Top Los Angeles federal prosecutor Bill Essayli faced blistering criticism from gun rights groups, including the NRA, after he posted on X Saturday about the fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers.
Essayli, the first assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, wrote: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, was believed to be a “lawful gun owner with a permit to carry,” according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. Bystander videos show Pretti holding a phone, but nothing appearing to be a weapon appeared in those that circulated in the hours after the shooting.
In response to Essayli’s tweet, the NRA posted on X: “This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong.”
The post continued: “Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
After receiving significant backlash, Essayli accused another gun rights organization of “adding words to mischaracterize my statement.”
“I never said it’s legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers,” he posted on X. “My comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm.
“My advice stands: If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed. If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force.”
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office in L.A. referred The Times to Essayli’s post on X clarifying what he initially said. He declined further comment.
Gov. Gavin Newsom joined in the criticism, writing on X, “Wow. Even the NRA thinks Trump’s DOJ stooge in California has gone too far for claiming federal agents were ‘legally justified’ to kill Alex Pretti.”
Earlier, a 2nd Amendment lobbying group, Gun Owners of America, also criticized Essayli.
“We condemn the untoward comments of @USAttyEssayli. Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm,” the group posted on X. “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”
Essayli’s post received a community note — a crowdsourced fact-check — noting that “the U.S. Constitution (particularly the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments) prohibit officers from shooting citizens merely for possessing a weapon that is not an “imminent threat.”
The shooting drew a large crowd of protesters in a city that had already seen widespread demonstrations after the fatal shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7.
Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi last April.
Since taking office, he has doggedly pursued President Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language verbatim at news conferences.
WASHINGTON — Do licensed gun owners have a right to carry a loaded weapon into stores, restaurants and other private places that are open to the public?
California and Hawaii are among five states with new laws that forbid carrying firearms onto private property without the consent of an owner or manager. But the Trump administration joined gun-rights advocates on Tuesday in urging the Supreme Court to strike down these laws as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
Such a law “effectively nullifies licenses to carry arms in public,” Trump’s lawyers said.
If you “stop at a gasoline station, you are committing a crime,” Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris told the court.
An attorney representing Hawaii said the issue is one of property rights, not gun rights.
“An invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock,” Washington attorney Neal Katyal told the court. “There is no constitutional right to enter property that includes a right to bring firearms.”
The justices sounded split along the usual ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives signaling they are likely to strike down the new laws in five Democratic-led states.
“You are relegating the 2nd Amendment to second-class status,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told Katyal.
He said the court had ruled law-abiding persons have a right to carry a firearm for self-defense when they leave home. That would include going to stores or businesses that are open to the public.
“If the owners don’t like guns, why don’t they just put up a sign?” Alito said.
Both sides agreed that business owners are generally free to allow or prohibit guns on their property. However, state officials said, the laws are important because business owners rarely post signs that either welcome or forbid the carrying of guns.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 2nd Amendment should have the same standing as the 1st Amendment.
He said it was understood based on the 1st Amendment that a political candidate may walk up to a house and knock on the door or drop off a pamphlet. He questioned why the court should uphold a law that limits gun owners from entering places that are open to the public.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they too believed the “right to keep and bear arms” included the right to carry weapons, including into stores.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said property rights should prevail over gun rights.
“Is there a right to go on private property with a gun?” Sotomayor asked repeatedly. She said the court had never upheld such a broad right.
But with the possible exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, none of the conservatives agreed.
Four years ago, the court ruled law-abiding gun owners had a right to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense when they left home. They also said then that guns may be prohibited in “sensitive places” but they did not decide what that meant.
In the wake of that decision, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and Maryland adopted new laws that restricted carrying guns in public places, including parks and beaches.
The laws also said gun owners may not take a gun into a privately owned business without the “express authorization” of an owner or manager. California’s law went a step further and said the owner must post a clear sign allowing guns.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the laws from Hawaii and California, except for the required posting of a sign in California.
Three Hawaii residents with concealed carry permits appealed to the Supreme Court and won the backing of the Trump administration.
Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim at U.S. President Donald Trump as he warned Thursday about the rise of fascism in an address to U.K. viewers dubbed “The Alternative Christmas Message.”The message, aired on Channel 4 on Christmas Day, reflected on the impact of the second term in office for Trump, who Kimmel said acts like he’s a king.”From a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year,” he said. “Tyranny is booming over here.”The channel began a tradition of airing an alternative Christmas message in 1993, as a counterpart to the British monarch’s annual televised address to the nation. Channel 4 said the message is often a thought-provoking and personal reflection pertinent to the events of the year.The comedian has skewered Trump since returning to the air after ABC indefinitely suspended the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show in September following criticism of comments the host made over the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.Kimmel made remarks in reference to the reaction to Kirk’s shooting, suggesting that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on the death.Trump celebrated the suspension of the veteran late-night comic and his frequent critic, calling it “great news for America.” He also called for other late-night hosts to be fired.The incident, one of Trump’s many disputes and legal battles waged with the media, drew widespread concerns about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.Hundreds of leading Hollywood stars and others in the entertainment industry urged Americans to “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.” The show returned to the air less than a week later.Kimmel told the U.K. audience that a Christmas miracle had happened in September when millions of people — some who hated his show — had spoken up for free speech.”We won, the president lost, and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking,” he said.Channel 4 previously invited whistle-blower Edward Snowden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message.Kimmel, who said he didn’t expect Brits to know who he was, warned that silencing critics is not just something that happens in Russia or North Korea.Despite the split that led to the American Revolution 250 years ago, he said the two nations still shared a special relationship and urged the U.K. not to give up on the U.S. as it was “going through a bit of a wobble right now.””Here in the United States right now, we are both figuratively and literally tearing down the structures of our democracy from the free press to science to medicine to judicial independence to the actual White House itself,” Kimmel said, in reference to demolition of the building’s East Wing. “We are a right mess, and we know this is also affecting you, and I just wanted to say sorry.”
Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim at U.S. President Donald Trump as he warned Thursday about the rise of fascism in an address to U.K. viewers dubbed “The Alternative Christmas Message.”
The message, aired on Channel 4 on Christmas Day, reflected on the impact of the second term in office for Trump, who Kimmel said acts like he’s a king.
“From a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year,” he said. “Tyranny is booming over here.”
The channel began a tradition of airing an alternative Christmas message in 1993, as a counterpart to the British monarch’s annual televised address to the nation. Channel 4 said the message is often a thought-provoking and personal reflection pertinent to the events of the year.
The comedian has skewered Trump since returning to the air after ABC indefinitely suspended the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show in September following criticism of comments the host made over the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Kimmel made remarks in reference to the reaction to Kirk’s shooting, suggesting that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on the death.
Trump celebrated the suspension of the veteran late-night comic and his frequent critic, calling it “great news for America.” He also called for other late-night hosts to be fired.
The incident, one of Trump’s many disputes and legal battles waged with the media, drew widespread concerns about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Hundreds of leading Hollywood stars and others in the entertainment industry urged Americans to “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.” The show returned to the air less than a week later.
Kimmel told the U.K. audience that a Christmas miracle had happened in September when millions of people — some who hated his show — had spoken up for free speech.
“We won, the president lost, and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking,” he said.
Channel 4 previously invited whistle-blower Edward Snowden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message.
Kimmel, who said he didn’t expect Brits to know who he was, warned that silencing critics is not just something that happens in Russia or North Korea.
Despite the split that led to the American Revolution 250 years ago, he said the two nations still shared a special relationship and urged the U.K. not to give up on the U.S. as it was “going through a bit of a wobble right now.”
“Here in the United States right now, we are both figuratively and literally tearing down the structures of our democracy from the free press to science to medicine to judicial independence to the actual White House itself,” Kimmel said, in reference to demolition of the building’s East Wing. “We are a right mess, and we know this is also affecting you, and I just wanted to say sorry.”
Immigrant truck drivers have sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles for terminating the commercial driver’s licenses of thousands of drivers, alleging that the decision violated their rights and threatened their livelihood.
California’s DMV gave a 60-day cancellation notice to 17,000 drivers on Nov. 6 after a federal audit found the licenses issued to immigrant drivers were set to expire after the time they were legally allowed to remain in the U.S.
In the event of such clerical errors by the DMV, the suit alleges, California law requires the DMV to change the expiration of its own accord or to allow applicants to reapply for a corrected license.
“The state of California must help these 20,000 drivers because, at the end of the day, the clerical errors threatening their livelihoods are of the CA-DMV’s own making,” said Munmeeth Kaur, legal director of the Sikh Coalition, a group fighting for the civil rights of Sikhs.
The Sikh Coalition and Asian Law Caucus filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of five commercial driver’s license holders, challenging the DMV’s decision to revoke licenses.
Since November, the number of cancellation notifications has grown to more than 20,000.
“If the court does not issue a stay, we will see a devastating wave of unemployment that harms individual families, as well as the destabilization of supply chains on which we all rely,” said Kaur.
The Sikh Coalition also noted that the action was taken under pressure from the federal government. It said the California DMV has failed to provide recourse, and informed applicants that it’s not issuing or renewing non-resident commercial driver’s licenses.
Punjabi Sikh truckers have emerged as a pillar of the American trucking industry. For years, many have sought asylum in the U.S. and entered the transportation industry.
There are around 750,000 Punjabi Sikhs in the United States. Of those, about 150,000 work in the trucking industry, with the majority based on the West Coast.
The issue of immigrant truckers became a political flash point earlier this year, when a Punjabi Sikh driver took an illegal U-turn at a turnpike that caused a crash in Florida that killed three people. The Trump administration swung into action and found seven states, including California, Washington and Texas, that had lax licensing rules.
The crackdown has caused a wave of racism and racial profiling of Sikh truckers, many of whom sport turbans and beards as symbols of their faith, which is neither Hindu nor Muslim.
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy singled out California for issuing commercial driver’s licenses to what his department says are unqualified immigrant truckers that put lives on the road in danger. Many truckers quit the industry after the introduction of enhanced English proficiency tests, where highway inspectors check for language proficiency and highway traffic sign competency.
Policy changes regarding noncitizen commercial licenses and English-language proficiency enforcement could remove more than 400,000 commercial drivers from the market over the next three years, according to J.B. Hunt, one of the largest trucking companies.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.
Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.
The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”
Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.
But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.
“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”
She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”
“We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.
The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.
But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”
In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.
He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”
Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.
Since June 2024, they said, the government has restricted inspections and processing of these noncitizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.
But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.
The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed without comment a long-shot challenge to the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.
The justices turned away an appeal petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who defied the court’s landmark decision in 2015 and repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
She appealed after one couple sued and won $100,000 in damages plus attorneys fees for her deliberate violation of their constitutional rights.
She argued the court should hear her case to decide whether the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should have protected her from being sued.
Her appeal also posed a separate question she had not raised before in her long legal fight. She said the court should decide “whether Obergefell v. Hodges,” which established the right to same-sex marriage, “should be overturned.”
That belated question drew wide attention to her appeal, even though there was little or no chance it would be seriously considered by the high court.
Some LGBTQ+ advocates were concerned, however, because the conservative court had overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs case of 2022.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself alone, said then “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to cases on the rights to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriages.
But other conservative justices had disagreed and said abortion was unique. “Rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe … termed ‘potential life,’ ” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her new book “Listening to the Law” described the right to marry as a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Constitution.
“The complicated moral debate about abortion stands in dramatic contrast to widespread American support for liberties like the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception, and direct the upbringing of children,” she wrote.
In July, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and nearly 300,000 children being raised by them.
Davis had suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts.
A federal judge in Kentucky and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected her claims based on the free exercise of religion.
Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis speaks to reporters in Kentucky in 2015. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected her appeal to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.
(Timothy D. Easley / Associated Press)
Those judges said government officials do not have free speech or religious right to refuse to carry out their public duties.
“That is not how the Constitution works. In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution,” Judge Helene White wrote for the 6th Circuit Court in March.
Ten years ago, shortly after the court’s ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Kentucky’s governor, the county’s attorney and a federal judge all told Davis that she was legally required to give a marriage license to same-sex couples who applied for one.
She refused and said the county would issue no marriage licenses until she had been given a special exemption.
David Moore and David Ermold had been a couple for 19 years, and they filed suit after they were turned away from obtaining a marriage license on three occasions. Davis said she was acting “under God’s authority.”
A federal judge held her in contempt for refusing to comply with the law. While she was in jail, the couple finally obtained a marriage license from one of her deputies, but their lawsuit continued.
The Kentucky Legislature revised the law to say that county clerks need not put their name on the licenses issued by her office. Davis said that accommodation was sufficient, and she tried to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot.
The 6th Circuit refused because the claim for damages was still valid and pending. The Supreme Court turned away one of her appeals in 2019.
A federal judge later ruled she had violated the rights of Moore and Ermold, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000 in damages.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, which advocates for religious freedom, appealed on her behalf.
His petition to the Supreme Court said the court should hear her case to decide whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion should shield a public official from being sued “in her individual capacity.”
The 6th Circuit Court rejected that claim in a 3-0 ruling.
“The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” Judge White said.
“Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine the dire possibilities that might follow if Davis’s argument were accepted. A county clerk who finds interracial marriage sinful could refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples. An election official who believes women should not vote could refuse to count ballots cast by females. A zoning official personally opposed to Christianity could refuse to permit the construction of a church,” she said.
Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee, said even if public employees have some rights based on their religious views, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right. … Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow.”
One of the bridges commuters use between Sacramento and West Sacramento will shut down over several days for maintenance.The I Street Bridge, built in 1911, will close beginning at 6 a.m. on Oct. 6 for Union Pacific Railroad to complete repairs to the exterior siding of a building on the bridge. All travel across the bridge will be paused during the repair period, including drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.”I’m wondering, like, how am I going to get to downtown? How am I going to get into that area? Because that’s where everything is. Everything’s popping in that area. So it’s going to be tricky,” said Oskar Castaneda, a West Sacramento resident.The primary alternate route during the closure will be the Tower Bridge. For drivers traveling on I Street from Sacramento to West Sacramento, turn left on 3rd Street and then take a right on Capitol Mall. For drivers traveling from West Sacramento to Sacramento, take 5th or 3rd streets up to Cabaldon Parkway and turn left to get onto the Tower Bridge. Highway 50 is also an alternate route, but there is construction along that stretch that could contribute to slower traffic.Commuters are being encouraged to plan ahead.”That means I gotta wake up 10-20 minutes earlier. That’s not good,” said Michael Wilson, a Sacramento resident expressing his frustrations about the closure. The closure is expected to last through 6 a.m. on Oct. 16.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
WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
One of the bridges commuters use between Sacramento and West Sacramento will shut down over several days for maintenance.
The I Street Bridge, built in 1911, will close beginning at 6 a.m. on Oct. 6 for Union Pacific Railroad to complete repairs to the exterior siding of a building on the bridge.
All travel across the bridge will be paused during the repair period, including drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.
“I’m wondering, like, how am I going to get to downtown? How am I going to get into that area? Because that’s where everything is. Everything’s popping in that area. So it’s going to be tricky,” said Oskar Castaneda, a West Sacramento resident.
The primary alternate route during the closure will be the Tower Bridge. For drivers traveling on I Street from Sacramento to West Sacramento, turn left on 3rd Street and then take a right on Capitol Mall. For drivers traveling from West Sacramento to Sacramento, take 5th or 3rd streets up to Cabaldon Parkway and turn left to get onto the Tower Bridge.
Highway 50 is also an alternate route, but there is construction along that stretch that could contribute to slower traffic.
Commuters are being encouraged to plan ahead.
“That means I gotta wake up 10-20 minutes earlier. That’s not good,” said Michael Wilson, a Sacramento resident expressing his frustrations about the closure.
The closure is expected to last through 6 a.m. on Oct. 16.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if licensed guns owners have a right to carry their weapons at public places, including parks, beaches and stores.
At issue are laws in California, Hawaii and three other states that generally prohibit carrying guns on private or public property.
Three years ago, Supreme Court ruled that law-abiding gun owners had a 2nd Amendment right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon when they leave home.
But the justices left open the question of whether states and cities could prohibit the carrying of guns in “sensitive locations,” and if so, where.
In response, California enacted a strict law that forbids gun owners from carrying their firearm in most public or private places that are open to the public unless the owner posted a sign permitting such weapons.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that provision last year as going too far, but it upheld most of a Hawaii law that restricted the carrying of guns at public places and most private businesses that are open to the public.
Gun-rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to rule that such restrictions on carrying concealed weapons violate the 2nd Amendment.
The court agreed to hear the case early next year.
Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down the Hawaii law.
It “functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
Gun-control advocates said Hawaii had enacted a “common sense law that prohibits carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public.”
“The 9th Circuit was absolutely right to say it’s constitutional to prohibit guns on private property unless the owner says they want guns there,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation, at Everytown Law. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it.”
Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.”That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022. “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:Former U.S. House Rep. Katie PorterState Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony ThurmondFormer U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier BecerraFormer Los Angeles Mayor Antonio VillaraigosaCalifornia Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty YeeFormer California Assembly Majority Leader Ian CalderonU.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.| RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governorThe two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.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. —
Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.
She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.
In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.
“That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”
Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022.
“Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”
Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.
Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.
Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:
Former U.S. House Rep. Katie Porter
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
California Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty Yee
Former California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.
Groves will turn to graves in Woodland Hills, where a developer has plans to redevelop Boething Treeland Nursery into a cemetery.
The 32-acre nursery has grown trees and other plants for the San Fernando Valley for the last seven decades, but it sold last year for $3.96 million to Dignity Memorial, the nation’s largest funeral provider. The company is in the process of submitting plans to the city of L.A. to get approval for a cemetery and funeral home on the property.
Some locals aren’t so ready for the change. The site is sandwiched between a trio of affluent communities — Woodland Hills, Hidden Hills and Calabasas — loaded with famous and outspoken residents.
The region, known for its rolling hills and serene setting, has become a hot spot for rappers, athletes and Kardashians looking for privacy outside the bustle of L.A. Such peace has a price tag — homes there regularly fetch $10 million or more — so when the proposed development became public, residents started petitioning, claiming religious objections, traffic concerns or the fright factor of living next to a cemetery.
More recently, the locals hired a law firm, Raskin Tepper Sloan Law, to push back on the project. On Monday, the firm sent a letter to the L.A. Planning Department urging the city to review the plans before giving it the green light.
“We understand this represents a significant change for the neighborhood,” said Aaron Green, the project’s spokesperson. “We value being a good neighbor and look forward to open conversations as we move forward with our plans.”
The site is sandwiched between a trio of affluent communities — Woodland Hills, Hidden Hills and Calabasas.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Green said the cemetery will have a serene and garden-like aesthetic, complete with fencing and a landscaped privacy wall around the perimeter. Two buildings will be added: a storage facility and a space for celebration of life services. Memorials will take place only during the day.
The developer will get construction and grading permits to make the property more walkable and add places for burials. The land is already zoned for use as a cemetery by right, meaning the process is expedited and doesn’t require any public hearings.
Green noted that Dignity Memorial has already started speaking with local stakeholders, despite plans not yet being submitted.
For some residents, that’s not enough. In response to mounting objections, the city of Hidden Hills released an update last month saying that the property is outside the city’s sphere of influence, and that since no new zoning is necessary, it doesn’t expect any public input in the process.
No lawsuit has been filed, but the letter sent by the law firm claims that the project shouldn’t automatically be granted the zoning rights the developer claims it has. Instead, it argues it should go through a more rigorous approval process with a CEQA review that measures the cemetery’s potential impacts on the environment, traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods.
“Dignity Memorial is attempting to sneak ‘by right’ approvals for their massive 32-acre cemetery without any public process or environmental review. Despite what may be months, if not years, of internal planning, Dignity has not shown a single site plan to nearby residents, businesses or schools,” said Scott J. Tepper, the attorney representing the residents.
Tepper said the locals aren’t NIMBYs; they’re just asking for a more rigorous review process.
In order for a project to receive the expedited timeline granted from zoning by right, it has to meet certain criteria that ensures it doesn’t disrupt the community. Green claims the cemetery plans meet all the criteria.
For example, the city requires that any added buildings be at least 300 feet away from adjacent buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods. Green said the two buildings will be that far away.
The city also requires security fencing around the entire property. Green said the fence and landscaped wall satisfy that requirement.
That hasn’t stopped locals from weighing in.
“Where was the process on this one?” wrote Helene Chemel under a Facebook post from Valley News Group, which has been reporting on the proposed development.
Others are more welcoming.
“The neighbors will be much quieter than the ones that would have been expected if the original plan had gone through,” wrote Alison Kenney, referring to earlier attempts to develop the property.
In 1985, the Boething family proposed a 22-building complex with offices and condos, a 200-room hotel, and parking for 3,630 cars. The project was met with backlash and fizzled out.
Plans ramped up again in 2017, with applications submitted for a 60,000-square-foot elderly care facility, 26 single-family homes and 95 small-lot dwellings for a total of 413,588 square feet of building space. Protests mounted again, and the plans never materialized.
“Our family decided the nursery could not continue indefinitely, and neighbors made clear they did not want a large residential project,” said Bruce Pherson, chief executive of Boething Treeland Farms. “We felt Dignity Memorial was the right buyer and we knew a cemetery would be far less impactful.”
Dignity will submit plans to the city next month. Upon approval, construction will start next year with the goal of opening the cemetery by late 2026 or early 2027.
Green said that while public hearings won’t be necessary, the company will engage with neighbors once plans are submitted.
“A cemetery is one of the least impactful, community-sensitive uses that can be proposed for this property,” he said.
A leading consumer group is proposing a policyholder rights initiative that would require insurers to offer coverage to California homeowners who fireproof their homes — or lose the right to sell home or auto insurance in the state for five years.
The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights was filed with state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office last week by Consumer Watchdog, the Los Angeles advocacy group whose founder Harvey Rosenfield authored Proposition 103, the 1988 initiative that governs California home and auto insurance law.
The initiative for the November 2026 ballot also would give policyholders not renewed by their insurer 180 days to make home repairs and improvements necessary for renewal if they face unavoidable permit, construction and other delays.
“The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights guarantees that people who invest in wildfire mitigation get coverage and prevents companies from canceling people simply because they file a claim,” Rosenfield said in a statement.
Insurers can seek six-month waivers of the rule in certain geographic areas but would need to show they have an overconcentration of risk there.
The proposed initiative comes after insurers began pulling back from the California market a few years ago after a spate of wildfires and began seeking double-digit rate increases. However, it is unclear whether the group will even start gathering the 500,000-plus signatures it would need to make the ballot.
Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said the measure was prompted by a separate initiative filed by a Roseville, Calif., insurance broker that would repeal core reforms of Proposition 103, which established an elected insurance commissioner with the right to review requests for rate hikes before they take effect.
The proposed initiative — called the California Insurance Market Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2026 — was filed by Elizabeth Hammack, owner of Panorama Insurance Associates. It would allow insurer rate increases to take effect prior to any rate review, though they could be suspended later if the insurance commissioner determines the market is not “reasonably competitive.”
Additionally, insurers would have to provide premium credits to policyholders who take steps to reduce fire dangers on their property, under the measure.
The measure also would abolish another core element of Proposition 103, by banning payments to “intervenors” such as Consumer Watchdog, which insert themselves in the rate-review process and seek to block or reduce increases — a provision that has irked the industry since its inception.
Hammack did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.
In an earlier email exchange with The Times, she said: “I drafted up the initiative and filed it out of pure frustration about the horrible California insurance market dysfunction and the feeling of just needing to do something, anything, to make a difference.”
Balber said it requires $5.5 million to gather the required signatures for an initiative. While the group is confident it could raise the funds, she said it would not proceed with its own measure unless Hammack raises money and moves forward beyond the filing stage — or if Consumer Watchdog is swamped by donations.
“There are hundreds, if not thousands of Californians who are fed up with the insurance industry and after the Los Angeles fires, I can guarantee you that there are people out there who would be begging to fund a ballot measure that would finally hold the insurance industry accountable,” she said.
Proposed ballot initiatives in California must be reviewed by the attorney general, who prepares a title and brief summary. After that, proponents have 180 days to gather signatures.
The proposed dueling ballot measures come at a time when there is widespread anger not only over rate increases, but how some insurers have handled claims stemming from the Jan. 7 Los Angeles-area fires, which destroyed thousands of homes and killed at least 19 people.
The Eaton Fire Survivors Network in Altadena and local politicians have demanded that Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara halt anymore rate increases for State Farm General, California’s largest home insurer, unless complaints over its claims handling are resolved.
In addition to State Farm, the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, has come under attack for denying smoke-damage claims. That prompted Gov. Newsom to send a letter this month calling on the plan to handle the claims “expeditiously and fairly.”
The plan has taken on hundreds of thousands of policyholders in recent years as insurers began pulling out of the state’s fire-plagued homeowners market. Hammack’s initiative seeks to have the plan establish a schedule to shrink its roles when more coverage from carriers becomes available.
Her measure also would require the California insurance commissioners to have at least five years of insurance experience, either with a regulator, insurer or in other roles, such as actuarial science.
Times staff writer Paige St. John contributed to this report.
San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert doesn’t generally agree with political parties redrawing congressional maps to gain power.
But after President Trump persuaded Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw his state’s maps in order to improve Republican chances of retaining control of Congress in 2026, Von Wilpert said she decided California’s only option was to fight back with new maps of its own, favoring Democrats.
There’s too much at stake for LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized Californians to do otherwise, said Von Wilpert — who is bisexual and running to unseat Republican incumbent Rep. Darrell Issa, a Trump ally whose district in San Diego and Riverside counties will be redrawn if voters approve the plan.
“We can’t sit on the sidelines anymore and just hope that the far right will play fair or play by the rule book,” said Von Wilpert, 42. “If we don’t fight back now, I don’t know what democracy is going to be left for us to fight for in the future.”
San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert is challenging Republican incumbent Rep. Darrell Issa, whose Southern California district would be redrawn if voters approve the redistricting plan of California Democrats.
They are running to counter those efforts, but also to resist other administration policies that they believe threaten democracy and equality more broadly, and to advocate around local issues that are important to them and their neighbors, said Elliot Imse, executive director of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute.
The institute, which has trained queer people on running for and holding political office since 1991, has already provided 450 people with in-person training so far this year, compared with 290 people all of last year, Imse said. It recently had to cap a training in Los Angeles at 54 people — its largest cohort in more than a decade — and a first-of-its-kind training for transgender candidates at 12 people, despite more than 50 applying.
“LGBTQ+ people have been extremely motivated to run for office across the country because of the attacks on their equality,” Imse said. “They know the risk, they know the potential for harassment, but those fears are really overcome by the desire to make a difference in this moment.”
“This isn’t about screaming we are trans, this is about screaming we are human — and showing that we are here, that we are competent leaders,” said Josie Caballero, voting and elections director at Advocates for Trans Equality, which helped run the training.
Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) at the DC Blockchain Summit in Washington on March 26, 2025. The summit brings together policymakers and influencers to discuss important issues facing the crypto industry.
(Kent Nishimura / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Across the country
Queer candidates still face stiff resistance in some parts of the country. But they are winning elections elsewhere like never before — Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware became the first out transgender member of Congress last year — and increasingly deciding to run.
Some are Republicans who support Trump and credit him with kicking open the political door for people like them by installing gay leaders in his administration, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Ed Williams, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBTQ+ organization, said his group has seen “a surge in interest” under Trump, with “new members and chapters springing up across the country.” He said that “LGBT conservatives stand with President Trump’s fight for commonsense policies that support our schools and parents, put America first, and create opportunities for all Americans.”
Ryan Sheridan, 35, a gay psychiatric nurse practitioner challenging fellow Republican incumbent Rep. Ann Wagner for her House seat in Missouri, said Trump has made the Republican Party a “more welcoming environment” for gay people. He said he agrees with Trump that medical interventions for transgender youth should be stopped, but also believes others in the LGBTQ+ community misunderstand the president’s perspective.
“I do not believe that he is anti-trans. I do not believe he is anti-gay,” Sheridan said. “I understand the fear might be real, but I would encourage anybody that is deeply fearful to explore some alternative points of view.”
Many more LGBTQ+ candidates, however, are Democrats or progressives — and say they were driven to run in part by their disdain for Trump and his policies.
LGBTQ+ candidates and prospective candidates listen to speakers at an LGBTQ+ Victory Institute training in downtown Los Angeles in September.
(David Butow / For The Times)
JoAnna Mendoza, a bisexual retired U.S. Marine, said she is running to unseat Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) because she took an oath to defend the U.S. and its values, and she believes those values are under threat from an administration with no respect for LGBTQ+ service members, immigrants or other vulnerable groups.
Mike Simmons, the first out LGBTQ+ state senator in Illinois, is running for the House seat of retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and leaning into his outsider persona as a gay Black man and the son of an Ethiopian asylum seeker. “I symbolize everything Donald Trump is trying to erase.”
Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones, who is a lesbian, said she is running for the House seat of the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), in a historically Black district being redrawn in Houston, because she believes “we need more gay people — but specifically Black gay people — to run and be in a position to challenge Trump.”
Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone, who is running for Colorado treasurer, said it is critical for LGBTQ+ people — especially transgender people like her — to run, including locally. Trump is looking for ways to attack blue state economies, she said, and queer people need to help ensure resistance strategies don’t include abandoning LGBTQ+ rights.
“We’re going to be extorted, and our economy is going to suffer for that, and we’re going to have to withstand that,” she said.
Rep. Brianna Titone speaks during the general assembly at the Colorado State Capitol on April 23, 2025.
(AAron Ontiveroz / Denver Post via Getty Images)
Jordan Wood, who is gay, served as chief of staff to former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County before co-founding the Constitution-backing organization democracyFIRST. He’s now back in his native Maine challenging centrist Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins.
Collins, who declined to comment, has supported LGBTQ+ rights in the past, including in military service and marriage, and has at times broken with her party to stand in Trump’s way. However, Wood said Collins has acquiesced to Trump’s autocratic policies, including in recent budget battles.
“This is a moment with our country in crisis where we need our political leaders to pick sides and to stand up to this administration and its lawlessness,” Wood said.
Candidates said they’ve had hateful and threatening comments directed toward them because of their identities, and tough conversations with their families about what it will mean to be a queer elected official in the current political moment. The Victory Institute training included information on how best to handle harassment on the campaign trail.
However, candidates said they also have had young people and others thank them for having the nerve to defend the LGBTQ+ community.
Kevin Morrison, a gay county commissioner in the Chicago suburbs who is running for the House seat of Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who is running for Senate, recently had that experience after defending a transgender high school athlete at a local school board meeting.
Morrison said the response he got from the community, including many of the school’s alumni, was “incredibly positive” — and showed how ready people are for new LGBTQ+ advocates in positions of power who “lead from a place of empathy and compassion.”
Maebe Pudlo, 39, is an operations manager for the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition and an elected member of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. She is also transgender, and running for the Central and East L.A. state Senate seat of María Elena Durazo, who is running for county supervisor.
Pudlo, who also works as a drag queen, said that simply existing each day is a “political and social statement” for her. But she decided to run for office after seeing policy decisions affecting transgender people made without any transgender voices at the table.
“Unfortunately, our lives have been politicized and trans people have become political pawns, and it’s really disgusting to me,” Pudlo said.
Like every other queer candidate who spoke to The Times, Pudlo, who has previously run for Congress, said her platform is about more than LGBTQ+ issues. It’s also about housing and healthcare and defending democracy more broadly, she said, noting her campaign slogan is “Keep Fascism Out of California.”
Still, Pudlo said she is keenly aware of the current political threats to transgender people, and feels a deep responsibility to defend their rights — for everyone’s sake.
“This whole idea of rolling back civil rights for trans people specifically — that should be concerning for anybody who cares about democracy,” Pudlo said. “Because if they’ll do it to my community, your community is next.”
Former Palm Springs Mayor Lisa Middleton speaks at a training event for LGBTQ+ candidates and prospective candidates in L.A. in September. Also in the photo are, from left, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund President Evan Low, West Hollywood City Councilmember Danny Hang, Culver City Councilmember Bubba Fish and Virginia state Sen. Danica Roem.
(David Butow / For The Times)
Juan Camacho, a 44-year-old Echo Park resident also running for Durazo’s seat, said he feels a similar responsibility as a gay Mexican immigrant — particularly as Trump rolls out the “Project 2025 playbook” of attacking immigrants, Latinos and LGBTQ+ people, he said.
Brought to the U.S. by his parents as a toddler before becoming documented under President Reagan’s amnesty program, Camacho said he understands the fear that undocumented and mixed-status families feel, and he wants to use his privilege as a citizen now to push back.
Veteran California legislative leader Toni Atkins, who has long been out and is now running for governor, said the recent attacks on LGBTQ+ and especially transgender people have been “pretty disheartening,” but have also strengthened her resolve — after 50 years of LGBTQ+ people gaining rights in this country — to keep fighting.
“It’s what it’s always been: We want housing and healthcare and we want equal opportunity and we want to be seen as contributing members of society,” she said. “We have a responsibility to be visible and, as Harvey Milk said, to ‘give them hope.’”
After 10 months of negotiations, Loyola Marymount University abruptly announced it would no longer recognize its faculty union.
The news, delivered in an email to students and employees on Friday, sent shock waves through the union, which represents nearly 400 part-time and full-time educators who do not hold tenure-track positions.
Paul S. Viviano, chairman of the university’s board of trustees, said in the email that the university was ending its engagement with the union by invoking its “constitutionally protected religious exemption” from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, which governs collective bargaining for private employers.
“I was floored,” said Maureen Gonzales, 35, who has worked part-time as a dance instructor on campus since 2016 and serves as an elected member of the union’s bargaining team. “It’s outrageous.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that religious colleges are not under the purview of federal labor laws and need not recognize unions. Many religious colleges have chosen to do so voluntarily anyway.
But in recent years, several educational institutions — now including Loyola Marymount — have claimed the religious exemption suddenly and without warning, effectively using it to shut down established faculty unions that they had previously recognized.
Loyola Marymount’s announcement has sparked protest and drawn allegations of union-busting from faculty members as well as leaders of Service Employees International Union Local 721, the labor group that represents them. Unionized employees have accused the university of aligning with Trump administration efforts “to stomp out the labor movement,” and plan to file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.
“Let’s be clear: This action is illegal,” said David Green, president and executive director of SEIU 721. “[F]aculty members will fight this with everything we have. LMU messed with the wrong union.”
Administrators are defending the move, arguing that getting rid of the union will help support the university’s financial health, and thus “protect [its] Catholic mission.”
Kat Weaver, the university’s interim executive vice president and provost, said that after months of bargaining and modeling the union’s proposals, the board of trustees found that the changes would force an 18% tuition increase, 300 layoffs and cuts to student programs, and determined “the responsible path was to invoke the religious exemption.”
The university’s move is “firmly grounded in law and the U.S. Constitution,” Weaver said in a statement to The Times. “This right cannot be waived and may be exercised at any point.”
Faculty members voted overwhelmingly last summer to join SEIU, citing issues of low pay and precarious job status. Many work on short, semester-long contracts across three colleges at the university: the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts, the College of Communication and Fine Arts and the School of Film and Television.
They teach subjects such as animation, communications, dance, English, music, philosophy, photography, political science and screenwriting, among others.
On Tuesday, scores of staff members and union organizers rallied outside the entrance to the university’s campus in Westchester, which sits on a bluff overlooking the Pacific. Armed with signs reading, “LMU: Back to the table now,” and, “Union busting is not a Jesuit value,” they marched back and forth across Loyola Boulevard.
Bryan Wisch, a 33-year-old rhetorical arts instructor and alumnus of the university, said 75% of faculty in the union work part time on semester-long contracts for “poverty wages.” Those who work full time typically have slightly longer contracts that last one to three years, he said.
Wisch said he’s “one of the lucky ones” who works full time. Still, he said his annual pay of $68,000 isn’t sufficient to live in costly Los Angeles, and he’s taken on a second job to make ends meet.
Wisch said the university has disingenuously characterized the union as an outside party, even though the bargaining committee is made up of 15 employees elected from the three colleges.
The university said it is still committed to working with non-tenure-track faculty to improve conditions, but wanted to remove the “third-party intermediaries of SEIU and NLRB.” The university said it has already implemented salary and merit wage increases for non-tenure-track faculty that amount to an average 7.8% pay raise, retroactive to August.
“We are expanding full-time positions, strengthening contracts and promotion pathways,” Weaver said. “Respecting workers and workers’ rights and choosing a different governance path are not contradictions.”
Many Catholic universities teach social justice doctrines of the Catholic Church, which have a long history of support for organized labor. Pope Leo XIII in 1891 used the platform of the papacy to offer a spirited defense of unions and the rights of workers in his seminal encyclical, “Rerum Novarum.”
But while some Catholic universities embrace unions in line with such doctrines, others still object, said William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College, City University of New York.
Typically, universities raise objections at the beginning of the union process, Herbert said. He called it “peculiar” that Loyola Marymount made an about-face after negotiating for months.
“It raises questions as to the actual motivations. Is it a sincere belief unionization will interfere with the religious education of the school? Or is it to avoid having to engage in collective bargaining?” Herbert said. “It does not sound to me that they’re concerns of religious liberty.”
Joshua D. Nadreau, an attorney and regional managing partner at the law firm Fisher Phillips, said the motivation may not ultimately have weight, since the labor board, even with a Democratic majority, has sided with universities on this issue in recent years.
“I don’t foresee a real avenue for actual relief here,” Nadreau said “Courts are incredibly reluctant to weigh in on the authenticity of religious practices.”
Some 600 Catholic institutions across the U.S., including universities, hospitals and other medical facilities, are unionized, according to a 2024 report by the Catholic Labor Network.
A 1979 Supreme Court decision regarding the Catholic Bishop of Chicago ruled that the NLRB should not seek to regulate religious institutions, arguing that problems with religious freedom protections enshrined in the First Amendment can arise when a government office tries to determine if certain activities are religious or not.
In the decades since, rulings by federal courts and the NLRB have focused on creating a standard to deem whether a school is a religious institution, and whether the labor board can assert itself when it comes to employees who are not involved with its religious mission.
Recent rulings have further curtailed the NLRB’s reach. A U.S. Court of Appeals in 2020 blocked the board from requiring that Duquesne University, a Catholic institution in Pittsburgh, recognize an adjunct faculty union because it could lead to an “intrusive inquiry” that could infringe on the institution’s religious protections.
In 2021, St. Leo University in Florida moved to nix its 44-year-old faculty union. The union contested the withdrawal of recognition, arguing the university changed the terms and conditions of employment without the union’s consent in violation of federal labor law.
But in 2024, the NLRB sided with St. Leo, saying it could not exercise oversight at the religious institution.
It wasn’t the greeting I was expecting from my dad when I stopped by for lunch Wednesday at his Anaheim home.
“¿Quién es Charlie Kirk?”
Papi still has a flip phone, so he hasn’t sunk into an endless stream of YouTube and podcasts like some of his friends. His sources of news are Univisión and the top-of-the-hour bulletins on Mexican oldies stations — far away from Kirk’s conservative supernova.
Papi kept watering his roses while I went on my laptop to learn more. My stomach churned and my heart sank as graphic videos of Kirk taking a bullet in the neck while speaking to students at Utah Valley University peppered my social media feeds. What made me even sicker was that everyone online already thought they knew who did it, even though law enforcement hadn’t identified a suspect.
Conservatives blamed liberalism for demonizing one of their heroes and vowed vengeance. Some progressives argued that Kirk had it coming because of his long history of incendiary statements against issues including affirmative action, trans people and Islam. Both sides predicted an escalation in political violence in the wake of Kirk’s killing — fueled by the other side against innocents, of course.
“So who was he?” Papi asked again. By then, Donald Trump had announced Kirk’s death. Text messages streamed in from my colleagues. I gave my dad a brief sketch of Kirk’s life, and he frowned when I said the commentator had supported Trump’s mass deportation dreams.
Hate wasn’t on Papi’s mind, however.
“It’s sad that he got killed,” Papi said. “May God bless him and his family.”
“Are politics going to get worse now?” he added.
It’s a question that friends and family have been asking me ever since Kirk’s assassination. I’m the political animal in their circles, the one who bores everyone at parties as I yap about Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom while they want to talk Dodgers and Raiders. They’re too focused on raising families and trying to prosper in these hard times to post a hot take on social media about political personalities they barely know.
They’ve long been over this nation’s partisan divide, because they work and play just fine with people they don’t agree with. They’re tired of being told to loathe someone over ideological differences or blindly worship a person or a cause because it’s supposedly in their best interests. They might not have heard of Kirk before his assassination, but they now worry about what’s next — because a killing this prominent is usually a precursor of worse times ahead.
I wasn’t naive enough to think that the killing of someone as divisive as Kirk would bring Americans together to denounce political terrorism and forge a kinder nation. I knew that each side would embarrass itself with terrible takes and that Trump wouldn’t even pretend to be a unifier.
But the collective dumpster fire we got was worse than I had imagined.
President Donald Trump shakes hands with moderator Charlie Kirk, during a Generation Next White House forum at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2018.
(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)
Although conservatives brag that no riots have sparked, as happened after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, they’re largely staying silent as the loudest of Kirk’s supporters vow to crush the left once and for all. The Trump administration is already promising a crackdown against the left in Kirk’s name, and no GOP leaders are complaining. People are losing their jobs because of social media posts critical of Kirk, and his fans are cheering the cancel cavalcade.
Meanwhile, progressives are flummoxed by the right, yet again. They can’t understand why vigils nationwide for someone they long cast as a white nationalist, a fascist and worse are drawing thousands. They’re dismissing those who attend as deluded cultists, hardening hearts on each side even more. They’re posting Kirk’s past statements on social media as proof that they’re correct about him — but that’s like holding up a sheet of paper to dam the Mississippi.
I hadn’t paid close attention to Kirk, mostly because he didn’t have a direct connection to Southern California politics. I knew he had helped turn young voters toward Trump, and I loathed his noxious comments that occasionally caught my attention. I appreciated that he was willing to argue his views with critics, even if his style was more Cartman from “South Park” (which satirized Kirk’s college tours just weeks ago) than Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale.
I understand why his fans are grieving and why opponents are sickened at his canonization by Trump, who seems to think that only conservatives are the victims of political violence and that liberals can only be perpetrators. I also know that a similar thing would happen if, heaven forbid, a progressive hero suffered Kirk’s tragic end — way too many people on the right would be dancing a jig and cracking inappropriate jokes, while the left would be whitewashing the sins of the deceased.
We’re witnessing a partisan passion play, with the biggest losers our democracy and the silent majority of Americans like my father who just want to live life. Weep or critique — it’s your right to do either. But don’t drag the whole country into your culture war. Those who have navigated between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left for too long want to sail to calmer waters. Turning Kirk’s murder into a modern-day Ft. Sumter when we aren’t even certain of his suspected killer’s motives is a guarantee for chaos.
I never answered my dad’s question about what’s next for us politically. In the days since, I keep rereading what Kirk said about empathy. He derided the concept on a 2022 episode of his eponymous show as “a made-up, new age term that … does a lot of damage.”
Kirk was wrong about many things, but especially that. Empathy means we try to understand each other’s experiences — not agree, not embrace, but understand. Empathy connects us to others in the hope of creating something bigger and better.
It’s what allows me to feel for Kirk’s loved ones and not wish his fate on anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or their views. It’s the only thing that ties me to Kirk — he loved this country as much as I do, even if our views about what makes it great were radically different.
Preaching empathy might be a fool’s errand. But at a time when we’re entrenched deeper in our silos than ever, it’s the only way forward. We need to understand why wishing ill on the other side is wrong and why such talk poisons civic life and dooms everyone.
Kirk was no saint, but if his assassination makes us take a collective deep breath and figure out how to fix this fractured nation together, he will have truly died a martyr’s death.
LET’S BRING IN FIRST WARNING METEOROLOGIST ERIC BURRIS DRY RIGHT NOW. WE WILL SEE A COUPLE OF POCKETS OF SHOWERS LATER ON TODAY. YOU KNOW, IT’S STILL WE’RE STILL FLORIDA. WE’RE STILL WATERS ON THREE SIDES OF US. YEAH, BUT LOOK AT THE SEVEN DAY FORECAST. BECAUSE HERE’S ONE THING. WE DON’T HAVE 90S. IT’S ALL UPPER 80S FOR HIGHS. AND WHILE YES, THIS WEEKEND THERE’S A FEW SHOWERS, WE GO EVEN DRIER MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY. AND THEN BY LATE NEXT WEEK, MODELS ARE SAYING WE’LL KIND OF RETURN TO A BIT OF A SUMMER PATTERN. SO SHOWERS AND THUNDERSHOWERS GET GOING. BUT AT THIS HOUR, LET’S JUST TALK ABOUT THE LACK OF MUGGINESS. WE’RE IN A COMFY TERRITORY AND TEMPERATURES AROUND TOWN LOOKING ABSOLUTELY DYNAMITE. 71. THIS IS THE COOLEST. ORLANDO HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY AT LEAST SINCE JULY 1ST. 66 DEGREES IN OCALA. YOU WERE AT ABOUT 66 YESTERDAY, BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE IT FEEL ANY LESS INCREDIBLE. AND IT’S A SATURDAY 69 OUTSIDE IN LEESBURG AND EVEN ALONG THE COASTLINE, THINGS FEEL FANTASTIC, AT LEAST INLAND A BIT, RIGHT? IT’S 77 FOR PORT CANAVERAL, BUT 74 ON MERRITT ISLAND, 72 IN PORT SAINT JOHN. SO YOU HEAD INLAND. IT FEELS GREAT. VOLUSIA COUNTY, GOOD MORNING TO YOU. 69 DEGREES IN CHESTER, 70 DEGREES FOR VICTORIA GARDENS, DELAND. AND THEN BEACHSIDE, RIGHT. 79 AT THE INLET, 80 DEGREES BEACH SAFETY HQ, WHICH IS BEACHSIDE NEAR DAYTONA BEACH. RIGHT. SO OUTSIDE IT’S BEAUTIFUL. BUT THAT BREEZE COMING IN OFF THE OCEAN IS AT LEAST INFLUENCING US JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND LATER TODAY, THAT BREEZE COMING IN OFF THE OCEAN WILL INFLUENCE US. BRINGING IN COASTAL SHOWERS. FOR NOW, THEY’RE STAYING PUT OFF THE SHORELINE, BUT THAT WILL CHANGE. MOST OF THE MOISTURE IS OVER SOUTH FLORIDA, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT ENERGY OFFSHORE. AND LATER TODAY WE’LL TAP INTO SOME OF THAT AND BRING IT ON IN HIGHS TODAY MID 80S. BEACHSIDE, UPPER 80S ACROSS THE INTERIOR, LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE OF 90. BUT IT’S A FRESH BREEZE TEN, 15, 20 MILES AN HOUR. SO THERE’S THAT BREEZE KIND OF PICKING UP ON SOME OF THAT MOISTURE, BRINGING IN SOME SHOWERS. SAME IDEA FOR US TOMORROW. BUT IS THIS STORM SYSTEM AND COLD FRONT PULL AWAY FROM US? WE’RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GRAB SOME DRIER AIR AND PULL THAT ON DOWN. SO THAT’S WHERE OUR WORKWEEK DRIES OUT A BIT. EITHER WAY THOUGH, MAKING PLANS FOR SATURDAY LOOKS GREAT. SEAWORLD. ASIDE FROM WATCHING SOME OF THOSE COASTAL SHOWERS TRY TO WORK IN, IT’S A COMFY BREEZE FOR US TODAY. EPIC UNIVERSE, IF YOU’RE HEADING OUT TO ENJOY, OPENS UP 10 A.M., STAYS OPEN UNTIL TEN. WE’LL BE WATCHING THE RADAR FOR A FEW SHOWERS THIS AFTERNOON. OTHERWISE WE’RE LOOKING GOOD. 40% COVERAGE EAST OF TOWN. REALLY? SAME IDEA TOMORROW. DRIER. MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY AND THEN THUNDERSTORMS RETURN THURSDAY. FRIDAY. COASTAL SEVEN-DAY FORECAST LOOKING GREAT AS WELL WI
When presented with the problem in the past, builders and developers were able to turn lima bean fields and orange groves into row after row of homes. But the vast swaths of open land on the city’s fringes vanished decades ago.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has said that Los Angeles should add 456,643 new units by 2029 — a number that has generated controversy. To meet those demands, the city will have to create new ways of growing its inventory — strategies that will allow the city’s established communities to welcome many more residents than they are able to accommodate now.
The big questions are, as always: where, how and how much new housing should be built.
Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.
The Times reached out to two sources with scenarios that challenge conventional thinking — two plans for the San Fernando Valley, which, half a century ago, provided the space for much of the city’s growth.
The first scenario proposes awakening a sleepy commercial corridor with low- and mid-rise apartments. The other focuses on 20 miles of vacant land — below electrical transmission lines that snake through the Valley.
Reseda reimagined
Like many L.A. suburbs, Reseda began as a small town center surrounded by fields.
As the West San Fernando Valley developed after World War II, those fields filled with an expansive grid of single-family homes.
Vestiges of Reseda’s small-town beginning still survive in block after block of single-story businesses like the Traders pawnbroker and jewelry store at the intersection of Reseda Boulevard and Sherman Way.
But snapshots of the future have begun to appear. A few blocks to the north, a five-story apartment building rises between a Thai restaurant and a used car lot.
How many more of those would be needed for Reseda, or any similar community, to contribute its fair share of the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the city of Los Angeles?
The Times posed that question to Los Angeles-based policy think tank Center for Pacific Urbanism, which has spent years examining the causes of and solutions for L.A.’s housing shortage.
Its recent research created an equity scale to calculate targets for individual communities based on five factors: affordability, environmental quality, transit availability, past down-zoning and socioeconomics.
In the modern era, housing construction across Los Angeles peaked twice, once before the Great Depression and then in a postwar boom.
Reseda was a part of the postwar boom. Initially dominated by single-family homes, growth then shifted to medium-size apartment buildings. Construction of both types fell off precipitously by 1990, as anti-development sentiments gained ascendance. A tiny sliver representing accessory dwelling units has appeared in the last decade, part of a shift in housing topology that is just beginning.
The Reseda-West Van Nuys community falls near the middle of the city’s 34 community planning areas and will need 13,885 new housing units to meet its target. At one extreme, 14,000 single-family homes would meet the need. At the other it would take 1,400 10-unit buildings. The first is unfeasible — there isn’t that much land — and the other, a new high-rise canyon, would be unpalatable.
The Pacific Urbanism staff imagined a hybrid model that, they believe, would allow Reseda to achieve its goal with the least amount of community angst.
The plan looks a lot like a return to the building patterns of the 1970s but with a few significant differences. Like then, more than half of the new units would be provided in large and medium-size apartment buildings. But in place of single-family home construction that was already dwindling, almost a quarter of the new units would come from new housing types that did not exist then — accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and the conversion of existing commercial space into housing.
Above all, the pace of development would have to increase precipitously to reach the state’s 2029 goal.
The reimagined Reseda includes 37 buildings of 100 or more units, 73 medium-size buildings of 25 to 99 units and 484 duplex and small apartment buildings of up to 24 units. There would be 1,854 ADUs, including more than 1,000 that have already been built or permitted since 2020 and more than a thousand units in commercial conversions.
Here’s how the Pacific Urbanism hybrid model could work
The reimagined Reseda includes 37 buildings of 100 or more units, 73 medium-size buildings of 25 to 99 units and 484 duplex and small apartment buildings of up to 24 units. There would be 1,854 ADUs, including more than 1,000 that have already been built or permitted since 2020 and more than a thousand units in commercial conversions.
Existing
Permitted
Projected
The low-density area could see a variety of new building sizes with the largest added along the main corridors
At the moment the majority of the structures are one to four unit properties.
Single-family
2-24 units
25-99
100+
City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Assessor and Pacific Urbanism
A similar result could be achieved with a different mix of housing types. But Dario Alvarez, Pacific Urbanism president, says that his organization’s hybrid scenario, based on building trends across the city, is the most feasible, if those trends persist.
Some progress has been made. Since 2019, city law has given single-family homeowners a right to build second units on their property. A raft of recent state laws provides incentives to builders and homeowners such as increased density for affordable housing and up to four units on single-family lots. And Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Order 1 streamlined the approval of affordable projects.
Those changes have helped, but don’t “get us anywhere close to what’s needed to meet the target, much less in an equitable way where all communities contribute a fair share,” Alvarez said. According to his calculations, the current rate of construction in Reseda would have to increase 16-fold to meet the target by 2029.
Pacific Urbanism proposes upgrading the zoning from medium- to high-density near the intersection of Reseda Boulevard and Sherman Way and creating medium-density zones to replace much of what is now single-family residences and small businesses.
A review of the Reseda-West Van Nuys community plan, including the zoning, is underway and is in the consulting phase. It’s expected to be complete in a year or two.
Considering the fight that single-family communities generally put up to preserve the character of what has come to represent the “American Dream” — and the single family home and yard —there’s no guarantee those changes will be made. The state housing mandate requires the city only to create a pathway to the housing targets by adjusting zoning that is currently too restrictive.
Bury the transmission lines; build on top
If you’ve spent time in the San Fernando Valley, it would be easy to view the overhead electrical transmission lines that stretch for more than 20 miles simply as essential wallpaper of modern living. The lines help ensure that 1.6 million households and businesses across the city can turn on the lights through a mostly uninterrupted band of 100- to 200-foot tall towers on a 150-foot wide strip of land.
This 20.5-mile path of electrical transmission lines in the Valley could fit 23,000 housing units
California Energy Commission, City of Los Angeles
But what if that land, which travels through the heart of Northridge, Granada Hills, Mission Hills, Arleta and North Hollywood, could continue to power Los Angeles while also meeting the housing needs of tens of thousands of people? The idea is almost too simple: Put the transmission lines underground and homes on top.
We wish such an innovative concept was ours. But it comes from Jingyi “Jessy” Qiu, a Boston-based landscape designer who conceived of the idea while studying at the Harvard Graduate School of Design a few years ago. In Qiu’s vision, the project reclaims dead space in the middle of bustling neighborhoods for the public good.
Qiu calls the right of way beneath the power lines “a land of opportunity to solve the housing problem in L.A.”
The project ticks many of the boxes for what large, sustainable development in Los Angeles can be.
It’s climate-friendly. As the region becomes hotter and drier, taking down overhead power lines lowers the risk of sparking wildfires. And by building in established communities, new residents will be able to reduce their commutes for work and shopping, while existing residents will have new offices and stores nearby.
There’s a way to pay for it. At one point, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which owns the lines and the land underneath, told us it would cost roughly $100 million to put the lines underground. More recently, the public utility said it couldn’t provide a price tag, and that, although possible, undergrounding transmission lines is rare, complex and expensive. An optimist would respond that revenue from the new development could cover much of, if not all, the cost, especially since the land itself would be free.
It’s a lot of housing. By Qiu’s calculations, 23,000 homes could be built along the 20 miles.
Qiu modeled the project through designing superblocks that could be repeated end to end throughout each community.
Courtesy Jingyi “Jessy” Qiu
Neighborhoods and topography along the route differ and so does the planned development. In North Hollywood, a denser mix of small apartments, mixed-use complexes and single-family homes with casitas fills the flatlands. In Granada Hills, lower densities fit in the highlands. In Northridge, student housing is prioritized near the state university.
Today, people who live near the power lines complain of dust, litter and loitering, and worry about wires falling in high winds and storms.
It’s not that the right of way under the power lines now is unkempt. Many nursery businesses fill the land underneath. Landscaping is maintained. It’s just that, as one neighbor put it, barren land attracts negative activity. Of all things, the right of way is dark at night.
Besides housing, the development opens up space to the broader community. There’s room for continued nursery operations while adding parks, courtyards and shared gardens. Qiu even proposes repurposing some existing transmission towers, especially in the hills, into platforms for bird-watching.
How one Granada Hills block might look
Courtesy Jingyi “Jessy” Qiu
One fear, of course, is adding this many new homes to an existing area could cause congestion. But the 20-mile stretch of homes ensures that traffic would be spread out. Superblocks could tie into the current road network and add parking while also providing long and unified bike and pedestrian infrastructure — not to mention the centralized open and community space — to neighborhoods lacking it now.
A future Los Angeles that takes its housing and climate challenges seriously will have to look for opportunities to make better use of space. Fitting 23,000 new homes into the Valley by redeveloping a land now used for a relic hits that mark.
The nonbinary transgender senior at UCLA had decided last month, after years of personal discovery and long discussions with their family and doctors, to start testosterone therapy. The first few weeks felt exciting, fulfilling.
Then Donald Trump, after running a virulently anti-transgender campaign, won the presidential election Tuesday — which felt “really frightening” and “disheartening,” Poznanski said.
“I’m sort of still stunned about how big of an issue trans expression and rights became on Trump’s side, and how hard they campaigned on it,” the 21-year-old Murrietta native said Wednesday. “I’m just feeling scared, honestly.”
Across the U.S., transgender and other queer people are grappling with the fact that Americans voted in large numbers for a candidate who openly ridiculed them on the campaign trail, and a political party that spent millions on anti-LGBTQ+ attack ads.
For many, Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump is not just upsetting but deeply threatening. They are looking for reasons to be optimistic, such as Sarah McBride’s election in Delaware, which will make her the first out transgender member of Congress. But most just feel gutted — in part because they believe Trump will carry through on his promises to strip away their rights.
Sarah McBride, at an election watch party Tuesday in Wilmington, Del., is set to be sworn in as the first out transgender member of Congress in January.
(Pamela Smith / Associated Press)
“It’s a scary time to be a trans person, and to hear so much really unfounded and startling rhetoric from that side, and to think that that may be pushed into actual legislation,” Poznanski said.
Trump’s election follows years of increasing political hostility toward transgender people and a wave of state laws aimed at curtailing the rights of this tiny subset of the American population. But it also marked a new escalation.
Trump denigrated transgender people from the start of the race. In one of his first campaign videos — part of his “Agenda 47” policy platform — he said “left-wing gender insanity [was] being pushed on our children” and amounted to “child abuse.”
He said he would sign an executive order upon taking office “instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age”; block federal funding to hospitals that provide gender-affirming care; ensure “severe consequences” for teachers who acknowledge transgender children; and push schools to “promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”
Trump also routinely disparaged transgender people on the campaign trail. He cast them as a threat to women and girls, including in sports, and told absurd lies to drum up additional fear — including his claim that American children were being whisked out of schools to have genital surgeries without their parents’ consent.
In September, Trump’s campaign started running an attack ad that hammered Harris over a policy of providing gender-affirming healthcare to federal inmates, using the line, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” And when that appeared to resonate with voters, the campaign doubled down, airing anti-transgender ads during sports games and across the swing states. One recent estimate put Republican spending on anti-transgender ads on network television alone at $215 million.
Trans rights supporters protested at the Indiana Statehouse last year before passage of a ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors.
(Darron Cummings / Associated Press)
LGBTQ+ rights organizations have challenged the notion that voters found Trump’s anti-transgender message appealing, and polls have shown that many Americans support transgender rights. Still, the fact that such a message was so core to Trump’s winning campaign says something about the American electorate, according to transgender people and their family members.
“I think it was very popular with his base, and with the folks who were throwing money at him,” said Amber Easley, a mother in San Bernardino County whose 17-year-old son, Milo, is transgender. “It was a direct contributor to [Trump’s] success, which is kind of devastating.”
Jaymes Black, chief executive of the Trevor Project, which operates phone, text and chat lines for queer youth experiencing suicidal thoughts or otherwise needing to talk, said the group’s services had seen demand increase about 125% on election day through Wednesday morning, compared to normal days.
“The Trevor Project wants LGBTQ+ young people to know that we are here for you, no matter the outcome of any election, and we will continue to fight for every LGBTQ+ young person to have access to safe, affirming spaces — especially during challenging times,” Black said. “LGBTQ+ young people: your life matters, and you were born to live it.”
Erin Reed, a transgender activist and independent journalist who has written extensively about the trans community, said there is “a lot of despair” out there among queer people.
Trans rights activist and journalist Erin Reed, right, and her fiancee, Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, in 2023.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)
“I’m not going to sugarcoat it: I had to talk three or four people down from suicide,” Reed said of conversations she‘d had on election night. “That’s the reality that people are facing right now.”
Many transgender people are already “very unsafe” living in Republican-controlled states that have passed sweeping anti-trans measures in recent years, Reed said, including bans on gender-affirming healthcare, on transgender people using bathrooms that match their identities, on queer-affirming books, and on processes that allow transgender people to update state documents such as driver’s licenses.
Now, Reed said, transgender people around across the country — including in blue states — are wondering whether Trump and his newly empowered Republican colleagues in the upcoming Congress will be able to pass similar measures at the federal level.
Those in the trans community are also worried that Democrats will abandon them now based on a perception that defending them is too costly politically, Reed said; they’re wondering, “How do we manage to not get thrown under the bus?”
Many Democrats have voiced solidarity with the queer community, and queer leaders and organizations are doing outreach to make sure queer people are OK and to push back against Republican narratives that dehumanize transgender people — which is all vital, but not enough, said Honey Mahogany, executive director of the San Francisco Office of Transgender Initiatives.
“I would like to see solidarity from other communities, assurances that we are all in this together and then collective organizing,” she said.
Both she and Reed said transgender voices are too often left out of the discussion about transgender lives, and said that must stop.
Milo Easley, a senior at Redlands High School, agrees. He wants more people to talk about transgender issues — just not in the way Trump does, with “so much negativity” and “a lot of fearmongering.”
Milo Easley, a transgender high school student, at home in Redlands last year.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Milo said he finds some comfort living in California, which has laws that protect transgender people and gender-affirming care — but he’s still scared by Trump’s win and worried about queer friends in other states.
“They are already dealing with anti-trans policies, and the risk of having more under Trump is a serious concern,” Milo said. “A lot of them tell me how they are afraid for the future with Trump in office.”
He is trying to stay positive — including about the future, where he sees “a lot of room for improvement” — but it’s tough.
Poznanski also feels lucky to live in California, and to be receiving gender-affirming healthcare, but worries about young people in less-friendly states who don’t have access to such treatment.
But Poznanski is also hopeful and determined to live.
“Our existences are politicized,” they said. “But just living is an act of resistance.”
I’ve been looking for the right apartment close enough to work, in the right price range, and availability for a few months now and just about twenty minutes ago or so the manager of the property sent me a text and said that I had it!! GUYS I’M SO FRIGGIN PSYCHED
*** lot of work is being done to make sure you’re safe at the polls and that the election process isn’t interrupted. And two important things to know if you’re voting in person this year, if there are long lines and polls close while you’re still in line, stay in line, you have *** right to vote and election officials will outline *** plan. And if you make *** mistake on your ballot, you can ask for *** new one and start over head to our app or our website and check out the commitment 2024 section for information on your local and national races, ballot issues and information on how to vote and join our news teams on election night for information and results as we learn that, thank you for joining us.
Know your rights: Essential things to know before voting at the polls
Did you make a mistake on your ballot or do you need accommodations?
Updated: 12:00 AM EDT Oct 19, 2024
A number of laws protect voters as they play their part in our democracy, so they can cast their vote confidently. Before heading to the polls on Election Day, here are the rights you need to know that protect you by law:If the polls close while you’re still in line, stay in line. You have the right to vote. If you make a mistake on your ballot, you can ask a poll worker for a new one. If the machines are down at your polling place, you can ask for a paper ballot.If you are registered to vote but your name is not listed in the poll book, you are still entitled to a provisional ballot. Your ballot will be held separately from the regular ballots until an election official determines whether you are qualified to vote and are registered. If you meet those requirements, they will count your provisional ballot.If you are a voter with a disability and need accommodations, all polling places for federal elections must be fully accessible. Voters with disabilities and those unable to read or write can choose a person to assist in all aspects of the voting process except if the assistant is the voter’s employer or union. If you have difficulty reading or writing English, you can ask for assistance. Certain jurisdictions, determined by the Census Bureau, must provide all election information that is available in English in the covered minority language. The election process must be equally accessible in the minority language as it is in English. It is illegal to intimidate, threaten or coerce someone from voting or attempting to vote, as well as people who are urging or helping others to vote. How can I report a violation? To report a possible civil rights violation, you can report it to the Civil Rights Division online at civilrights.justice.gov or by phone at 800-251-3931.To report possible federal crimes, including potential threats against voters, election officials, or election fraud, you can contact the FBI either online at tips.fbi.gov or by phone at 800-CALL-FBI.This segment is part of a half-hour news special called Commitment 2024: Get the Facts. The special helps voters get the facts on the voting process and debunks election-related disinformation that could surface in the final hours before Election Day. To watch the full special, check your local listing for air dates or watch on the Very Local app.
A number of laws protect voters as they play their part in our democracy, so they can cast their vote confidently.
Before heading to the polls on Election Day, here are the rights you need to know that protect you by law:
If the polls close while you’re still in line, stay in line. You have the right to vote.
If you make a mistake on your ballot, you can ask a poll worker for a new one.
If the machines are down at your polling place, you can ask for a paper ballot.
If you are registered to vote but your name is not listed in the poll book, you are still entitled to a provisional ballot. Your ballot will be held separately from the regular ballots until an election official determines whether you are qualified to vote and are registered. If you meet those requirements, they will count your provisional ballot.
If you are a voter with a disability and need accommodations, all polling places for federal elections must be fully accessible. Voters with disabilities and those unable to read or write can choose a person to assist in all aspects of the voting process except if the assistant is the voter’s employer or union.
If you have difficulty reading or writing English, you can ask for assistance. Certain jurisdictions, determined by the Census Bureau, must provide all election information that is available in English in the covered minority language. The election process must be equally accessible in the minority language as it is in English.
It is illegal to intimidate, threaten or coerce someone from voting or attempting to vote, as well as people who are urging or helping others to vote.
How can I report a violation?
To report a possible civil rights violation, you can report it to the Civil Rights Division online at civilrights.justice.gov or by phone at 800-251-3931.
To report possible federal crimes, including potential threats against voters, election officials, or election fraud, you can contact the FBI either online at tips.fbi.gov or by phone at 800-CALL-FBI.
This segment is part of a half-hour news special called Commitment 2024: Get the Facts. The special helps voters get the facts on the voting process and debunks election-related disinformation that could surface in the final hours before Election Day.
To watch the full special, check your local listing for air dates or watch on the Very Local app.
It’s fall festival season! Matt is joined by Peter Kujawski, the chairman of Focus Features, to discuss the science of premiering a movie at a film festival. Peter provides his expertise on why you bring a certain movie to a certain festival, the risk involved, and which specific festivals are best suited for certain types of films. They also discuss the politics of these festivals jockeying to attain the world premieres of splashy titles, and which festival award is the most coveted (02:51). Matt ends the show with an opening weekend box office prediction for Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (26:10).
For a 20 percent discount on Matt’s Hollywood insider newsletter, What I’m Hearing …, click here.
