state in the campaign’s final months. “If Steel has her way, she will pass a federal ban on abortion, which will override our protections here, and I think Californians are coming to realize that,” Chen, a Naval reservist and the owner of a business that manages commercial properties, told me. By contrast, Chen, like the other Democratic incumbents and challengers, supports legislation restoring a national right to abortion.

    Opponents of the state constitutional amendment, such as Steel, say it would authorize abortions at any point in pregnancy, ending current state restrictions after a fetus is viable outside the womb (unless the mother’s life is endangered). Its sponsors deny that interpretation, but it will likely become the centerpiece of the campaign against the amendment. “Pro-life people may have had enough,” Susan Swift Arnall, the vice president of legal affairs at California’s Right to Life League, told me. “They may say, ‘This is too far. This is too extreme … And we want to send a message back to the legislature that we don’t support abortion on demand for all nine months and even into the birth of the baby.’”

    But the greater likelihood is that the amendment mobilizes turnout among the decisive majority in the state who support abortion rights. “There’s no question the [Supreme Court] decision has really created a great deal of increased interest from women voters for sure, and not just Democrats,” Levin said. “We are talking about independents, even some Republicans. Those who historically haven’t voted in midterm elections, I think, are motivated.”

    By solidifying Democrats in suburbia, abortion rights’ growing visibility, like the increased focus on gun violence and renewed attention to Trump, may narrow the range of House districts the GOP can realistically contest both in California and nationwide, and lower the ceiling on their potential gains. But not enough voters may prioritize abortion to neutralize Republicans’ other advantages in economically strained areas. Like so much else in modern American politics, the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe seems likely to further widen the chasm between white-collar and culturally cosmopolitan metropolitan areas trending toward the Democrats and blue-collar, socially conservative smaller places hardening in their support for the GOP, even in staunchly Democratic California.

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link