ReportWire

Tag: voter

  • Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election

    In recent weeks, Marin County Registrar Natalie Adona has been largely focused on the many mundane tasks of local elections administrators in the months before a midterm: finalizing voting locations, ordering supplies, facilitating candidate filings.

    But in the wake of unprecedented efforts by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections, Adona said she has also been preparing her staff for far less ordinary scenarios — such as federal officials showing up and demanding ballots, as they recently did in Georgia, or immigration agents staging around polling stations on election day, as some in President Trump’s orbit have suggested.

    “Part of my job is making sure that the plans are developed and then tested and then socialized with the staff so if those situations were to ever come up, we would not be figuring it out right then and there. We would know what to do,” Adona said. “Doing those sort of exercises and that level of planning in a way is kind of grounding, and makes things feel less chaotic.”

    Natalie Adona faced harassment from election deniers and COVID anti-maskers when she served as the registrar of voters in Nevada County. She now serves Marin County and is preparing her staff for potential scenarios this upcoming election, including what to do if immigration agents are present.

    (Jess Lynn Goss / For The Times)

    Across California, local elections administrators say they have been running similar exercises to prepare for once unthinkable threats — not from local rabble-rousers, remote cyberattackers or foreign adversaries, but their own federal government.

    State officials, too, are writing new contingency plans for unprecedented intrusions by Trump and other administration officials, who in recent days have repeated baseless 2020 election conspiracies, raided and taken ballots from a local election center in Fulton County, Ga., pushed both litigation and legislation that would radically alter local voting rules, and called for Republicans to seize control of elections nationwide.

    California’s local and state officials — many of whom are Democrats — are walking a fine line, telling their constituents that elections remain fair and safe, but also that Trump’s talk of federal intervention must be taken seriously.

    Their concerns are vastly different than the concerns voiced by Trump and other Republicans, who for years have alleged without evidence that U.S. elections are compromised by widespread fraud involving noncitizen voters, including in California.

    But they have nonetheless added to a long-simmering sense of fear and doubt among voters — who this year have the potential to radically alter the nation’s political trajectory by flipping control of Congress to Democrats.

    An election worker moves ballots to be sorted.

    An election worker moves ballots to be sorted at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana on Nov. 5, 2024.

    (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

    Trump has said he will accept Republican losses only if the elections are “honest.” A White House spokesperson said Trump is pushing for stricter rules for voting and voter registration because he “cares deeply about the safety and security of our elections.”

    Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said some of what Trump says about elections “is nonsensical and some is bluster,” but recent actions — especially the election center raid in Georgia — have brought home the reality of his threats.

    “Some worry that this is a test run for trying to seize ballot boxes in 2026 and prevent a fair count of the votes, and given Trump’s track record, I don’t think that is something we can dismiss out of hand,” Hasen said. “States need to be making contingency plans to make sure that those kinds of things don’t happen.”

    The White House dismissed such concerns, pointing to isolated incidents of noncitizens being charged with illegally voting, and to examples of duplicate registrations, voters remaining on rolls after death and people stealing ballots to vote multiple times.

    “These so-called experts are ignoring the plentiful examples of noncitizens charged with voter fraud and of ineligible voters on voter rolls,” said Abigail Jackson, the White House spokesperson.

    Experts said fraudulent votes are rare, most registration and roll issues do not translate into fraudulent votes being cast, and there is no evidence such issues swing elections.

    A swirl of activity

    Early in his term, Trump issued an executive order calling for voters nationwide to be required to show proof of U.S. citizenship, and for states to be required to disregard mail ballots received after election day. California and other states sued, and courts have so far blocked the order.

    This past week, Trump said outright that Republicans should “take over” elections nationwide.

    The Justice Department has sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and her counterparts in other states for refusing to hand over state voter rolls — the lawsuit against Weber was tossed — and raided and seized ballots from the election office of Fulton County, long a target of right-wing conspiracy theories over Trump’s 2020 election loss.

    President Trump walks behind former chairperson of the Republican National Committee Michael Whatley.

    President Trump walks behind former chairperson of the Republican National Committee Michael Whatley as he prepares to speak during a political rally in Rocky Mount, N.C., on Dec. 19.

    (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)

    Longtime Trump advisor and ally Stephen K. Bannon suggested U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be dispatched to polling locations in November, reprising old fears about voter intimidation. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said she couldn’t rule that out, despite it being illegal.

    Democrats have raised concerns about the U.S. Postal Service mishandling mail ballots in the upcoming elections, following rule changes for how such mail is processed. Republicans have continued pushing the SAVE America Act, which would create new proof of citizenship requirements for voters. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering multiple voting rights cases, including one out of Louisiana that challenges Voting Rights Act protections for Black representation.

    Charles H. Stewart, director of the MIT Election Data + Science Lab, said the series of events has created an “environment where chaos is being threatened,” and where “people who are concerned about the state of democracy are alarmed and very concerned,” and rightfully so.

    But he said there are also “a number of guardrails” in place — what he called “the kind of mundane mechanics that are involved in running elections” — that will help prevent harm.

    California prepares

    California leaders have been vociferous in their defense of state elections, and said they’re prepared to fight any attempted takeover.

    “The President regularly spews outright lies when it comes to elections in this country, particularly ones he and his party lose,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We will continue to correct those lies, rebuild much-needed trust in our democratic institutions and civic duties, and defend the U.S. Constitution’s grant to the states authority over elections.”

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber take questions after announcing a lawsuit to protect voter rights in 2024.

    (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in an interview that his office “would go into court and we would get a restraining order within hours” if the Trump administration tries to intervene in California elections, “because the U.S. Constitution says that states predominantly determine the time, place and manner of elections, not the president.”

    Weber told The Times that the state has “a cadre of attorneys” standing by to defend its election system, but also “absolutely amazing” county elections officials who “take their job very seriously” and serve as the first line of defense against any disruptions, from the Trump administration or otherwise.

    Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s chief elections official, said his office has been doing “contingency planning and tabletop exercises” for traditional disruptions, such as wildfires and earthquakes, and novel ones, such as federal immigration agents massing near voting locations and last-minute policy changes by the U.S. Postal Service or the courts.

    “Those are the things that keep us up at night,” he said.

    Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said the county no longer has ballots from the 2020 election.

    Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said the county no longer has ballots from the 2020 election.

    (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

    Logan said he is not currently concerned about the FBI raiding L.A. County elections offices because, while Fulton County still had its 2020 ballots on hand due to ongoing litigation, that is not the case for L.A. County, which is “beyond the retention period” for holding, and no longer has, its 2020 ballots.

    However, Logan said he does consider what happened in Georgia a warning that the Trump administration “will utilize the federal government to go in and be disruptive in an elections operation.”

    “What we don’t know is, would they do that during the conduct of an election, before an election is certified?” Logan said.

    Kristin Connelly, chief elections officer for Contra Costa County, said she’s been working hard to make sure voters have confidence in the election process, including by giving speeches to concerned voters, expanding the county’s certified election observer program, and, in the lead-up to the 2024 election, running a grant-funded awareness campaign around election security.

    Connelly — who joined local elections officials nationwide in challenging Trump’s executive order on elections in court — said she also has been running tabletop exercises and coordinating with local law enforcement, all with the goal of ensuring her constituents can vote.

    “How the federal government is behaving is different from how it used to behave, but at the end of the day, what we have to do is run a mistake-free, perfect election, and to open our offices and operation to everybody — especially the people who ask hard questions,” she said.

    Lessons from the past

    Several officials in California said that as they prepare, they have been buoyed by lessons from the past.

    Before being hired by the deep-blue county of Marin in May, Adona was the elected voting chief in rural Nevada County in the Sierra foothills.

    In 2022, Adona affirmed that Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden was legitimate and enforced a pandemic mask mandate in her office. That enraged a coalition of anti-mask, anti-vaccine, pro-Trump protesters, who pushed their way into the locked election office.

    Protesters confronted Adona and her staffers, with one worker getting pushed down. They stationed themselves in the hallway, leaving Adona’s staff too terrified to leave their office to use the hallway bathroom, as local, state and federal authorities declined to step in.

    “At this point, and for months afterwards, I felt isolated and depressed. I had panic attacks every few days. I felt that no one had our back. I focused all my attention on my staff’s safety, because they were clearly nervous about the unknown,” Adona said during subsequent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    In part because she knows what can go wrong, Adona said her focus now is on preparing her new staff for whatever may come, while following the news out of Georgia and trying to maintain a cool head.

    “I would rather have a plan and not use it than need a plan and not have one,” she said.

    Clint Curtis, the clerk and registrar of voters in Shasta County — which ditched its voting machines in 2023 amid unfounded fraud allegations by Trump — said his biggest task ahead of the midterms is to increase both ballot security and transparency.

    Since being appointed to lead the county office last spring, the conservative Republican from Florida has added more cameras and more space for election observers — which, during the recent special election on Proposition 50, California’s redistricting measure, included observers from Bonta’s and Weber’s offices.

    He has also reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in the vast county from more than a dozen to four. Curtis told The Times he did not trust the security of ballots in the hands of “these little old ladies running all over the county” to pick them up, and noted there are dozens of other county locations where they can be dropped off. He said he invited Justice Department officials to observe voting on Proposition 50, though they didn’t show, and welcomes them again for the midterms.

    “If they can make voting safer for everybody, I’m perfectly fine with that,” he said. “It always makes me nervous when people don’t want to cooperate. Whatcha hiding? It should be: ‘Come on in.’”

    Election workers inspect ballots after extracting them from envelopes.

    Election workers inspect ballots after extracting them from envelopes on election night at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Nov. 5, 2024, in the City of Industry.

    (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

    Weber, 77 and the daughter of an Arkansas sharecropper whose family fled Southern racism and threats of violence to reach California, said that while many people in the U.S. are confronting intense fear and doubt about the election for the first time, and understandably so, that is simply not the case for her or many other Black people.

    “African Americans have always been under attack for voting, and not allowed to vote, and had new rules created for them about literacy and poll taxes and all those other kinds of things, and many folks lost their lives just trying to register to vote,” Weber said.

    Weber said she still recalls her mother, who had never voted in Arkansas, setting up a polling location in their home in South L.A. each election when Weber was young, and today draws courage from those memories.

    “I tell folks there’s no alternative to it. You have to fight for this right to vote. And you have to be aware of the fact that all these strategies that people are trying to use [to suppress voting] are not new strategies. They’re old strategies,” Weber said. “And we just have to be smarter and fight harder.”

    Kevin Rector, Hailey Branson-Potts, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Drew Brees and Larry Fitzgerald headline a Hall of Fame class missing Bill Belichick

    Drew Brees and Larry Fitzgerald headlined the 2026 Pro Football Hall of Fame class featuring five players but not six-time Super Bowl winning head coach Bill Belichick.Brees and Fitzgerald both made it in their first year of eligibility in results announced at NFL Honors on Thursday night after prolific careers. Luke Kuechly and Adam Vinatieri made it in their second seasons of eligibility, while Roger Craig was the lone pick among seniors, coaches and contributors.Video above: Drew Brees ready to take over the Bay Area on NFL Honors nightBut the class is also noteworthy for Belichick’s absence as at least 11 of the 50 voters opted against giving him a vote despite a career with 333 wins in the regular season and playoffs and the most Super Bowl titles of any head coach. A report last week that Belichick fell short in his first year of eligibility was met with widespread criticism of both the voters and the process for choosing Hall of Famers.The man who hired Belichick in New England to set the stage for the Patriots dynasty also fell short, with owner Robert Kraft failing to get enough votes.This is the second straight year with a smaller class after only four people made it last year as new rule changes have made it harder to get into the Hall. There had been at least seven people inducted in the previous 12 classes before last year.That contributed to the snub for Belichick and Kraft, who were grouped with Craig and two other players — Ken Anderson and L.C. Greenwood — who have been retired for at least 25 seasons. The voters picked three of the five candidates with the highest vote-getter and anyone else above 80% getting the honor.Craig, who was in his 28th year of eligibility, was the only one of those five to make it. Craig was the first player ever to have 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 yards receiving in the same season, which happened in 1985, and he led the NFL with 2,036 yards from scrimmage in 1988 when he helped San Francisco win the Super Bowl.Craig also was part of the title-winning teams for the 49ers in the 1984 and 1989 seasons. His 410 yards from scrimmage in those Super Bowl wins are the third-most ever behind Hall of Famers Jerry Rice and Franco Harris.Video below: Boston wants fans to celebrate Super Bowl responsiblyVinatieri was one of the most clutch kickers in NFL history, making the game-winning field goals in the first two Super Bowl victories during New England’s dynasty with Belichick and Kraft in charge. He joined Jan Stenerud and Morten Andersen as the only players in the Hall who were primarily kickers in their careers. Vinatieri helped launch the run with one of the game’s greatest kicks — a 45-yarder in the snow to force overtime in the “Tuck Rule” game against the Raiders in the 2001 divisional round. He made the game-winning kick in OT to win that game and then hit a 48-yarder on the final play of a 20-17 win in the Super Bowl against the Rams.Vinatieri is the NFL’s career leader in points (2,673) and made field goals (599) over a 24-year career with New England and Indianapolis. He also leads all players with 56 field goals and 238 points in the postseason.Brees is second all time to Tom Brady with 80,358 yards passing and 571 touchdown passes. He spent the first five seasons of his career with the San Diego Chargers before signing as a free agent with the Saints in 2006, where his career took off as he helped lift a city still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.Brees delivered to New Orleans its first Super Bowl title following the 2009 season, when he won MVP of the game after beating Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Brees made the Pro Bowl 13 times in his career, won AP Offensive Player of the Year in 2008 and 2011, was an All-Pro in 2006 and was a second-team All-Pro four times.Fitzgerald spent his entire career with the Arizona Cardinals after being drafted third overall in 2004. His 1,432 catches and 17,492 yards receiving in 17 seasons rank second all time to Jerry Rice.Fitzgerald topped 1,000 yards receiving nine times — tied for the fourth-most ever — and helped the Cardinals reach their only Super Bowl following the 2008 season. Fitzgerald set single-season records that postseason with 546 yards receiving and seven TD catches, including a go-ahead 64-yard score with 2:37 to play in the Super Bowl before Pittsburgh rallied for a 27-23 win over Arizona.Kuechly’s career was brief but impactful. The first-round pick by Carolina in 2012 was an All-Pro five times, with seven Pro Bowl nods and a Defensive Rookie of the Year award. Over his eight-year career, Kuechly led all linebackers in the NFL in tackles (1,090), takeaways (26), interceptions (18) and passes defensed (66).Voters reduced the list of 15 finalists in the modern era category to 10 and then seven before voting for five to make it. The top three vote-getters and anyone else above 80% got into the Hall.Offensive linemen Willie Anderson and Marshal Yanda, and edge rusher Terrell Suggs made it to the final seven in the modern-era category and will automatically be finalists again next year.

    Drew Brees and Larry Fitzgerald headlined the 2026 Pro Football Hall of Fame class featuring five players but not six-time Super Bowl winning head coach Bill Belichick.

    Brees and Fitzgerald both made it in their first year of eligibility in results announced at NFL Honors on Thursday night after prolific careers. Luke Kuechly and Adam Vinatieri made it in their second seasons of eligibility, while Roger Craig was the lone pick among seniors, coaches and contributors.

    Video above: Drew Brees ready to take over the Bay Area on NFL Honors night

    But the class is also noteworthy for Belichick’s absence as at least 11 of the 50 voters opted against giving him a vote despite a career with 333 wins in the regular season and playoffs and the most Super Bowl titles of any head coach. A report last week that Belichick fell short in his first year of eligibility was met with widespread criticism of both the voters and the process for choosing Hall of Famers.

    The man who hired Belichick in New England to set the stage for the Patriots dynasty also fell short, with owner Robert Kraft failing to get enough votes.

    This is the second straight year with a smaller class after only four people made it last year as new rule changes have made it harder to get into the Hall. There had been at least seven people inducted in the previous 12 classes before last year.

    That contributed to the snub for Belichick and Kraft, who were grouped with Craig and two other players — Ken Anderson and L.C. Greenwood — who have been retired for at least 25 seasons. The voters picked three of the five candidates with the highest vote-getter and anyone else above 80% getting the honor.

    Craig, who was in his 28th year of eligibility, was the only one of those five to make it. Craig was the first player ever to have 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 yards receiving in the same season, which happened in 1985, and he led the NFL with 2,036 yards from scrimmage in 1988 when he helped San Francisco win the Super Bowl.

    Craig also was part of the title-winning teams for the 49ers in the 1984 and 1989 seasons. His 410 yards from scrimmage in those Super Bowl wins are the third-most ever behind Hall of Famers Jerry Rice and Franco Harris.

    Video below: Boston wants fans to celebrate Super Bowl responsibly

    Vinatieri was one of the most clutch kickers in NFL history, making the game-winning field goals in the first two Super Bowl victories during New England’s dynasty with Belichick and Kraft in charge. He joined Jan Stenerud and Morten Andersen as the only players in the Hall who were primarily kickers in their careers.

    Vinatieri helped launch the run with one of the game’s greatest kicks — a 45-yarder in the snow to force overtime in the “Tuck Rule” game against the Raiders in the 2001 divisional round. He made the game-winning kick in OT to win that game and then hit a 48-yarder on the final play of a 20-17 win in the Super Bowl against the Rams.

    Vinatieri is the NFL’s career leader in points (2,673) and made field goals (599) over a 24-year career with New England and Indianapolis. He also leads all players with 56 field goals and 238 points in the postseason.

    Brees is second all time to Tom Brady with 80,358 yards passing and 571 touchdown passes. He spent the first five seasons of his career with the San Diego Chargers before signing as a free agent with the Saints in 2006, where his career took off as he helped lift a city still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

    Brees delivered to New Orleans its first Super Bowl title following the 2009 season, when he won MVP of the game after beating Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. Brees made the Pro Bowl 13 times in his career, won AP Offensive Player of the Year in 2008 and 2011, was an All-Pro in 2006 and was a second-team All-Pro four times.

    Fitzgerald spent his entire career with the Arizona Cardinals after being drafted third overall in 2004. His 1,432 catches and 17,492 yards receiving in 17 seasons rank second all time to Jerry Rice.

    Fitzgerald topped 1,000 yards receiving nine times — tied for the fourth-most ever — and helped the Cardinals reach their only Super Bowl following the 2008 season. Fitzgerald set single-season records that postseason with 546 yards receiving and seven TD catches, including a go-ahead 64-yard score with 2:37 to play in the Super Bowl before Pittsburgh rallied for a 27-23 win over Arizona.

    Kuechly’s career was brief but impactful. The first-round pick by Carolina in 2012 was an All-Pro five times, with seven Pro Bowl nods and a Defensive Rookie of the Year award. Over his eight-year career, Kuechly led all linebackers in the NFL in tackles (1,090), takeaways (26), interceptions (18) and passes defensed (66).

    Voters reduced the list of 15 finalists in the modern era category to 10 and then seven before voting for five to make it. The top three vote-getters and anyone else above 80% got into the Hall.

    Offensive linemen Willie Anderson and Marshal Yanda, and edge rusher Terrell Suggs made it to the final seven in the modern-era category and will automatically be finalists again next year.

    Source link

  • Cook County clerk urges early mail-in voting amid USPS postmark change before March 17 primary

    A little less than six weeks before the March 17 primary election, Democratic Cook County Clerk Monica Gordon urged mail-in voters on Wednesday to return their ballots early amid a change in federal government procedures that she warned could make it harder to vote.

    Gordon tied her concerns to the United States Postal Service’s recent decision, effective Jan. 1, to alter postmarking processes. While postmarks in the past were typically applied on the day an item was mailed, they are now listed as the day an item was processed at a USPS facility.

    While the change might appear small, it could mean the difference of a day or more between ballots dropped in the mail and being postmarked, resulting in those mailed near the March 17 deadline not being postmarked by Election Day and therefore deemed invalid, even if a voter does “everything right,” Gordon said during a news conference.

    “While this change has been described as minor, its impact on elections could be anything,” she said. “Do not wait until the final days or Election Day to mail your ballot.”

    The USPS change comes after Republican President Donald Trump said last year he might take control of the postal service, which operates as an independent agency with leaders appointed by presidents, most recently Trump.

    It also follows numerous false, misleading and unsupported claims by Trump that mail-in voting is prone to rampant fraud, even calling it “a whole big scam” in 2020 before he later lost his presidential reelection bid. In addition, Republicans, led by U.S. Rep. Mike Bost of downstate Murphysboro, have challenged Illinois’ law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted 14 days later, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court recently said could move forward.

    Still, even as the president and Republicans have generally argued against mail-in balloting, the Republican National Committee and the Illinois Republican Party have ramped up efforts to encourage GOP voters to cast ballots by mail.

    Asked if she viewed the policy shift as a voting suppression effort, Gordon said she thought “it is possible.”

    “I am trying to be as objective as possible here, but across the country, historically, we have seen efforts of sophisticated voter suppression,” she said. “We will not allow our votes to be suppressed. We will not allow our voters’ voices not to be heard.”

    But Gordon had little to say when asked about Trump’s calls during a Monday podcast appearance to “nationalize the voting,” which would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump told his former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino that he wants Republicans to “take over the voting” in “at least many — 15 places” while making vague, unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud.

    “I have not had communication with the federal government,” Gordon said. “I’m never concerned about voter fraud here in Illinois.”

    The county clerk urged voters returning mail-in ballots close to the March 17 election to instead take them directly to a post office and request that it be postmarked at the counter. And beginning March 2, voters can return ballots at 55 drop boxes across suburban Cook County, she said. The Cook County clerk’s office oversees elections for suburban Cook County communities. The Chicago Board of Elections oversees elections in the city.

    Gordon’s office plans to send advisories to mail-ballot voters to reinforce the warning, she added.

    USPS has pushed back against such concerns, calling it a “myth” that the postmarking process is changing in a statement on its website. The postal service said instead that transportation changes are occurring “that will result in some mail pieces not arriving at our originating processing facilities on the same day that they are mailed.”

    USPS spokesperson Timothy Norman said in a statement to the Tribune that the agency has long recommended voters drop off ballots before Election Day. He encouraged voters to visit a post office and request a manual postmark if needed.

    “We employ a long-standing, robust and proven process to ensure proper handling and delivery of all Election Mail, including ballots,” Norman said.

    Gordon’s election deputy, Edmond Michalowski, said mail dropped off at boxes in the past was postmarked at local post centers.

    “Now it has to go to a distribution center before it is routed,” he told reporters. “We’re not sure how this is going to affect those voters.”

    Gordon said she did not know why the USPS change had been made. “But what I do know is that it’s ill timing. We got to do what we can to make sure that we get those ballots in on time,” she said.

    Gordon declined to estimate how many ballots could be affected by the postmarking change.

    Around 170,000 mail ballots will be sent to suburban voters for the 2026 primary, Michalowski said. Most of the returned ballots typically come “in a wave up front,” “and then they taper off closer to Election Day,” he added.

    Gordon said more ballots typically come in as media coverage of elections ramps up. She called the rules change “unprecedented” and conceded she did not know what to expect from it.

    “Every vote matters, and no voters should lose their voice because of confusion or delay,” she said. “We urge all voters to make a voting plan.”

    Jake Sheridan

    Source link

  • Supreme Court, with no dissents, rejects GOP challenge to California’s new election map

    The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

    With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

    Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

    In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

    He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

    The voters approved the change in November.

    While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

    “Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

    It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

    Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

    The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

    Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

    “We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

    In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

    In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
    The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

    “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

    California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Trump lawyers urge Supreme Court to block California’s new election map while upholding Texas’

    Trump administration lawyers have joined California Republicans in urging Supreme Court to block California’s new election map on the grounds that one district in the San Joaquin Valley was drawn to favor Latinos.

    Two months ago, Trump’s lawyers called on the court to uphold a new Republican-friendly election map in Texas, arguing that it was partisan gerrymander, not one driven by race.

    “Plaintiffs bringing a racial-gerrymander claim have the heavy burden to show that race was the predominant factor motivating” how the map was drawn, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said then.

    The Supreme Court agreed by a 6-3 vote and lifted a judges’ order that had blocked the Texas map which was drawn to win five more House seats for Republicans.

    Voting rights advocates had sued, noting Gov. Greg Abbott said the goal to eliminate four “coalition districts,” which had a combined majority of Black and Latino voters and elected Democrats.

    In a brief opinion, the justices said they presume state officials acted in “good faith” in drawing the maps of congressional districts.

    “It is indisputable that impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

    The justices also said it was too late in the election-year calendar for reshuffling the districts again.

    Undeterred, Trump’s lawyers now stake out the near opposite view to support the GOP’s attack on the California map which was upheld by the voters in November.

    “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Sauer wrote.

    He pointed to past comments from Paul Mitchell, the designated map maker, who said he hoped the Latino districts in the Central Valley could be “bolstered in order to make them most effective.”

    Trump’s lawyer said District 13 in Merced County has an odd-looking “northern plume” that brings in Democratic voters near Stockton.

    “California’s motivation in adopting the Prop. 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” Sauer said. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”

    He advised the justices to declare the new California map unconstitutional and require the state to return to the former map.
    The political impact of such a ruling is obvious. It would likely cost Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives.

    Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees appeals from the West Coast, asked for a response from California by Thursday. That would suggest the justices may act on the GOP’s appeal in the first week of February.

    Election law experts have been skeptical of the Republican arguments in the California case.

    “I don’t think Republicans are likely to prevail here,” UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

    He said legal challenge “comes too late,” the proposed remedy is too broad, and it ignores the fact that the California’s voters were focused on partisanship, not race. It’s their intent that counts, he said.

    Then, Hasen added, there’s “the optics. It would be a terrible look for the Court … to allow Texas’s Republican gerrymander to go forward but stop California’s, especially if it’s a party line vote. That might be too much even for this Court.”

    There is also a key legal difference in how the appeal arrived at the court.

    In Texas, a three-judge panel heard the evidence, wrote a 160-page opinion and ruled against the state in a 2-1 decision.

    In the California case, by contrast, a three-judge panel heard the evidence and rejected the racial gerrymandering claim in a 2-1 decision.

    In December, Kagan dissented in the Texas case and argued the court should be reluctant to overturn the factual findings of the three judges who heard the case.

    The two judges in the majority said they did not see evidence of a racial gerrymander.

    “We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • This video doesn’t show voter fraud in California

    Conservative commentator Benny Johnson recently said he had evidence of California voter fraud.

    Addressing a camera as he stood in a parking lot with portable toilets, Johnson held up a pile of papers.

    “Twenty-six registered voters at this exact location, 100 Sunset Avenue in Venice,” he said, citing “the registrar at the secretary of state.”

    “Straight-up voter fraud out in the open,” Johnson said in a Jan. 16 X post: “This (is) just a glimpse of what’s happening under Gavin Newsom,” referring to the state’s Democratic governor.

    The video had been viewed 1.3 million times as of Jan. 21.

    PolitiFact asked Johnson about the video but received no response.

    But the parking lot at the address in Johnson’s video used to be a temporary housing facility. Known as the Bridge Home, the facility opened in February 2020 to provide emergency shelter, hygiene services, storage, food services and case management to homeless people, local records show. Before it closed at the end of 2024, the shelter was part of a program that provided a “bridge” between street homelessness and long-term or permanent housing. 

    Mike Sanchez, a Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder spokesperson, told PolitiFact that the address was associated with a shelter or transitional housing site. CityWatch reported the shelter officially closed on Dec. 31, 2024. 

    “Under California law, eligible voters experiencing homelessness may register using a shelter as their physical location for voting,” Sanchez wrote in an email. As of Jan. 20, he said, there were 23 active voter records associated with the address.

    “This is not evidence of voter fraud,” he said.

    Sanchez said that if a facility address is used as a mailing address and voting materials are returned undeliverable, election officials follow standard list-maintenance protocols. That can include inactivating someone’s voter registration until the voter updates or confirms the address. 

    “Any ballots cast by voters associated with these records are subject to the same verification and security as all ballots, including signature verification and the statutory notice-and-cure process,” Sanchez wrote. 

    People can register to vote as long as they have a location where they can receive mail and be properly assigned to a voting precinct. People cannot use a P.O. box or business address to register to vote, but it can be used as a mailing address.

    The Secretary of State’s website says that in cases in which voters have no home address they can use to register, they must describe the location where they live, so county elections officials can find their voting precinct. People can use cross streets or parks as their addresses.

    All eligible voters have the right to vote, including people experiencing homelessness. The 2025 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count says there are 72,308 homeless people in Los Angeles County.

    We rate this claim False.

    Source link

  • State GOP seeks Supreme Court injunction to block California’s new, voter-approved congressional districts

    The state Republican Party on Tuesday filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an injunction to stop the congressional districts California voters approved last year from going into effect.

    Arguing that the districts created by Proposition 50 violate federal law because the race of voters was considered when they were configured, the filing urges the court to act by Feb. 9 because of ensuing deadlines for candidates to file to run for office.

    “Our emergency application asks the Supreme Court to put the brakes on Prop. 50 now, before the Democrats try to run out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts,” state GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement. “Californians deserve fair districts and clean elections, not a backroom redraw that picks winners and losers based on race.”

    A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who led the rare middecade redistricting effort and is one of the respondents in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The redrawing of congressional districts typically occurs once a decade, after the U.S. census, to account for population shifts. In California, the boundaries are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission to stop partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    After President Trump urged leaders in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their delegation’s districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to Congress in the November midterm election, Newsom and other Democratic leaders responded by crafting a plan to increase the number of their party’s members in the California delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans currently have a razor-thin majority, and the party that controls Congress after the November election will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years in office.

    California voters handily passed Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history. The state GOP and others immediately challenged the new districts, but earlier this month, two members of a three-judge federal panel rejected their claim that the district boundaries were drawn to illegally favor Latino voters.

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Explaining California’s billionaire tax: The proposals, the backlash and the exodus

    The battle over a new tax on California’s billionaires is set to heat up in the coming months as citizens spar over whether the state should squeeze its ultra-rich to better serve its ordinary residents.

    The proposed billionaire tax that triggered the tempest is still far from being approved by voters or even making the ballot, but the idea has already sparked backlash from vocal tech moguls — some of whom have already shifted their bases outside the state.

    Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union behind the act, said the measure would raise much-needed money for healthcare, education and food assistance programs.

    Other unions have piled on billionaires, targeting the rich in Los Angeles.

    A group of Los Angeles labor unions said Wednesday that it is proposing a ballot measure to raise taxes on companies whose chief executive officers earn 50 times more than their median-paid employees.

    Here is how this fight could continue to play out in the Golden State:

    Who would be affected?

    The California billionaire tax would apply to about 200 California billionaires who reside in the state as of Jan. 1. Roughly 90% of funds would go to healthcare and the rest to public K-14 education and state food assistance.

    The tax, due in 2027, would exclude real estate, pensions and retirement accounts, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan government agency. Billionaires could spread out the tax payment over five years, but would have to pay more.

    Which billionaires are already distancing themselves from California?

    Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin

    Google is still headquartered in California, but December filings to the California Secretary of State show other companies tied to Page and Brin recently converted out of the state.

    One filing, for example, shows that one of the companies they managed, now named T-Rex Holdings, moved from Palo Alto to Reno last month.

    Business Insider and the New York Times earlier reported on these filings. Google didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel

    Thiel Capital, based in Los Angeles, announced in December it opened an office in Miami. The firm didn’t respond to a request for comment. Thiel recently contributed $3 million to the political action committee of the California Business Roundtable, which is opposing the ballot measure, records provided to the Secretary of State’s Office show.

    Oracle co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Larry Ellison

    Years before the wealth tax proposal, Ellison began pulling back from California, but he’s continued to distance himself farther from the state since the proposal emerged.

    Last year, Ellison sold his San Francisco mansion for $45 million. The home on 2850 Broadway was sold off-market in mid-December, according to Redfin.

    Oracle declined to comment.

    DoorDash co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Andy Fang

    Fang, who was born and raised in California, said on X that he loves the state but is thinking about moving.

    “Stupid wealth tax proposals like this make it irresponsible for me not to plan leaving the state,” he said.

    DoorDash didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    What would it still take to become law?

    To qualify for the ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the healthcare union, must gather nearly 875,000 registered voter signatures and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

    If it makes it on the November ballot, the proposal would be the focus of intense scrutiny and debate as both sides have already lined up big war chests to bombard voters with their positions. A majority of voters would need to approve the ballot measure.

    Lawyers for billionaires have also signaled the battle won’t be over even if the ballot measure passes.

    “Our clients are prepared to mount a vigorous constitutional challenge if this measure advances,” wrote Alex Spiro, an attorney who has represented billionaires such as Elon Musk in a December letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    What are the initiative’s chances?

    It’s unclear if the ballot measure has a good chance of passing in November. Newsom opposes the tax, and his support has proved important for ballot measures.

    In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed. The following year, he opposed legislation to tax assets exceeding $50 million. The bill was shelved before the Legislature could vote on it. A bill that would impose an annual tax on California residents whose net worth surpassed $30 million also failed in 2020.

    However, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) have backed the wealth tax proposal, and Californians have passed temporary tax measures before. In 2012, they approved Proposition 30 to increase sales tax and personal income tax for residents with an annual income of more than $250,000.

    Could it solve California’s problems?

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office said in a December letter that the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax, but it could also lose other tax revenue.

    “The exact amount the state would collect is very hard to predict for many reasons. For example, it is hard to know what actions billionaires would take to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Also, much of the wealth is based on stock prices, which are always changing,” the letter said.

    California economist Kevin Klowden said the tax could create future budget problems for the state. “The catch is that this is a one-off fix for what is a systemic problem,” he said.

    Supporters of the proposal said the measure would raise about $100 billion and pushed back against the idea that billionaires would flee.

    “We see a lot of cheap talk from billionaires,” said UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the proposal. “Some people do actually leave and change their behavior, but the vast bulk of wealthy people don’t, because it doesn’t make sense.”

    Still, the pushback has been escalating.

    Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya estimates that the lost revenues from the billionaires who have already left the state would lead to more losses in tax revenues than gained by the new tax.

    “By starting this ill-conceived attempt at an asset tax, the California budget deficit will explode,” he posted on X. “And we still don’t know if the tax will even make the ballot.”

    The union backing the initiative says “the billionaire exodus narrative” is “wildly overstated.”

    “Right now, it appears the overwhelming majority of billionaires have chosen to stay in California past the Jan. 1 deadline,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. “Only a very small percentage left before the deadline, despite weeks of Chicken Little talking points claiming a modest tax would trigger a mass departure.”

    Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Billionaire tax proposal sparks soul-searching for Californians

    The fiery debate about a proposed ballot measure to tax California’s billionaires has sparked some soul-searching across the state.

    While the idea of a one-time tax on more than 200 people has a long way to go before getting onto the ballot and would need to be passed by voters in November, the tempest around it captures the zeitgeist of angst and anger at the core of California. Silicon Valley is minting new millionaires while millions of the state’s residents face the loss of healthcare coverage and struggle with inflation.

    Supporters of the proposed billionaire tax say it is one of the few ways the state can provide healthcare for its most vulnerable. Opponents warn it would squash the innovation that has made the state rich and prompt an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs from the state.

    The controversial measure is already creating fractures among powerful Democrats who enjoy tremendous sway in California. Progressive icon Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly endorsed the billionaire tax, while Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced it .

    The Golden State’s rich residents say they are tired of feeling targeted. Their success has not only created unimaginable wealth but also jobs and better lives for Californians, they say, yet they feel they are being punished.

    “California politics forces together some of the richest areas of America with some of the poorest, often separated by just a freeway,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “The impulse to force those with extreme wealth to share their riches is only natural, but often runs into the reality of our anti-tax traditions as well as modern concerns about stifling entrepreneurship or driving job creation out of the state.”

    The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

    The tax proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

    Supporters say the revenue is needed to backfill the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that President Trump signed this summer. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

    On social media, some wealthy Californians who oppose the wealth tax faced off against Democratic politicians and labor unions.

    An increasing number of companies and investors have decided it isn’t worth the hassle to be in the state and are taking their companies and their homes to other states with lower taxes and less regulation.

    “I promise you this will be the final straw,” Jessie Powell, co-founder of the Bay Area-based crypto exchange platform Kraken, wrote on X. “Billionaires will take with them all of their spending, hobbies, philanthropy and jobs.”

    Proponents of the proposed tax were granted permission to start gathering signatures Dec. 26 by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets, such as businesses, art and intellectual property, valued at more than $1 billion. There are some exclusions, including property.

    They could pay the levy over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs and the remaining 10% would be spent on food assistance and education programs.

    To qualify for the November ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

    The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and healthcare consumers, has committed to spending $14 million on the measure so far and plans to start collecting signatures soon, said Suzanne Jimenez, the labor group’s chief of staff.

    Without new funding, the state is facing “a collapse of our healthcare system here in California,” she said.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) spoke out in support of the tax.

    “It’s a matter of values,” he said on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have the Medicaid.”

    The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment.

    The debate has become a lightning rod for national thought leaders looking to target California’s policies or the ultra-rich.

    On Tuesday, Sanders endorsed the billionaire tax proposal and said he plans to call for a nationwide version.

    “This is a model that should be emulated throughout the country, which is why I will soon be introducing a national wealth tax on billionaires,” Sanders said on X. “We can and should respect innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking, but we cannot respect the extraordinary level of greed, arrogance and irresponsibility that is currently being displayed by much of the billionaire class.”

    But there isn’t unanimous support for the proposal among Democrats.

    Notably, Newsom has consistently opposed state-based wealth taxes. He reiterated his opposition when asked about the proposed billionaires’ tax in early December.

    “You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others,” Newsom said at the New York Times DealBook Summit. “We’re in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury, particularly people of that status, they already have two or three homes outside the state. It’s a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it.”

    Newsom has opposed state-based wealth taxes throughout his tenure.

    In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed at the ballot box, with strategists on both sides of the issue saying Newsom’s vocal opposition to the effort was a critical factor.

    The following year, he opposed legislation by a fellow Democrat to tax assets exceeding $50 million at 1% annually and taxpayers with a net worth greater than $1 billion at 1.5% annually. The bill was shelved before the legislature could vote on it.

    The latest effort is also being opposed by a political action committee called “Stop the Squeeze,” which was seeded by a $100,000 donation from venture capitalist and longtime Newsom ally Ron Conway. Conservative taxpayer rights groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and state Republicans are expected to campaign against the proposal.

    The chances of the ballot measure passing in November are uncertain, given the potential for enormous spending on the campaign — unlike statewide and other candidate races, there is no limit on the amount of money donors can contribute to support or oppose a ballot measure.

    “The backers of this proposed initiative to tax California billionaires would have their work cut out for them,” said Kousser at UC San Diego. “Despite the state’s national reputation as ‘Scandinavia by the Sea,’ there remains a strong anti-tax impulse among voters who often reject tax increases and are loath to kill the state’s golden goose of tech entrepreneurship.”

    Additionally, as Newsom eyes a presidential bid in 2028, political experts question how the governor will position himself — opposing raising taxes but also not wanting to be viewed as responsible for large-scale healthcare cuts that would harm the most vulnerable Californians.

    “It wouldn’t be surprising if they qualify the initiative. There’s enough money and enough pent-up anger on the left to get this on the ballot,” said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor who teaches at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley.

    “What happens once it qualifies is anybody’s guess,” he said.

    Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, called Newsom’s position “an Achilles heel” that could irk primary voters in places like the Midwest who are focused on economic inequality, inflation, affordability and the growing wealth gap.

    “I think it’s going to be really hard for him to take a position that we shouldn’t tax the billionaires,” said Gonzalez, whose labor umbrella group will consider whether to endorse the proposed tax next year.

    California billionaires who are residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be impacted by the ballot measure if it passes . Prominent business leaders announced moves that appeared to be a strategy to avoid the levy at the end of 2025. On Dec. 31, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel announced that his firm had opened a new office in Miami, the same day venture capitalist David Sacks said he was opening an office in Austin.

    Wealth taxes are not unprecedented in the U.S. and versions exist in Switzerland and Spain, said Brian Galle, a taxation expert and law professor at UC Berkeley.

    In California, the tax offers an efficient and practical way to pay for healthcare services without disrupting the economy, he said.

    “A 1% annual tax on billionaires for five years would have essentially no meaningful impact on their economic behavior,” Galle said. “We’re funding a way of avoiding a real economic disaster with something that has very tiny impact.”

    Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya disagrees. Billionaires whose wealth is often locked in company stakes and not liquid could go bankrupt, Palihapitiya wrote on X.

    The tax, he posted, “will kill entrepreneurship in California.”

    Seema Mehta, Caroline Petrow-Cohen

    Source link

  • Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

    Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

    We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

    It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

    Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

    (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

    By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

    Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

    That’s the short list.

    It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

    Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

    Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

    Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

    When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

    A woman standing before an American flag during an anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles.

    Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

    Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

    In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

    While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

    Workers adding Donald Trump's name to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

    The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

    (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

    Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    (The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

    I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

    Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

    You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

    It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

    The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

    Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at a college campus event in front of a poster reading "This Is the Turning Point."

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

    (Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

    Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

    Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

    Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

    I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

    Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

    But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

    To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

    A poll worker at Los Angeles' Union Station.

    A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

    (Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

    The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

    Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

    Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

    I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

    Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

    So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

    But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

    If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

    But there is hope, always hope.

    Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

    MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

    The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

    And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

    Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the annual Christmas blessing.

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

    (Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

    Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

    So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

    Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

    Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

    Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

    Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

    We’ll see you again in 2026.

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • News Analysis: Trump’s math problem: Rising prices, falling approval ratings

    President Trump made dozens of promises when he campaigned to retake the White House last year, from boosting economic growth to banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports.

    But one pledge stood out as the most important in many voters’ eyes: Trump said he would not only bring inflation under control, but push grocery and energy prices back down.

    “Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” he said in 2024. “Your prices are going to come tumbling down, your gasoline is going to come tumbling down, and your heating bills and cooling bills are going to be coming down.”

    He hasn’t delivered. Gasoline and eggs are cheaper than they were a year ago, but most other prices are still rising, including groceries and electricity. The Labor Department estimated Thursday that inflation is running at 2.7%, only a little better than the 3% Trump inherited from Joe Biden; electricity was up 6.9%.

    And that has given the president a major political problem: Many of the voters who backed him last year are losing faith.

    “I voted for Trump in 2024 because he was promising America first … and he was promising a better economy,” Ebyad, a nurse in Texas, said on a Focus Group podcast hosted by Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell. “It feels like all those promises have been broken.”

    Since Inauguration Day, the president’s job approval has declined from 52% to 43% in the polling average calculated by statistician Nate Silver. Approval for Trump’s performance on the economy, once one of his strongest points, has sunk even lower to 39%.

    That’s dangerous territory for a president who hopes to help his party keep its narrow majority in elections for the House of Representatives next year.

    To Republican pollsters and strategists, the reasons for Trump’s slump are clear: He overpromised last year and he’s under-performing now.

    “The most important reasons he won in 2024 were his promises to bring inflation down and juice the economy,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. “That’s the reason he won so many voters who traditionally had supported Democrats, including Hispanics. … But he hasn’t been able to deliver. Inflation has moderated, but it hasn’t gone backward.”

    Last week, after deriding complaints about affordability as “a Democrat hoax,” Trump belatedly launched a campaign to convince voters that he’s at work fixing the problem.

    But at his first stop, a rally in Pennsylvania, he continued arguing that the economy is already in great shape.

    “Our prices are coming down tremendously,” he insisted.

    “You’re doing better than you’ve ever done,” he said, implicitly dismissing voters’ concerns.

    He urged families to cope with high tariffs by cutting back: “You know, you can give up certain products,” he said. “You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don’t need 37 dolls.”

    Earlier, in an interview with Politico, Trump was asked what grade he would give the economy. “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” he said.

    On Wednesday, the president took another swing at the issue in a nationally televised speech, but his message was basically the same.

    “One year ago, our country was dead. We were absolutely dead,” he said. “Now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. … Inflation is stopped, wages are up, prices are down.”

    Republican pollster David Winston, who has advised GOP members of Congress, said the president has more work to do to win back voters who supported him in 2024 but are now disenchanted.

    “When families are paying the price for hamburger that they used to pay for steak, there’s a problem, and there’s no sugarcoating it,” he said. “The president’s statements that ‘we have no inflation’ and ‘our groceries are down’ have flown in the face of voters’ reality.”

    Another problem for Trump, pollsters said, is that many voters believe his tariffs are pushing prices higher — making the president part of the problem, not part of the solution. A YouGov poll in November found that 77% of voters believe tariffs contribute to inflationary pressures.

    Trump’s popularity hasn’t dropped through the floor; he still has the allegiance of his fiercely loyal base. “He is at his lowest point of his second term so far, but he is well within the range of his job approval in the first term,” Ayres noted.

    Still, he has lost significant chunks of his support among independent voters, young people and Latinos, three of the “swing voter” groups who put him over the top in 2024.

    Inflation isn’t the only issue that has dented his standing.

    He promised to lead the economy into “a golden age,” but growth has been uneven. Unemployment rose in November to 4.6%, the highest level in more than four years.

    He promised massive tax cuts for the middle class, but most voters say they don’t believe his tax cut bill brought them any benefit. “It’s hard to convince people that they got a tax break when nobody’s tax rates were actually cut,” Ayres noted.

    He kept his promise to launch the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history — but many voters complain that he has broken his promise to focus on violent criminals. In Silver’s average, approval of his immigration policies dropped from 52% in January to 45% now.

    A Pew Research Center survey in October found that 53% of adults, including 71% of Latinos, think the administration has ordered too many deportations. However, most voters approve of Trump’s measures on border security.

    Republican pollsters and strategists say they believe Trump can reverse his downward momentum before November’s congressional election, but it may not be easy.

    “You look at what voters care about most, and you offer policies to address those issues,” GOP strategist Alex Conant suggested. “That starts with prices. So you talk about permitting reform, energy prices, AI [artificial intelligence] … and legislation to address healthcare, housing and tax cuts. You could call it the Affordability Act.”

    “A laser focus on the economy and the cost of living is job one,” GOP pollster Winston said. “His policies on regulation, energy and taxes should have a positive impact, but the White House needs to emphasize them on a more consistent basis.”

    “People voted for change in 2024,” he warned. “If they don’t get it — if inflation doesn’t begin to recede — they may vote for change again in 2026.”

    Doyle McManus

    Source link

  • Commentary: In disparaging Reiner, Trump shows the shriveled heart of an us-versus-them presidency

    When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

    Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

    Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

    But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

    In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

    Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

    As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

    There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

    And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

    When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

    By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

    This is not normal, much less humane.

    This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

    There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

    “I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

    But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

    “This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

    More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

    “I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

    Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

    One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

    Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

    Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

    When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

    Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Commentary: Is Newsom blazing a path to the White House? Running a fool’s errand? Let’s discuss

    Gavin Newsom is off and running, eyeing the White House as he enters the far turn and his final year as California governor.

    The track record for California Democrats and the presidency is not a good one. In the nearly 250 years of these United States, not one Left Coast Democrat has ever been elected president. Kamala Harris is just the latest to fail. (Twice.)

    Can Newsom break that losing streak and make history in 2028?

    Faithful readers of this column — both of you — certainly know how I feel.

    Garry South disagrees.

    The veteran Democratic campaign strategist, who has been described as possessing “a pile-driving personality and blast furnace of a mouth” — by me, actually — has never lacked for strong and colorful opinions. Here, in an email exchange, we hash out our differences.

    Barabak: You once worked for Newsom, did you not?

    South: Indeed I did. I was a senior strategist in his first campaign for governor. It lasted 15 months in 2008 and 2009. He exited the race when we couldn’t figure out how to beat Jerry Brown in a closed Democratic primary.

    I happen to be the one who wrote the catchy punch line for Newsom’s speech to the state Democratic convention in 2009, that the race was a choice between “a stroll down memory lane vs. a sprint into the future.”

    We ended up on memory lane.

    Barabak: Do you still advise Newsom, or members of his political team?

    South: No, though he and I are in regular contact and have been since his days as lieutenant governor. I know many of his staff and consultants, but don’t work with them in any paid capacity. Also, the governor’s sister and I are friends.

    Barabak: You observed Newsom up close in that 2010 race. What are his strengths as a campaigner?

    South: Newsom is a masterful communicator, has great stage presence, cuts a commanding figure and can hold an audience in the palm of his hand when he’s really on. He has a mind like a steel trap and never forgets anything he is told or reads.

    I’ve always attributed his amazing recall to the struggle he has reading, due to his lifelong struggle with severe dyslexia. Because it’s such an arduous effort for Newsom to read, what he does read is emblazoned on his mind in seeming perpetuity.

    Barabak: Demerits, or weaknesses?

    South: Given his remarkable command of facts and data and mastery of the English language, he can sometimes run on too long. During that first gubernatorial campaign, when he was still mayor of San Francisco, he once gave a seven-hour State of the City address.

    Barabak: Fidel Castro must have been impressed!

    South: It wasn’t as bad as sounds: It was broken into 10 “Webisodes” on his YouTube channel. But still …

    Barabak: So let’s get to it. I think Newsom’s chances of being elected president are somewhere between slim and none — and slim was last seen alongside I-5, in San Ysidro, thumbing a ride to Mexico.

    You don’t agree.

    South: I don’t agree at all. I think you’re underestimating the Trumpian changes wrought (rot?) upon our political system over the past 10 years.

    The election of Trump, a convicted felon, not once but twice, has really blown to hell the conventional paradigms we’ve had for decades in terms of how we assess the viability of presidential candidates — what state they’re from, their age, if they have glitches in their personal or professional life.

    Not to mention, oh, their criminal record, if they have one.

    The American people actually elected for a second term a guy who fomented a rebellion against his own country when he was president the first time, including an armed assault on our own national capitol in which a woman was killed and for which he was rightly impeached. It’s foolish not to conclude that the old rules, the old conventional wisdom about what voters will accept and what they will not, are out the window for good.

    It also doesn’t surprise me that you pooh-pooh Newsom’s prospects. It’s typical of the home-state reporting corps to guffaw when their own governor is touted as a presidential candidate.

    One, familiarity breeds contempt. Two, a prophet is without honor in his own country.

    Barabak: I’ll grant you a couple of points.

    I’m old enough to remember when friends in the Arkansas political press corps scoffed at the notion their governor, the phenomenally gifted but wildly undisciplined Bill Clinton, could ever be elected president.

    I also remember those old Clairol hair-color ads: “The closer he gets … the better you look!” (Google it, kids). It’s precisely the opposite when it comes to presidential hopefuls and the reporters who cover them day-in, day-out.

    And you’re certainly correct, the nature of what constitutes scandal, or disqualifies a presidential candidate, has drastically changed in the Trump era.

    All of that said, certain fundamentals remain the same. Harking back to that 1992 Clinton campaign, it’s still the economy, stupid. Or, put another way, it’s about folks’ lived experience, their economic security, or lack thereof, and personal well-being.

    Newsom is, for the moment, a favorite among the chattering political class and online activists because a) those are the folks who are already engaged in the 2028 race and b) many of them thrill to his Trumpian takedowns of the president on social media.

    When the focus turns to matters affecting voters’ ability to pay for housing, healthcare, groceries, utility bills and to just get by, Newsom’s opponents will have a heyday trashing him and California’s steep prices, homelessness and shrinking middle class.

    Kamala Harris twice bid unsuccessfully for the White House. Her losses kept alive an unbroken string of losses by Left Coast Democrats.

    (Kent Nishimura / Getty Images)

    South: It’s not just the chattering class.

    Newsom’s now the leading candidate among rank-and-file Democrats. They had been pleading — begging — for years that some Democratic leader step out of the box, step up to the plate, and fight back, giving Trump a dose of his own medicine. Newsom has been meeting that demand with wit, skill and doggedness — not just on social media, but through passage of Proposition 50, the Democratic gerrymandering measure.

    And Democrats recognize and appreciate it

    Barabak: Hmmm. Perhaps I’m somewhat lacking in imagination, but I just can’t picture a world where Democrats say, “Hey, the solution to our soul-crushing defeat in 2024 is to nominate another well-coiffed, left-leaning product of that bastion of homespun Americana, San Francisco.”

    South: Uh, Americans twice now have elected a president not just from New York City, but who lived in an ivory tower in Manhattan, in a penthouse with a 24-carat-gold front door (and, allegedly, gold-plated toilet seats). You think Manhattan is a soupçon more representative of middle America than San Francisco?

    Like I said, state of origin is less important now after the Trump precedent.

    Barabak: Trump was a larger-than-life — or at least larger-than-Manhattan — celebrity. Geography wasn’t an impediment because he had — and has — a remarkable ability, far beyond my reckoning, to present himself as a tribune of the working class, the downtrodden and economically struggling Americans, even as he spreads gold leaf around himself like a kid with a can of Silly String.

    Speaking of Kamala Harris, she hasn’t ruled out a third try at the White House in 2028. Where would you place your money in a Newsom-Harris throwdown for the Democratic nomination? How about Harris in the general election, against whomever Republicans choose?

    South: Harris running again in 2028 would be like Michael Dukakis making a second try for president in 1992. My God, she not only lost every swing state, and the electoral college by nearly 100 votes, Harris also lost the popular vote — the first Democrat to do so in 20 years.

    If she doesn’t want to embarrass herself, she should listen to her home-state voters, who in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll said she shouldn’t run again — by a margin of 69-31. (Even 52% of Democrats said no). She’s yesterday’s news.

    Barabak: Seems as though you feel one walk down memory lane was quite enough. We’ll see if Harris — and, more pertinently, Democratic primary voters — agree.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

    The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

    Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

    Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

    Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

    Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

    Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

    And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

    To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

    Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

    That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

    Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

    Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

    And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

    As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

    Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

    They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

    There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

    But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

    Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

    But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

    Barabak: It shouldn’t.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

    But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

    There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

    But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

    Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

    Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

    But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

    It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

    The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

    Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

    Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

    I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

    Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

    I’d wager more than a penny on that.

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Commentary: Proposition 50 is a short-term victory against Trump. But at what cost?

    One of the great conceits of California is its place on the cutting edge — of fashion, culture, technology, politics and other facets of the ways we live and thrive.

    Not so with Proposition 50.

    The redistricting measure, which passed resoundingly Tuesday, doesn’t break any ground, chart a fresh course or shed any light on a better pathway forward.

    It is, to use a favorite word of California’s governor, merely the latest iteration of what has come to define today’s politics of fractiousness and division.

    In fact, the redistricting measure and the partisan passions it stirred offer a perfect reflection of where we stand as a splintered country: Democrats overwhelming supported it. Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed.

    Nothing new or novel about that.

    And if Proposition 50 plays out as intended, it could make things worse, heightening the country’s polarization and increasing the animosity in Washington that is rotting our government and politics from the inside out.

    You’re welcome.

    The argument in favor of Proposition 50 — and it’s a strong one — is that California was merely responding to the scheming and underhanded actions of a rogue chief executive who desperately needs to be checked and balanced.

    The only apparent restraint on President Trump’s authoritarian impulse is whether he thinks he can get away with something, as congressional Republicans and a supine Supreme Court look the other way.

    With GOP control of the House hanging by the merest of threads, Trump set out to boost his party’s prospects in the midterm election by browbeating Texas Republicans into redrawing the state’s congressional lines long before it was time. Trump’s hope next year is to gain as many as five of the state’s House seats.

    Gov. Gavin Newson responded with Proposition 50, which scraps the work of a voter-created, nonpartisan redistricting commission and changes the political map to help Democrats flip five of California’s seats.

    And with that the redistricting battle was joined, as states across the country looked to rejigger their congressional boundaries to benefit one party or the other.

    The upshot is that even more politicians now have the luxury of picking their voters, instead of the other way around, and if that doesn’t bother you maybe you’re not all that big a fan of representative democracy or the will of the people.

    Was it necessary for Newsom, eyes fixed on the White House, to escalate the red-versus-blue battle? Did California have to jump in and be a part of the political race to the bottom? We won’t know until November 2026.

    History and Trump’s sagging approval ratings — especially regarding the economy — suggest that Democrats are well positioned to gain at least the handful of seats needed to take control of the House, even without resorting to the machinations of Proposition 50.

    There is, of course, no guarantee.

    Gerrymandering aside, a pending Supreme Court decision that could gut the Voting Rights Act might deliver Republicans well over a dozen seats, greatly increasing the odds of the GOP maintaining power.

    What is certain is that Proposition 50 will in effect disenfranchise millions of California Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who already feel overlooked and irrelevant to the workings of their home state.

    Too bad for them, you might say. But that feeling of neglect frays faith in our political system and can breed a kind of to-hell-with-it cynicism that makes electing and cheering on a “disruptor” like Trump seem like a reasonable and appealing response.

    (And, yes, disenfranchisement is just as bad when it targets Democratic voters who’ve been nullified in Texas, North Carolina, Missouri and other GOP-run states.)

    Worse, slanting political lines so that one party or the other is guaranteed victory only widens the gulf that has helped turn Washington’s into its current slough of dysfunction.

    The lack of competition means the greatest fear many lawmakers have is not the prospect of losing to the other party in a general election but rather being snuffed out in a primary by a more ideological and extreme challenger.

    That makes cooperation and cross-party compromise, an essential lubricant to the way Washington is supposed to work, all the more difficult to achieve.

    Witness the government shutdown, now in its record 36th day. Then imagine a Congress seated in January 2027 with even more lawmakers guaranteed reelection and concerned mainly with appeasing their party’s activist base.

    The animating impulse behind Proposition 50 is understandable.

    Trump is running the most brazenly corrupt administration in modern history. He’s gone beyond transgressing political and presidential norms to openly trampling on the Constitution.

    He’s made it plain he cares only about those who support him, which excludes the majority of Americans who did not wish to see Trump’s return to the White House.

    As if anyone needed reminding, his (patently false) bleating about a “rigged” California election, issued just minutes after the polls opened Tuesday, showed how reckless, misguided and profoundly irresponsible the president is.

    With the midterm election still nearly a year off — and the 2028 presidential contest eons away — many of those angry or despondent over the benighted state of our union desperately wanted to do something to push back.

    Proposition 50, however, was a shortsighted solution.

    Newsom and other proponents said the retaliatory ballot measure was a way of fighting fire with fire. But that smell in the air today isn’t victory.

    It’s ashes.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Trump pushes hard against Mamdani as New Yorkers select a mayor

    Voters were casting ballots in high-stakes elections on both coasts Tuesday, including for mayor of New York, new congressional maps in California and governor in both New Jersey and Virginia, states whose shifting electorates could signal the direction of the nation’s political winds.

    For voters and political watchers alike, the races have taken on huge importance at a time of tense political division, when Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided over the direction of the nation. Despite President Trump not appearing on any ballots, some viewed Tuesday’s races as a referendum on him and his volatile second term in the White House.

    In New York, self-described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, 34, was favored to win the mayoral race after winning the Democratic ranked-choice mayoral primary in June. Such a result would shake up the Democratic establishment and rile Republicans in near equal measure, serving as a rejection of both former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a more establishment Democrat and Mamdani’s leading opponent, and Trump, who has warned that a Mamdani win would destroy the city.

    On election eve, Trump warned that a Mamdani win would disrupt the flow of federal dollars to the city and took the dramatic step of endorsing Cuomo over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican in the race.

    “If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home, because of the fact that, as a Communist, this once great City has ZERO chance of success, or even survival!” Trump wrote Monday on his social media platform.

    A vote for Sliwa “is a vote for Mamdani,” the president added. “Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”

    Mamdani, a Ugandan-born naturalized U.S. citizen and New York state assemblyman who defeated Cuomo in the primary, has promised a brighter day for New Yorkers with better public transportation, more affordable housing and high-quality child care if he wins. He has slammed billionaires and some of the city’s monied interests, which have lined up against him, and rejected the “grave political darkness” that he said is threatening the country under Trump.

    He also mocked Trump’s endorsement of Cuomo — calling the former governor Trump’s “puppet” and “parrot.”

    Samantha Marrero, a 35-year-old lifelong New Yorker, lined up with more than a dozen people Tuesday morning at her polling site in Brooklyn’s Greenpoint neighborhood to cast her vote for Mamdani, whom she praised for embracing people of color, queer people and other communities marginalized by mainstream politicians.

    Marrero said that she cares deeply about housing insecurity and affordability in the city, but that it was also “really meaningful to have someone who is brown and who looks like us and who eats like us and who lives more like us than anyone we’ve ever seen before” on the ballot. “That representation is really important.”

    New York mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo speaks to reporters as he marks his ballot in New York on Nov. 4, 2025.

    (Richard Drew / Associated Press)

    And she said that’s a big part of why people across the country are watching the New York race.

    “We’re definitely a beacon in this kind of fascist takeover that is very clearly happening across the country,” she said. “People in other states and other cities and other countries have their eyes on what’s happening here. Obviously Mamdani is doing something right. And together we can do something right. But it has to be together.”

    Elsewhere on the East Coast, voters were electing governors in Virginia and New Jersey, races that have also drawn the president’s attention.

    In the New Jersey race, Trump has backed the Republican candidate, former state Rep. Jack Ciattarelli, over the Democratic candidate, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, whom former President Obama recently stumped for. Long a blue state, New Jersey has been shifting to the right, and polls have shown a tight race.

    In the Virginia race, former Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a 46-year-old former CIA officer, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, according to an Associated Press projection.

    Trump had not endorsed Earle-Sears by name, but called on Virginians to “vote Republican” and to reject Democratic candidate Spanberger, whom Obama has also supported.

    “Why would anyone vote for New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Candidates, Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, when they want transgender for everybody, men playing in women’s sports, High Crime, and the most expensive Energy prices almost anywhere in the World?” Trump recently wrote on his social media site, repeating some of his favorite partisan attacks on Democrats from the presidential campaign trail last year.

    At a rally for Spanberger in Norfolk, Va., over the weekend, Obama put the race in equally stark terms: as part of a battle for American democracy.

    “We don’t need to speculate about the dangers to our democracy. We don’t need to wonder about whether vulnerable people are going to be hurt, or ask ourselves how much more coarse and mean our culture can become. We’ve witnessed it. Elections do matter,” Obama said. “We all have more power than we think. We just have to use it.”

    Voting was underway in the states, but with some disruptions. Bomb threats disrupted voting in parts of New Jersey early Tuesday, temporarily shutting down a string of polling locations across the state before law enforcement determined they were hoaxes.

    In California, voters were being asked to change the state Constitution to allow Democrats to redraw congressional maps in their favor through 2030, in order to counter similar moves by Republicans in red states such as Texas.

    Leading Democrats, including Obama and Gov. Gavin Newsom, have described the measure as an effort to safeguard American democracy against a power grab by Trump, who had encouraged the red states to act, while opponents of the measure have derided it as an antidemocratic power grab by state Democrats.

    Trump has urged California voters against casting ballots by mail or voting early, arguing such practices are somehow “dishonest,” and on Tuesday morning suggested on his social media site that Proposition 50 was unconstitutional.

    “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote, without providing evidence of problems. “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!”

    Both individually and collectively, the races are being closely watched as potential indicators of political sentiment and enthusiasm going into next year’s midterm elections, and of Democrats’ ability to get voters back to the polls after Trump’s decisive win over former Vice President Kamala Harris last year.

    Voters too saw the races as having particularly large stakes at a pivotal moment for the country.

    Michelle Kim, 32, who has lived in the Greenpoint neighborhood for three years, stood in line at a polling site early Tuesday morning, waiting to cast her vote for Mamdani.

    Kim said she cares about transportation, land use and the rising cost of living in New York and appreciated Mamdani’s broader message that solutions are possible, even if not guaranteed.

    “My hope is not, like, ‘Oh, he’s gonna solve, like, all of our issues,’” she said. “But I think for him to be able to represent people and give hope, that’s also part of it.”

    Lin reported from New York and Rector from San Francisco. Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie in Atlanta contributed to this report.

    Kevin Rector, Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Election Day in Northern California: The latest on voting for Prop 50 redistricting measure

    California voters have one big ballot measure to consider this year. Here’s what you need to know about Proposition 50 and how it would impact the state. What is Proposition 50? If passed, it would change California’s congressional district map. Normally the map is drawn by an independent commission, but state Democrats drew *** new map to try and get more members of their party elected to Congress. It’s *** direct response to Texas changing their congressional maps in favor of electing more Republicans. *** yes vote would support changing the maps. The congressional districts will get redrawn in *** way that spreads out likely Democratic voters into areas that are normally solved Republican spots. *** no vote would keep the current maps in place. What are people saying about Prop 50? Well, supporters say it is *** crucial step in keeping President Trump’s power in check and counter his push to get other states to redraw their maps. Governor Gavin Newsom is behind this move. Because Republicans hold the majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, supporters of this measure say it would limit President Trump and his ability to pass items on his agenda. Opponents who are mostly members of the Republican Party say this is just *** power grab by the Democratic Party that would undermine *** fair election. 5 districts are likely to change from red to blue if Proposition 50 passes. District 1, currently represented by Doug LaMalfa. District 3 is represented by Kevin Kiley. District 22 is represented by David Valadaa. District 41 is currently held by Ken Calver. Lastly, District 48, which is held by Darrell Issa. Election day is November 4th, and ballots have already been mailed out. They must be returned or mailed in by that date for your vote to count.

    Special Election Day in Northern California: The latest on voting for Prop 50 redistricting measure

    See updates on Election Day.

    Updated: 12:01 AM PST Nov 4, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Election Day has arrived for the special election. On Tuesday, Californians will decide whether to temporarily adopt new congressional district maps statewide, as Democratic leaders push to send more Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives.Proposition 50, or Prop 50 for short, is part of a larger national fight in which Republicans and Democrats are trying to gerrymander their congressional districts to determine which party controls Congress halfway through President Trump’s term. The proposed maps target five California Republicans in an attempt to offset the five Republicans Texas is aiming to add.(Video Above: What to know about California’s Prop 50)Some communities in Northern California also have other measures or local races to weigh in on, including some measures in El Dorado County and the town of Truckee and races in Plumas County.All polling locations will open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. If you’re still in line when polls close, you should be able to cast your ballot. We’ll continue to update this page with updates from Election Day. Make sure to download our app for the latest breaking news updates with election results. What to know before polls open at 7 a.m.While voters can cast their ballot in person on Election Day, millions of California voters have already mailed in or dropped off their ballot. Here’s how to track your ballot. Here’s a look at early voter turnout across the state.Before heading out the door to vote, check if you are heading to the correct or closest voting location.Find out how to check here.Still need to learn more about Prop 50? Here’s everything to know.For those eager to head to the polls, make sure you know what you can and can’t do when it comes to voting in California. For example, you cannot wear pins, hats, shirts or other visible items that display a candidate’s name, image, logo or information about supporting or opposing a ballot measure. Here are more Election Day dos and don’ts.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

    Election Day has arrived for the special election.

    On Tuesday, Californians will decide whether to temporarily adopt new congressional district maps statewide, as Democratic leaders push to send more Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Proposition 50, or Prop 50 for short, is part of a larger national fight in which Republicans and Democrats are trying to gerrymander their congressional districts to determine which party controls Congress halfway through President Trump’s term. The proposed maps target five California Republicans in an attempt to offset the five Republicans Texas is aiming to add.

    (Video Above: What to know about California’s Prop 50)

    Some communities in Northern California also have other measures or local races to weigh in on, including some measures in El Dorado County and the town of Truckee and races in Plumas County.

    All polling locations will open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. If you’re still in line when polls close, you should be able to cast your ballot.

    We’ll continue to update this page with updates from Election Day. Make sure to download our app for the latest breaking news updates with election results.

    What to know before polls open at 7 a.m.

    While voters can cast their ballot in person on Election Day, millions of California voters have already mailed in or dropped off their ballot.

    Before heading out the door to vote, check if you are heading to the correct or closest voting location.

    Still need to learn more about Prop 50?

    For those eager to head to the polls, make sure you know what you can and can’t do when it comes to voting in California.

    For example, you cannot wear pins, hats, shirts or other visible items that display a candidate’s name, image, logo or information about supporting or opposing a ballot measure. Here are more Election Day dos and don’ts.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • Both sides say democracy is at stake with Prop. 50 — but for very different reasons

    If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

    And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

    Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

    Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

    Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

    “Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

    Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

    Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

    That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

    Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

    Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

    “The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

    Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

    “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

    California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

    The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

    Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

    The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

    Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

    Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

    In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

    Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

    But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

    Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

    “I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

    Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

    Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

    The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

    Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

    Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

    Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

    “The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link