Politics

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Let’s be candid about the controversy over whether film director Rob Reiner misspent public funds by raiding the child-development program created by his last ballot initiative, Proposition 10, for cash to promote his new Preschool for All ballot initiative.

Reiner’s not the only one taking advantage.

The supervisory standards set up by Proposition 10 in 1998 are scandalously lax. The program uses income from a tobacco surtax, including 50 cents per pack of cigarettes, to fund health, welfare and educational services for children up to age 5 — things like immunization and preschool.

But it has become a feeding trough for people flogging pet projects and for outside consultants of every stripe.

Proposition 10 bestowed a total lack of accountability on the bodies it established to disburse the money — the state Children and Families Commission (headed by Reiner until he took a leave of absence Feb. 24) and 58 county entities, known as “First5” commissions.

The initiative failed to provide guidance on rudimentary issues such as conflicts of interest, competitive bidding or how success should be measured. And each commission was given the responsibility to audit itself.

The sums involved aren’t trivial. The tobacco levy has produced $4 billion to date. Of this haul, 20% goes to the state commission. The rest is apportioned to the county commissions according to each county’s share of statewide live births.

For an example of how individual commissions disburse this money, let’s look at Orange County, the second-largest First5 in the state (after Los Angeles), which receives about $40 million a year. Its vice chairman, the right-wing political pundit Hugh Hewitt, is Reiner’s most vocal and persistent critic.

Back in 2003, the commission awarded a no-bid, $250,000 annual contract to a consulting firm called the White House Writers Group. What is this outfit, you ask? It’s a Washington-based gang mostly comprising former speechwriters and staff members in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. It was proposed for the contract by Hugh Hewitt, himself a former Reagan White House staffer and a personal friend of one of its principals.

Hewitt says he recommended the firm, which is essentially a high-powered PR outfit, to help the commission rectify what had become “four years of limited success in establishing the partnerships we need [in Washington] in the national health and philanthropy communities.” Whether the contract will put a single vaccine in a child’s arm he doesn’t say; I only know that $250,000 a year would buy a lot of vaccines.

Hewitt also says: “I don’t know and have never inquired about the political affiliation” of the firm’s partners and staff. Leaving aside the fatuous suggestion that a conservative Republican with his background could be unaware of the partisan coloration of such an obvious GOP nest, he doesn’t have to “inquire.” It’s trumpeted loudly on the firm’s website.

Hewitt observes that the OC commission also employs former Democratic assemblyman Phil Isenberg as its lobbyist in Sacramento, as though to prove that the commission is an equal-opportunity political piggy bank.

This got me thinking: Why in heaven’s name does a county commission, with a guaranteed revenue stream and representation in the capital by the statewide First5 commission and by a separate association of county First5 commissions, need its own Sacramento lobbyist?

Hewitt says it’s to keep the Legislature “mindful of the difference between the state commission and the local initiatives.”

What’s the cost of teaching legislators the difference between “state” and “county”? Since 2002, the OC commission has paid Isenberg’s current and former lobbying firms $340,762. That would probably cover the wages of a few school nurses.

Finally, let’s consider the OC commission’s featured new health initiative. This is an avian flu preparedness program, to which it allocated $2.3 million in November. Orange County is the only First5 commission that has established such a program, according to its executive director, Michael Ruane.

As it happens, the avian flu is an issue dear to the particular heart of Hugh Hewitt, who writes incessantly on his weblog about the imminent threat of an avian flu pandemic. Hewitt acknowledges that he “urged the Commission to consider and adopt” the avian flu plan. Reading between the lines, it sounds like his baby.

But at the moment, a large-scale threat to human health from the avian flu is entirely conjectural. Though the virus is spreading rapidly from Asia outward (it hasn’t reached North or South America), the threat is still largely to birds and, to a much smaller degree, farmers and other humans who come in direct contact with the infected animals.

The few known cases of human-to-human transmission — a prerequisite for a pandemic — resulted from extremely close contact with an infected person, such as between mother and child. Experts say the virus would have to mutate to become freely transmissible among humans, and although they don’t rule out the possibility, it hasn’t happened. The federal Centers for Disease Control don’t even recommend that Americans avoid travel to affected regions.

Hewitt defends the program by arguing that children will be “among the most vulnerable groups to the deadly virus.” But that can be said about almost any transmissible disease. Hewitt doesn’t explain why he believes that federal, state and local authorities will be so overmatched by the avian flu that the First5 commission, which has countless other ways to spend its money, needs to step up to the plate.

The irony is that spending on consultants and pet projects like these sends conservatives bouncing off the ceiling when they catch liberals at it. A Wall Street Journal editorial Hewitt quotes approvingly in his weblog commented pointedly, citing the Los Angeles Times, that First5 money “has found its way into the bank accounts of public relations and advertising firms, some of which are run by friends of Mr. Reiner.”

But sweetheart deals and personal hobbyhorses that divert money from children’s programs know no partisan boundaries. How are the friends of Mr. Hewitt doing?

Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com and view his web log at latimes.com/goldenstateblog.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday said President Donald Trump’s executive order last week seeking national rules on artificial intelligence doesn’t prevent states from imposing laws on the use of the technology.

Speaking at an AI event at Florida Atlantic University, DeSantis said Florida will move forward on AI policies he has dubbed a “Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence.”

“The president issued an executive order. Some people were saying, ‘well, no, this blocks the states,'” DeSantis said, according to The Hill. “It doesn’t.”

Trump signed an executive order Thursday seeking to give the United States a “global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Politico reported the Trump administration has said it’s prepared to file lawsuits and without funding to states that interfere with federal AI plans.

DeSantis said, though, that an executive order can’t block states.

“You can preempt states under Article 1 powers through congressional legislation on certain issues, but you can’t do it through executive order,” he said.

“But if you read it, they actually say a lot of the stuff we’re talking about are things that they’re encouraging states to do. So even reading very broadly, I think the stuff we’re doing is going to be very consistent. But irrespective, clearly we have the right to do this.”

Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

Rest in peace, indeed.

It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.

For years, Reiner made the politics of inclusion and decency central to his life. He was a key player in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage and fought to expand early childhood education.

For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.

“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”

The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.

But also, deeply hypocritical.

It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.

Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.

And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.

“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”

But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.

Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.

He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.

This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.

But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”

Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”

Sound familiar?

That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.

Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.

If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.

Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.

And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.

LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIF. — At a time of huge bank mergers and cries to overhaul the nation’s banking system, Kenneth A. Guenther makes sure the smallest banks in America have one of the loudest voices.

The outspoken chief executive and executive vice president of the Independent Bankers Assn. of America more often than not finds himself at odds with powerful forces pushing for sweeping changes in the rules banks operate under as well as those promoting huge mergers as a way to improve the health of the nation’s banks.

The future of the Bush Administration’s bank reforms–allowing banks to open branches across state lines, allowing banks into Wall Street and insurance activities and permitting industrial and service companies to buy banks–is growing more uncertain. Two weeks ago, the House voted down a Democrat-altered version of the bank-reform plan. A much narrower bill, largely to bolster the nation’s dwindling bank deposit insurance fund, could be approved soon, but any major reforms are unlikely right now.

In fighting the Administration, Guenther has irked some powerful people. Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady has said that Guenther “demeans his members, carrying on the way he does” in his opposition to the bank-overhaul plans.

A native of Rochester, N.Y., Guenther, 55, completed graduate studies at Johns Hopkins, the University of Rangoon and Yale University. A former Treasury and State Department official, Guenther served as a special assistant to three former heads of the Federal Reserve Board. He joined the 6,100-member banking trade group roughly 10 years ago.

Guenther’s basic point is that the deck is increasingly stacked against the small community banks. Although he has the image of a maverick, Guenther is very much a Washington insider, maintaining cordial relationships with many people he disagrees with publicly. He plays tennis with the likes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and various bank regulators–though he often finds himself at odds with them on policy.

Guenther uses blunt words to make his case. But the Washington influence shows in his dress–a formal business suit for morning meetings even at a resort hotel where everyone is dressed for golf. His populist style has made him a hero among independent bankers, while attracting criticism from those who accuse him of grandstanding.

Part of Guenther’s clout comes with his skill with the media. He is a prolific writer of letters to the editor, is quoted frequently and has strong friendships with reporters–in fact, he and his wife, Lilly, are godparents of a New York Times reporter’s twins.

Question: What future does the independent bank have in this age of banking consolidation?

Answer: There are going to be fewer big banks and medium-sized banks than smaller banks. As banks get larger, this opens up more niches for your smaller banks. Larger banks generally mean poorer services for your small business and small-time customers.

Q: Large banks would argue the opposite. They would say it will be good for customers, providing things they can’t get now.

A: With size comes regimentation. You are going to have to do things their way. There is going to be far less “high touch.” Those small banks providing high-touch services are going to have increased opportunities.

Q: What about public policy concerning mergers? You said Treasury is committed to seeing a lot of mergers. Why so?

A: Secretary (Nicholas F.) Brady wants to get the banks in this country into the No. 1 rank. But people aren’t looking at the cost of building banks to the size of the Japanese banks. Size alone does not mean a healthy, good, diversified financial system or political system. The Japanese have the largest banks in the world, but who wants their political system? Our diversified financial and economic system underlies our diversified political system.

Q: What about the argument that the big banks use , that there’s too much overcapacity? That there are too many banks?

A: There’s a very interesting study out from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that says public policy promoting consolidation is not in the interests of the banking system or the economy. This study indicates that we should not be moving in that direction.

Q: What about the argument that says the banking system is inefficient?

A: I think our banking system is remarkably efficient. I think we have still the strongest entrepreneurial system in the world. It needs some fine tuning. But we don’t have to throw it out lock, stock and barrel and adopt a Japanese model.

Q: Does it need consolidation?

A: The industry is consolidating. The question is: Is it productive public policy to force more rapid consolidation?

Q: The House for now has rejected legislation to overhaul the banking system. What does this mean for the independent banks?

A: This legislation has nine lives–it’s on its fourth now. The Administration and their big-bank allies killed a version of the bill they didn’t like and moved immediately to resuscitate another version of Secretary Brady’s big-bank reform bill.

Q: Why should people care about these proposals?

A: Everybody in the United States should breathe a big sigh of relief because the House has turned back a proposal from the Administration which would have allowed the largest commercial firms–domestic and foreign–to buy the largest banks in this country. This would have totally restructured the economic and financial system of the United States and led to an enormous concentration of economic power. That’s always bad news for John Q. Public.

Q: Why shouldn’t a bank be allowed to open a branch across a state line?

A: Our problem with that is that the Treasury Department proposed to keep “too big to fail”–meaning the Treasury Department proposed that the bigger banks continue to have a 100% deposit insurance product. At the same time, they were proposing that our deposit insurance product be reduced. That means the big banks could go across state lines, offering a superior deposit insurance product. This would have driven money out of the smaller banks of this country.

Q: Do you fear that there will eventually be some cuts in deposit insurance?

A: Everybody knows that the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) fund is hurting. Why not expand the assessment base? The foreign deposits in American banks that enjoy deposit insurance coverage do not pay deposit insurance premiums. Make everybody who has the insurance pay for the insurance. That could bring in literally billions and billions of dollars a year.

Q: Does it matter whether we declare a policy saying banks are not too big to fail? In a crunch, won’t we step in?

A: (Federal Reserve Board Chairman) Alan Greenspan is about as free market as you can get. But Greenspan has testified repeatedly before the Congress that the large uninsured depositor cannot be put at risk, because if he’s put at risk in this country we will have runs (on the banks). He will take his money and put it into the Japanese banks, or German banks. What Alan Greenspan is saying is, in the moment of truth, we are going to intervene to make sure the depositors in your big banks do not get hurt, because this is essential for the stability of the system. How can you make a policy prescription to cut back deposit insurance for John Q. Public, who banks with a smaller institution?

Q: What about proposals such as $100,000 protection per Social Security number?

A: In this day and age, $100,000 is not that much money. It’s a four-year college course for a student who doesn’t go to an Eastern school. Again, you are penalizing your smaller institutions. People will put their money in your “too-big-to-fail” banks.

Q: What about allowing banks into other lines of business?

A: You are opening the door into riskier areas. If you are moving into a business you don’t know well, you are not inclined to do it well in the beginning. And the doors that they are trying to open are really quite risky. Underwriting corporate debt, or underwriting stocks is a risky business. Will the banks do it well? Will it turn out to be profitable? I think these are question marks.

Q: What are the primary problems of independent banks these days?

A. We are in a recession that is deeper than anticipated. The Fed has just cut key interest rates. . . . The other problem is that the industry went too far overboard in terms of commercial real-estate development.

Q: How healthy are independent banks?

A: The independent banks are healthier than your larger banks.

Q: Can the voice of an independent bank be heard these days?

A: It’s enormously frustrating that this Administration is listening to a very select number of voices. The Treasury Department is promoting a legislative product that benefits a relatively few number of large financial institutions. This is why we have sort of adopted the theme that the Treasury is promoting Wall Street and we are here trying to protect Main Street. There are far more Main Street institutions than Wall Street institutions.

Q: Do you think that the deck is stacked against the independent bank?

A. The deck in this Administration is stacked against the independent banks. And therefore we have put together this wide-ranging Main Street coalition: small business, retired people, home builders and farm groups working against key elements in the Administration proposal.

Q: Both you and your association have taken a lot of criticism from people like Brady and also other trade groups.

A: No one likes to be criticized by the secretary of Treasury, who is a nice man. But I’m sorry, Mr. Secretary, your policy objectives are very different than ours. Your policy objectives will make life much tougher for millions of banks and small businesses.

Q: If they gave you the banking reform bill and said write it any way you want, what would you do?

A: The problem is that this bill focused on the weakness of the deposit insurance fund. Something has to be done to strengthen the deposit insurance fund, and thus strengthen depositor confidence. Then you move from that central issue that has to be addressed and ask yourself the next question: What can you do to definitely strengthen banking and the profitability of banking? There are some things that can be done in this area. Give banks some more retail products, and again this will increase what is available to the American consumer.

Q: Do you think taxpayers are going to have to pick up any of the tab for the banking problems as they have for the savings and loans?

A: It depends on what happens to the real-estate market in California. Just like with costs of the S&L; crisis, things are escalated by what happens in California. California is such a key state.

Q: And depending on what happens here is what is going to make the difference?

A. What happens in California will make the difference. The banking industry, to remain healthy, cannot pick up the full tab if things go very bad in California. At that time, the American taxpayer would have to decide: Do we want a healthy and growing banking industry or do we force the full tab on the banking industry?

Q: In this era of megamergers, with huge institutions being created, can the independent bank compete?

A: The independent bank will compete, the independent bank will survive and prosper. We run a high-touch operation: high-tech plus high-touch. There is going to be plenty of business around for those who don’t want to deal with the impersonal, insensitive elephants.

Q: What about the argument that we don’t need all of these little banks?

A: We don’t need all these big banks running around. There are definitely too many big banks in New York City–in a declining economy and declining city. The American market is really not over-banked. It’s one of the illusions that is out there. American small business wants to deal with your smaller bank, where you get better, personalized service.

Q: What about the argument that we need bigger banks to compete with foreign banks?

A: Perhaps in some areas, that’s the case. But what the big banks have lost in this country is the large commercial lending business. They’ve lost your commercial and industry loans. Big firms earlier went to banks to get this money, now they issue their own commercial paper. So the big banks are looking for a new role, and maybe they can’t find it.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Trinidad and Tobago announced Monday that it will open up its airport to U.S. military flights as tensions escalate between the United States and Venezuela.

The country’s foreign ministry announced it has “granted approvals” to military jets to use its airports, adding that the United States said the flights would be “logistical in nature, facilitating supply replenishment and routing personnel rotations.”

“The Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs maintains close engagement with the United States Embassy in Trinidad and Tobago,” an announcement from Trinidad and Tobago said.

“The honorable prime minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has affirmed the government’s commitment to cooperation and collaboration in the pursuit of safety and security for Trinidad and Tobago and the wider region. We welcome the continued support of the United States.”

At its closest point, Trinidad is just 7 miles from Venezuela.

The country allowed the USS Graverly to dock Oct. 26 and conducted joint military drills with the U.S. 22 Marine Expeditionary Unit in October and November.

The U.S. military also installed a high-tech radar unit, AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR at the ANR Robinson International Airport in Crown Point, on Tobago, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking.

Persad-Bissessar initially denied reports of Marines being in Trinidad and Tobago. She retracted those statements last month, saying there were Marines working on the radar, runway and road.

Some on the island have expressed concern that it could be used as a launchpad for fighting with Venezuela, but Persad-Bissessar has denied that. She has voiced support of the U.S. attacks on boats in the Caribbean.

The United States has placed a large number of ships in the Caribbean, including warships, fighter jets, Marines and the USS Gerald R. Ford to show force against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a foe of President Donald Trump.

Katie Pavlich, a longtime contributor to Fox News, is leaving the network to join NewsNation.

Pavlich, a conservative political analyst, will have a nightly 10 p.m ET program starting early next year, the Nexstar-owned cable news channel announced Monday.

Pavlich, 37, will replace Ashleigh Banfield, who held down the time period since 2021. Banfield will partner with the network to create digital true crime content, including a podcast.

Pavlich has spent the last 16 years as news editor of the conservative website Townhall.com. She appeared regularly on cable ratings leader Fox News since 2013, appearing as a guest co-host on “The Five” and a fill-in host on its prime-time programs.

Pavlich becomes the latest Fox News alum to join NewsNation. Leland Vittert, a former correspondent for the network, is NewsNation’s 9 p.m. Eastern host. Chris Stirewalt, who was fired from Fox after the 2020 presidential election, is politics editor for the network.

Veteran cable news host Ashleigh Banfield joined NewsNation in March.

(NewsNation)

NewsNation was launched in 2020 as an alternative to the three major cable news networks at a time when all leaned heavily into opinion programming in prime time. But the network has moved toward political debate since Chris Cuomo became its highest rated host in prime time.

An Arizona native who grew up as an avid hunter, Pavlich is a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment. She poses with firearms in a number of photos on her Instagram.

Pavlich is the author of several books, including New York Times bestsellers “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal” and “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.”

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

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

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

Physicians are seeking a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels before they were eroded by inflation.

Resident doctors in England will go ahead with a five-day strike this week after rejecting the government’s latest offer aimed at ending a long-running dispute over pay and working conditions.

Formerly known as junior doctors, the physicians, who make up nearly half of England’s medical workforce, will walk out from 07:00 GMT on Wednesday until 07:00 GMT next Monday.

The action follows an online survey by the British Medical Association (BMA) in which members voted to reject the proposal.

“Tens of thousands of frontline doctors have come together to say ‘no’ to what is clearly too little, too late,” BMA resident doctors committee chairman Jack Fletcher said in a statement, adding that members had rejected the government’s latest offer on working conditions.

Fletcher said the union remained willing to work towards a resolution.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting appealed to doctors to call off the strike.

“There is no need for these strikes to go ahead this week, and it reveals the BMA’s shocking disregard for patient safety,” he said, describing the action as “self-indulgent, irresponsible and dangerous”.

Speaking to Sky News, Streeting said the government was open to the BMA rescheduling the strike to reduce risks to patients during a surge in flu cases.

Flu-related hospitalisations in England rose by more than 50 percent in early December, reaching an average of 2,660 patients a day, the highest level for this time of year. Health leaders have warned there is still no clear peak in sight.

Across Europe, health authorities are grappling with an unusually early and severe flu season, warning of rising cases across the continent.

The BMA said 83 percent of resident doctors voted to reject the government’s offer with a turnout of 65 percent among its more than 50,000 members.

The offer, made on Wednesday, did not include new pay terms. The BMA has been campaigning for improved pay even before the Labour Party won last year’s general election.

Shortly after taking office, Streeting agreed a deal offering doctors a 22 percent pay rise, short of the 29 percent sought by the union.

The BMA has also called for improvements beyond the 5.4 percent pay increase announced earlier this year, arguing resident doctors continue to suffer from years of pay erosion.

Doctors are seeking “full pay restoration”, meaning a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels in real terms before they were eroded by inflation.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday announced a new California-led public health initiative, tapping former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials who publicly clashed with the Trump administration, including the former agency chief who warned that the nation’s public health system was headed to “a very dangerous place.”

Newsom said the initiative will be led by Dr. Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, and Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer. The pair will lead the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange, or PHNIX, which the governor’s office said will “modernize public health infrastructure and maintain trust in science-driven decision-making.”

The initiative was created to improve the systems that detect and investigate public health trends and build a modern public-health backbone that connects data, technology and funding across states.

“The Public Health Network Innovation Exchange is expected to bring together the best science, the best tools, and the best minds to advance public health,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch, we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

Monarez will serve as strategic health technology and funding advisor for the initiative, helping advance private sector partnerships to better integrate healthcare data systems and enable faster disease surveillance.

“I am deeply excited to bring my experience in health technology and innovation to support PHNIX,” Monarez said in a statement shared by Newsom’s office. “California has an extraordinary concentration of talent, technology, and investment, and this effort is about putting those strengths to work for the public good — modernizing how public health operates, accelerating innovation, and building a healthier, more resilient future for all Californians.”

Houry was named senior regional and global public health medical advisor for PHNIX. Newsom’s office also announced it will work with Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, founder and chief executive of Your Local Epidemiologist. Jetelina will advise the California Department of Public Health on building trust in public health.

Monarez and Houry both described extraordinary turmoil inside the nation’s health agencies during congressional hearings, telling senators in September that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and political advisors rebuffed data supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Monarez was fired after just 29 days on the job. She said Kennedy told her to resign if she did not sign off on new unsupported vaccine recommendations. Kennedy has described Monarez as admitting to him that she is “untrustworthy,” a claim Monarez has denied through her attorney.

“Dramatic and unfounded changes in federal policy, funding, and scientific practice have created uncertainty and instability in public health and health care,” Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director and state public health officer, said in a statement. “I am thrilled to work with these advisors to catalyze our efforts to lead a sustainable future for public health. California is stepping up to coordinate and build the scaffolding we need to navigate this moment.”

The salaries of the new positions were not immediately known.

Newsom’s office said the California initiative would build on previously announced public health partnerships, such as the West Coast Health Alliance.

SACRAMENTO — It turns out Proposition 50 smacked California Republicans with a double blow heading into the 2026 congressional elections.

First, there was the reshaping of House districts aimed at flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats.

Now, we learn that the proposition itself juiced up Democratic voter enthusiasm for the elections.

Voter enthusiasm normally results in a higher casting of ballots.

It’s all about the national battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and Congress potentially exercising its constitutional duty to provide some checks and balance against the president. Democrats need a net pickup of only three seats in November’s elections to dethrone Republicans.

President Trump is desperate to keep his GOP toadies in power. So, he has coerced — bullied and threatened — some red-state governors and legislatures into rejiggering Democratic-held House seats to make them more Republican-friendly.

When Texas quickly obliged, Gov. Gavin Newsom retaliated with a California Democratic gerrymander aimed at neutralizing the Lone Star State’s partisan mid-decade redistricting.

California’s counterpunch became Proposition 50, which was approved by a whopping 64.4% of the state’s voters.

Not only did Proposition 50 redraw some GOP-held House seats to tinge them blue, it stirred up excitement about the 2026 elections among Democratic voters.

That’s the view of Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. And it makes sense. Umpteen millions of dollars were spent by Newsom and Proposition 50 backers advertising the evils of Trump and the need for Democrats to take over the House.

A PPIC poll released last week showed a significant “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters regarding the House contests.

“One of the outcomes of Proposition 50 is that it focused voters on the midterm elections and made them really excited about voting next year,” Baldassare says.

At least, Democrats are showing excitement. Republicans, not so much.

In the poll, likely voters were asked whether they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the congressional elections or less enthusiastic.

Overall, 56% were more enthusiastic and 41% less enthusiastic. But that’s not the real story.

The eye-opener is that among Democrats, an overwhelming 72% were more enthusiastic. And 60% of Republicans were less enthusiastic.

“For Democrats, that’s unusually high,” Baldassare says.

To put this in perspective, I looked back at responses to the same question asked in a PPIC poll exactly two years ago before the 2024 elections. At that time, Democrats were virtually evenly split over their enthusiasm or lack of it concerning the congressional races. In fact, Republicans expressed more enthusiasm.

Still, Democrats gained three congressional seats in California in 2024. So currently they outnumber Republicans in the state’s House delegation by a lopsided 43 to 9.

If Democrats could pick up three seats when their voters weren’t even lukewarm about the election, huge party gains seem likely in California next year. Democratic voters presumably will be buoyed by enthusiasm and the party’s candidates will be boosted by gerrymandering.

“Enthusiasm is contagious,” says Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley. “If the party’s concentric circle of committed activists is enthusiastic, that excitement tends to spread outward to other voters.”

Schnur adds: “Two years ago, Democrats were not motivated about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Now they’re definitely motivated about Donald Trump. And in order to win midterm elections, you need to have a motivated base.”

Democratic strategist David Townsend says that “enthusiasm is the whole ballgame. It’s the ultimate barometer of whether my message is working and the other side’s is not working.”

The veteran consultant recalls that Democrats “used to go door to door handing out potholders, potted plants, refrigerator magnets and doughnuts trying to motivate voters.

“But the best turnout motivator Democrats have ever had in California is Donald J. Trump.”

In the poll, 71% of voters disapproved of the way Trump is handling his job; just 29% approved. It was even worse for Congress, with 80% disapproving.

Among Democratic voters alone, disapproval of Trump was practically off the chart at 97%.

But 81% of Republicans approved of the president.

Among voters of all political persuasions who expressed higher than usual enthusiasm about the House elections, 77% said they‘d support the Democratic candidate. Also: 79% said Congress should be controlled by Democrats, 84% disapproved of how Congress is handling its job and 79% disapproved of Trump.

And those enthused about the congressional elections believe that, by far, the most important problem facing the nation is “political extremism [and] threats to democracy.” A Democratic shorthand for Trump.

The unseemly nationwide redistricting battle started by Trump is likely to continue well into the election year as some states wrestle with whether to oblige the power-hungry president and others debate retaliating against him.

Sane politicians on both sides should have negotiated a ceasefire immediately after combat erupted. But there wasn’t enough sanity to even begin talks.

Newsom was wise politically to wade into the brawl — wise for California Democrats and also for himself as a presidential hopeful trying to become a national hero to party activists.

“Eleven months before an election, nothing is guaranteed,” Schnur says. “But these poll numbers suggest that Democrats are going to start the year with a big motivational advantage.”

Trump is the Democrats’ proverbial Santa who keeps on giving.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Kristi Noem grilled over L.A. Purple Heart Army vet who self-deported
The TK: Newsom expresses unease about his new, candid autobiography: ‘It’s all out there’
The L.A. Times Special: A Times investigation finds fraud and theft are rife at California’s county fairs

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

With two words, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown launched himself into controversy Thursday morning when he joked about being glad that Elizabeth Warren, his likely Democratic opponent in 2012, had never posed in the nude.

Brown was responding to a quip Warren made at a Democratic debate Tuesday. Asked how she had paid for college – compared with Brown, who once posed partially nude for Cosmopolitan – Warren said: “I kept my clothes on.”

Brown fired back during an interview onBoston radio station WZLX: “Thank God!”

The jab went over well with the host, who laughed, then tried to stoke the flames.

“That’s what I said,” the host responded. “I said, look, can you blame a good looking guy for, you know, for wanting to…”

Brown swept into office last year on a tea party wave that helped him take a seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy for nearly 50 years. Democrats will fight hard to win it back in 2012.

Warren has a strong following and is known for her consumer advocacy. Obama tapped her last year to set up a new consumer protection agency, but Republicans opposed letting her head the agency.

She entered the Senate race in mid-September after being heavily courted, but her nomination is not guaranteed – the Democratic primary field is packed with other contenders. Brown’s comment made him an easy target at a time when he’d be better off laying low and letting the Democrats fight it out.

Brown cut in with an attempt to soften the jab: “You know what, listen, bottom line is I didn’t go to Harvard. You know, I went to the school of hard knocks and I did whatever I had to do to pay for school.”

(Warren also did not go to Harvard, though she is a Harvard law professor.)

Brown went on to describe how he faced “real challenges growing up.”

“You know, whatever,” he said. “You know, let them throw stones. I did what I had to do. And but not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school and never would have gone to school and I wouldn’t probably be talking to you, so, whatever.”

The host didn’t want to let Brown’s initial comment go, and Brown wasn’t going to take all the blame.

“That’s funny you throw that jab, because –“ the host began. But Brown again cut him off.

“You said it too!” Brown replied.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party was quick to respond, scolding Brown for the comment.

“Sen. Brown’s comments are the kind of thing you would expect to hear in a frat house, not a race for U.S. Senate,” executive director Clare Kelly said in a statement. “Scott Brown’s comments send a terrible message that even accomplished women who are held in the highest esteem can be laughingly dismissed based on their looks.”

kim.geiger@latimes.com

Gov. Pete Wilson challenged President Clinton on Thursday to make California a test market for a tamper-proof federal identification card designed to keep illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits or getting jobs in the United States.

Later, a Wilson aide said one option might be a national identification card that would be carried by every legal resident of the United States, including U.S. citizens.

Wilson’s news conference at U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service offices at Los Angeles International Airport was billed as the forum for a “major announcement regarding immigration.” In fact, Wilson’s statement expanded on his Aug. 9 program by only a small step–the proposed California test–while raising even more questions about his plan for the proposed identification card.

The governor acknowledged to a reporter that it probably is impossible to come up with a foolproof card because counterfeiters could fake birth certificates, passports or other documents that would be needed to get the card.

Wilson left unclear just who might have to possess the card: just foreign nationals living in the country legally or all U.S. citizens?

Asked who would have to carry the card, Wilson said: “Those who are applicants for employment and those who are applicants for benefits.”

Later, Wilson aide Dan Schnur said one possibility that arose during policy discussions in the governor’s office was a national identification card issued to all U.S. citizens and legal residents.

“A universal card is one option, but we’re not looking at it as an absolute condition,” Schnur said in telephone calls to reporters.

The form and scope of any card would be worked out in negotiations with the Clinton Administration, he said.

There have been periodic proposals for a national ID card, but they have always run up against strong opposition on civil liberties grounds.

Wilson was quoted by the Santa Monica Outlook while running for the U.S. Senate in 1982 that a proposed national identification card was “a lousy idea” because it would create a massive new bureaucracy. He also said he had some philosophical objections to the concept.

Schnur had no comment on that report, but he said conditions have changed greatly since the passage of immigration reform in the late 1980s and the heavy influx of illegal immigrants into California in recent years.

Thursday’s billing of a major new initiative drew a dozen television cameras and perhaps a score of reporters, a big turnout for any political event in Los Angeles. Although it turned out that Wilson’s statement was more of an expansion on a previous proposal than a major new initiative, the session did give the governor a platform for responding to critics of his Aug. 9 announcement.

Wilson said an identification card is the key to the enforcement of any of the sanctions written into federal law against employers who hire illegal immigrants for jobs in the United States. Without it, such sanctions are unenforceable, he said.

“Until we deal with the problem of document fraud, anyone proposing additional employer sanctions is simply blowing hot air,” Wilson said after examining stacks of phony passports, Social Security cards and other false documents confiscated by the INS.

Critics, including potential Democratic gubernatorial challenger Kathleen Brown, have said Wilson’s plan cracks down on illegal immigrants but not on the employers who also violate the law by hiring them.

Last week, Brown, the state treasurer, endorsed a national tamper-proof Social Security card that would have to be presented to a prospective employer before the cardholder could be hired.

In his lengthy Aug. 9 letter to Clinton, Wilson called on the federal government to compensate California for the cost of services to illegal immigrants, called for stricter enforcement of the California-Mexico border, and said children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants should not automatically become U.S. citizens or be eligible to attend public schools in California.

Wilson made no mention of stronger enforcement against employers. He proposed an identification card as something that foreign nationals in the country legally would present to qualify for state services.

Wilson said California’s modern holographic drivers licenses could be the model for a federal card, but a reporter wondered if even they could be forged, since a photographic blowup of one was among the fake IDs on display.

“You know, I don’t dispute the ingenuity of counterfeiters. . . . I think it is possible to stay technologically ahead of even expert counterfeiters,” Wilson said.

“The question really is not whether you’re going to have an entirely foolproof system, but whether you have one that works to achieve its major goal, which is to screen out the vast majority of counterfeit documents.”

Later in the day, Democratic state Chairman Bill Press chided Wilson for intervening with the INS in 1989 on behalf of a San Diego supporter, Anne Evans, whose hotels were under investigation for hiring illegal immigrants. At the time, Wilson was a U.S. senator.

Evans ultimately was accused of 362 violations of employer sanctions provisions and fined $70,000.

Schnur described Wilson’s letter, which sought a conciliation between the INS and Evans, as a routine constituent service.

Marian La Follette, who spent 10 years as a Republican Assemblywoman from Northridge before retiring in 1990, plans to enter the state Senate race in the new district that stretches from Oxnard to the San Fernando Valley, Republican sources said Tuesday.

“I just spoke to her a little while ago, and she has made up her mind that she will be running,” said Charles H. Jelloian, a Republican from Northridge. Jelloian said he has decided to withdraw from the state Senate race, partly to make way for La Follette’s return to politics.

“Marian’s jumping into the race is a very big factor,” said Jelloian, who became acquainted with La Follette when he was an aide to state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale). “I worked very, very well with her for a long time,” he said. “I have a lot of respect for her.”

La Follette has lived in Orange County since her retirement. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

If she enters the race, she could pose a formidable challenge to Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) in the new 19th state Senate District. So far, Wright is the leading candidate in the district that encompasses Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Fillmore, Simi Valley and Northridge.

“Both are new to this district,” said one Republican source. “I think they would start out about equal.”

Roger Campbell, a Republican city councilman in Fillmore, also has declared his candidacy in the heavily Republican district. No Democratic candidate has come forward in the district that has roughly 28,000 more registered Republican voters than Democrats.

La Follette, a conservative legislator, was best known for her persistent efforts to divide the massive Los Angeles Unified School District into smaller districts.

She decided to retire two years ago when her late husband, Jack, a Los Angeles lawyer, fell seriously ill with cancer.

When she was in the Legislature, she aligned herself with Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), who is vacating the Senate seat. Republican sources said they anticipate that Davis will support her candidacy against Wright, a longtime political foe.

La Follette’s candidacy is another indication that Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) will run for Congress. She and McClintock are strong political allies.

McClintock has toyed with the notion of running for state Senate, GOP sources said. The long-anticipated announcement of his plans has been postponed until later this week.

Hong Kong’s highest court has found former media mogul Jimmy Lai guilty of sedition and conspiring to collude with foreign powers. The 78-year-old is known as the territory’s most outspoken critic of Beijing and could face life in prison.

Geraldine A. Ferraro, the savvy New York Democrat who was embraced as a symbol of women’s equality in 1984 when she became the first woman nominated for vice president by a major party, died Saturday at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She was 75.

The cause was complications from multiple myeloma, her family said.

Ferraro was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable form of blood cancer, in 1998. She did not disclose her illness publicly until 2001, when she went on NBC’s “Today” show and said she had beaten the cancer into remission with thalidomide, the once-banned drug that had proven effective with some end-stage cancers. The cancer recurred, but she again went into remission after therapy with a new drug.

Initially told that she had three to five years to live, she survived for more than 12 years, long enough to witness the historic candidacies of two other women in 2008: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady and current secretary of State who ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

Ferraro was “a pioneer in our country for justice and a more open society,” former Vice President Walter Mondale told the Associated Press of his former running mate. “She broke a lot of molds, and it’s a better country for what she did.”

Palin also praised Ferraro, writing in a Facebook message that she “broke one huge barrier and then went on to break many more.”

Ferraro’s 1984 candidacy was seen as a potentially powerful weapon to turn the emerging “gender gap” of the 1980s to the advantage of the Democratic Party, which sought to regain the White House after Ronald Reagan’s first term.

But her four-month campaign almost immediately hit rough waters. She was bashed by critics who questioned the finances of her husband, John Zaccaro, a Manhattan real estate developer. A devout Roman Catholic, she was repeatedly assailed by New York’s archbishop, the late John J. O’Connor, for her views supporting abortion rights. She also endured insinuations of mob connections as the first Italian American on a national ticket.

“I was constantly being asked, ‘Was it worth it?’ Of course it was worth it!” she wrote in “Framing a Life, A Family Memoir,” published in 1998. “My candidacy was a benchmark moment for women. No matter what anyone thought of me personally, or of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, my candidacy had flung open the last door barring equality — and that door led straight to the Oval Office.”

Her nomination astonished some of the most stalwart feminists. Among them was Ms. magazine founder Gloria Steinem, who had predicted that 1984 would be the year that politicians talked seriously about putting a woman on the national ticket, not “the year they actually did it.”

Over the next two decades, other women achieved milestones in national politics. Janet Reno became U.S. attorney general, Madeleine Albright was named secretary of State, and Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House.

Their path was eased by Ferraro, who believed that a childhood tragedy set up her moment in history.

“I’ve often said that if my father hadn’t died, I might not have done anything,” Ferraro once told Steinem in an interview. “I saw my mother left suddenly with kids and no money…. I wanted to be able to take care of myself and not miss a beat.”

Born Aug. 26, 1935, in Newburgh, N.Y., she was the pampered daughter of Antonetta and Dominick Ferraro, Italian immigrants who had lost a son, Gerard, in a car crash and were so overjoyed at her birth a few years later that they named her Geraldine, in memory of him.

Dominick Ferraro ran a successful restaurant in Newburgh. When business fell on hard times, he turned to running a numbers game and was arrested. On the morning he was to appear in court, he died of an apparent heart attack. Ferraro was 8.

She became seriously anemic — doctors told her she had internalized her grief — and was unable to attend school for months. Strapped for money, her mother moved the family to a cramped Bronx apartment and took a job as a crochet beader. By scrimping on meat and other luxuries, she managed to send Ferraro to Marymount, an exclusive parochial school in Tarrytown, N.Y., and later to Marymount Manhattan College.

Ferraro graduated and became an elementary school teacher in Queens. At night she put herself through Fordham Law School, one of two women in a class of 179 whose professors resented her for “taking a man’s rightful place.”

Years later, when she was raising three children of her own and finally had begun to practice law, Ferraro split her legal fees with her mother and kept her maiden name in tribute.

She took the bar exam two days before her wedding in 1961 and passed, but Zaccaro did not want his wife to work, so she spent the next 13 years as a homemaker in upper-middle-class Forest Hills, N.Y. Their first child, Donna, was born in 1961, followed by John Jr. in 1964 and Laura in 1966.

She balanced her domestic responsibilities with pro bono work for women in family court and became the first woman on the board of the Forest Hills Gardens Corp. She also was elected president of a women’s bar association.

In 1974, when her youngest child was in second grade, she went to see her cousin, Queens Dist. Atty. Nicholas Ferraro, who hired her as a prosecutor. Within three years she was promoted to chief of the special victims bureau, in charge of sex crimes, child abuse, rape and domestic violence cases. It was emotionally draining work, but she won six jury trials, aided, according to a review by American Lawyer magazine, by her “straightforward eloquent approach” and “meticulous courtroom preparation.”

Her years as a prosecutor transformed her from a “small-c conservative to a liberal,” she later said. And it would lead her to adopt a supportive view of abortion that would put her in conflict with her church.

“You can force a person to have a child, but you can’t make the person love that child,” Ferraro wrote, reflecting on the child abuse cases she prosecuted. “I don’t know what pain a fetus experiences, but I can well imagine the suffering of a four-year-old girl being dipped in boiling water until her skin came off and then lying in bed unattended for two days until she died. And that was only one of the cases seared in my memory.”

In 1978, Ferraro formally entered politics. Running for Congress on the slogan “Finally, a tough Democrat,” she won by a 10% margin despite being snubbed by local party leaders.

She was reelected twice by even larger margins — 58% in 1980 and 73% in 1982.

She studiously strove to avoid the pitfalls of being a rookie and one of the few women in Congress. After overhearing a male colleague’s putdown of a new female member who “couldn’t find her way to the ladies’ room,” Ferraro mentally mapped out her exact route whenever she headed out the door. “Silly, right? And totally inconsequential,” she said. “But nothing is worse than looking as if you don’t know where you’re going.”

A quick learner, she soon caught the attention of House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who called her “a regular since the day she arrived.” She was in many ways an old-fashioned politician who could schmooze and glad-hand with the most wizened colleagues. O’Neill rewarded her with seats on the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and the House Budget Committee, as well as the position of secretary to the House Democratic Caucus. Male colleagues found her effective but, as then-Rep. Leon E. Panetta described her, “not a Bella Abzug type,” a reference to the late New York congresswoman and feminist leader known for her confrontational style.

Ferraro supported a nuclear freeze, opposed Reagan’s tax-cut proposal, upheld support for social programs for the poor, elderly and children, and was a strong supporter of Israel. She was passionate about abortion rights and championed the Equal Rights Amendment. She also voted against mandatory busing for integration and for tuition tax credits for parochial schools, positions that won favor in her conservative, largely blue-collar district. Her record earned a description in Time as “a New Deal Democrat with a good seasoning of traditional family values,” an appealing balance that eventually would help her leap onto the national stage.

While she was building her career in Washington, interest in the gender gap began to intensify. Proportionally more men than women had voted Reagan into office in 1980. Many partisans began to take note of the fact that he had won by 8.4 million votes, a margin that they hoped could be overturned the next time by some 30 million unregistered women of voting age.

In late 1983, the drumbeat for a female vice president began at a conference of the National Organization for Women, the nation’s largest feminist group. Polls began to ask whether a woman on the ticket would make a difference, and the answer was coming back as yes.

In Washington, a group of politically connected Democratic women began a stealth campaign. Calling themselves Team A, they prodded prominent Democrats to publicly endorse the concept of a female vice president. Eventually, Mondale, Gary Hart and Edward M. Kennedy spoke favorably of the idea. The ad-hoc group floated names of potential candidates, including women then in Congress such as Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Pat Schroeder of Colorado, and then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. They encouraged women in the national media to write about putting a woman on the ticket.

Early in 1984, after vetting the possibilities, the group decided that the woman with the most voter appeal was Ferraro. Over a Chinese takeout dinner, Team A broached the subject with her. Would she “stay open to the idea of becoming the actual nominee” if the concept caught on? Ferraro recalled her reaction: “I was flabbergasted and flattered.” The possibility of her nomination struck her as extremely remote, but she agreed to become the focus of the team’s efforts.

To raise her national profile, she went after a prominent role in the upcoming Democratic National Convention and became the first woman to be platform chair. She earned high marks for averting a potential convention revolt by delegates pledged to Hart and Jesse Jackson, who ultimately were satisfied that the platform reflected their views.

While she labored over the platform, prominent figures, including House Speaker O’Neill, began to drop her name as a contender for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

By early July, she was regularly mentioned as a finalist on Mondale’s list, along with San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode, Kentucky Gov. Martha Layne Collins, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, and Feinstein. The party front-runner summoned her to Minnesota for an interview, but she nearly pulled herself out of contention after leaks from a high-ranking Mondale staffer resulted in stories deriding her prospects.

The waiting ended July 11 when Mondale popped the question: Would she be his running mate?

“I didn’t pause for a minute,” Ferraro wrote in “Ferraro: My Story,” published in 1985.

At a news conference that day, an unusually effervescent Mondale said — twice — “This is an exciting choice.”

Among the pundits who agreed was New Yorker political analyst Elizabeth Drew. Ferraro’s selection, she wrote, was “a lightning bolt across the political landscape.” It not only would help Mondale energize female voters, Hart supporters and independents, but would bolster the staid image of the Minnesota Democrat who, in a stroke, had “reduced ? the assumption that he is incapable of bold action.” Dragging by double digits in the polls, Mondale had grasped his “best, and perhaps only, hope” for victory in November.

On July 19, Ferraro strode onto the stage at San Francisco’s Moscone Center to accept her party’s nomination. She was greeted by roars of “Gerr-reee! Gerr-reee!” from what looked like a sea of jubilant women, many of them non-delegates who had finagled floor passes to witness this stirring moment in the nation’s history.

“My name is Geraldine Ferraro,” the then-48-year-old declared, for once slowing her usual staccato style of speech. “I stand before you to proclaim tonight, America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.”

The mood “was so electric that just being female felt terrific,” Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times.

But none of Ferraro’s years in Congress prepared her for the hurricane that was coming.

The media clamored for interviews, amassing in such numbers that Capitol Hill police roped off her office to keep them at bay. More than 50,000 letters and gifts — ranging from books to a boxing glove — poured in by election day.

Within two weeks of her nomination, the flak began to hit.

Critics blasted her for taking the statutory exemption to withhold information about her husband’s finances on disclosure statements required of members of Congress. And John Zaccaro was attacked for improperly borrowing money from the estate of an 84-year-old widow. He later was removed as conservator. In subsequent weeks the public would learn that Ferraro had improperly loaned money to her first House campaign in 1978, and that Zaccaro and Ferraro had underpaid their taxes that year.

In the blur of campaigning, Ferraro approved a news release that mistakenly said she would release her husband’s tax returns. When she subsequently refused to release the returns, the candidate with a dangerous tendency toward flippancy told a reporter: “You people who are married to Italian men, you know what it’s like.”

Immediately she knew she had made a terrible gaffe. She had meant that Italian men tended to be private about their personal affairs, but her remark was interpreted as an ethnic slur. It also fueled debate about Ferraro’s toughness, with critics contending if she wasn’t strong enough to oppose her husband, she couldn’t stand up to the Soviets.

Media scrutiny of her husband was so intense that reporters even began to investigate allegations that his father had once rented space to a member of the Gambino crime family.

(Washington Post editor Benjamin Bradlee later observed that the charges, which never amounted to much, would not have been made if she had been “somebody named Jenkins. You’d have to be from another planet not to think that,” he told The Times in a post-election analysis.)

In late August, she released a detailed financial disclosure statement and faced the national media. She earned favorable reviews for her responses to 90 minutes of often hostile questioning (“Ferraro passes a vital test,” went a cover line in Time) but her candidacy never recovered.

In September, Ferraro began fending off attacks on a new front. New York’s Archbishop O’Connor lashed out at her stand on abortion rights and said she had misrepresented church teachings on abortion. He even held open the possibility of excommunication. Anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups clashed at her rallies.

The Italian American community did not rise to her defense, even when other critics attempted to smear her with allegations of underworld dealings. Some commentators decried the sexism they said was fueling the attacks. Noting the silence of the Italian American community, syndicated columnist Richard Reeves observed: “The stoning of Geraldine Ferraro in the public square goes on and on, and no one steps forward to help or protest — not even one of her kind?. The sons of Italy and fathers of the Roman Catholic Church are silent or are too busy reaching for bigger rocks?. Heresy! Mafia! Men are putting women in their place.”

Ferraro did well when she faced then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in debate. He ignored her request that she be addressed as “Congresswoman,” however, and called her “Mrs. Ferraro” instead. Shortly before the debate, she was insulted by Barbara Bush who called her “that four-million-dollar — I can’t say it, but it rhymes with ‘rich.’ ” (Ferraro and Zaccaro’s net worth had been reported at $3.8 million.)

She was discouraged by news coverage that she felt rarely reflected the enthusiasm and massive crowds she encountered on the campaign trail. “They were far less interested in what I had to say about the life-and-death issues facing the nation than they were about what I was wearing, how I looked that day, whether or not I cried, and what was happening in my marriage,” she recalled in her memoir.

Reagan, one of the most popular presidents in history, wound up with an 18-point victory, aided in part by women, who supported him in greater numbers than they had the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Post-election analyses found that Ferraro had neither greatly helped nor hindered the Democrats’ chances.

What later became clear to Ferraro was how ambivalent the electorate — particularly women — had been about her candidacy.

Those attitudes led Ferraro to make a controversial appearance in a 1991 commercial for Pepsi-Cola, in which she endorsed being a mother over being in politics. Feminists shouted betrayal.

The commercial apparently did little to bolster her chances the following year when she ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate. She lost the 1992 Democratic primary and again in the 1998 primary, her last bid for elected office.

Fatigued after the primary, she went for a medical checkup and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

She was determined to remain active despite the ups and down of her health. At President Clinton’s request, she served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. She found a forum for her views on television as the liberal co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” and as a Fox political analyst. In 2004, she helped found grannyvoter.org with other female activists in their 60s to encourage grandparents to become politically involved. She also worked for a number of lobbying firms.

Later, Ferraro was a feisty advocate for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, garnering criticism for remarking during the heated 2008 primary season that Obama had an advantage because he is black. The remark was perceived as racist, and in the ensuing controversy, Ferraro resigned from her voluntary position on Clinton’s campaign finance committee, but she did not back away from her view of how race and gender were playing out in the campaign.

“Sexism is a bigger problem” than racism in the United States, Ferraro told the Daily Breeze in the March 2008 story that made her a liability for the Clinton campaign. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”

She harbored no regrets at having tried to become the first female vice president, despite how grueling the struggle was. What women needed to remember, she told an interviewer in 2004, was a simple fact of politics: “If you don’t run, you can’t win.”

In addition to her husband and three children, Ferraro, who lived in New York City, is survived by eight grandchildren. Funeral arrangements are pending.

elaine.woo@latimes.com

Rob Reiner was known to millions as a TV actor and film director.

But the Brentwood resident, known for the classic films “Stand by Me” and “When Harry Met Sally,” was also a political force, an outspoken supporter of progressive causes and a Democratic Party activist who went beyond the typical role of celebrities who host glitzy fundraisers.

Reiner was deeply involved in issues that he cared about, such as early childhood education and the legalization of gay marriage.

Reiner, 78, and his wife, Michelle Singer Reiner, were found dead inside his home Sunday, sparking an outpouring of grief from those who worked with him on a variety of causes.

Ace Smith — a veteran Democratic strategist to former Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Gov. Jerry Brown and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — had known Reiner for decades. Reiner, he said, approached politics differently than most celebrities.

“Here’s this unique human being who really did make the leap between entertainment and politics,” Smith said. “And he really spent the time to understand policy, really, in its true depth, and to make a huge impact in California.”

Reiner was a co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that successfully led the fight to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. He was active in children’s issues through the years, having led the campaign to pass Proposition 10, the California Children and Families Initiative, which created an ambitious program of early childhood development services.

Proposition 10 was considered landmark policy. Reiner enlisted help in that effort from Steven Spielberg, Robin Williams, and his own father, comedy legend Carl Reiner.

“He wanted to make a difference. And he did, and he did profoundly,” Smith said.

Reiner was also a leading backer of Proposition 82, an unsuccessful measure that would have taxed the wealthy to create universal preschool in California.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who had known Reiner since he was a state lawmaker in the 1990s, worked with him on Proposition 10 and was impressed with how Reiner embraced the cause.

“He was a man with a good answer. It wasn’t politics as much as he was always focused on the humanity among us,” Villaraigosa said. ‘When he got behind an issue, he knew everything about it.”

“Just a really special man. A terrible day,” the former mayor said.

Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement that she was “heartbroken” by the day’s events, saying Reiner “always used his gifts in service of others.”

“Rob Reiner’s contributions reverberate throughout American culture and society, and he has improved countless lives through his creative work and advocacy fighting for social and economic justice,” the mayor said.

“I’m holding all who loved Rob and Michele in my heart,” Bass said.

Newsom added, “Rob was a passionate advocate for children and for civil rights — from taking on Big Tobacco, fighting for marriage equality, to serving as a powerful voice in early education. He made California a better place through his good works.”

“Rob will be remembered for his remarkable filmography and for his extraordinary contribution to humanity,” the governor said.

Far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast has won a run-off election to become Chile’s 38th president, ousting the centre-left government currently in power.

On Sunday, with nearly all the ballots counted, Kast prevailed with nearly 58 percent of the vote, defeating former Labour Minister Jeannette Jara, a Communist Party politician who represented the governing centre-left coalition.

Jara and her coalition, Unity for Chile, conceded defeat shortly after the polls closed in the South American country.

“Democracy has spoken loud and clear. I have just spoken with President-elect [Kast] to wish him success for the good of Chile,” Jara wrote on social media.

“To those who supported us and were inspired by our candidacy, rest assured that we will continue working to build a better life in our country. Together and standing strong, as we always have.”

The result marks the latest victory for the far right in Latin America, which has seen a streak of right-wing leaders once considered political outsiders rise to power in countries like Argentina and Ecuador.

The tally also marks a significant comeback for Kast himself, the 59-year-old leader of the Republican Party. The 2025 election marks his third attempt to win the presidency — and his first successful bid.

During the last election, in 2021, he was trounced by outgoing President Gabriel Boric, who won by nearly a 10-point margin.

But Boric, a former student leader who became Chile’s youngest president, had seen his popularity slump to about 30 percent by the end of his four-year term. He was also ineligible to run for a second term under Chilean law.

In public opinion polls, voters also expressed frustration with recent spikes in crime and immigration, as well as a softening of Chile’s economy.

Kast, meanwhile, campaigned on the promise of change. He said he would address voter concerns by carrying out crackdowns on crime and immigration, including through a campaign of mass deportation, similar to what United States President Donald Trump has done in North America.

His security platform — dubbed the “Implacable Plan” — also proposes stiffer mandatory minimum sentencing, incarcerating more criminals in maximum security facilities, and putting cartel leaders in “total isolation” to cut them off from any communication with the outside world.

“Today, while criminals and drug traffickers walk freely through the streets, committing crimes and intimidating people, honest Chileans are locked in their homes, paralyzed by fear,” Kast writes in his security plan.

Kast has also taken a hard right stance towards social and health issues, including abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape.

But those hardline policies earned Kast criticism on the campaign trail. Critics have also seized upon his own sympathetic comments about Chile’s former dictator, military leader Augusto Pinochet.

In 1973, Pinochet oversaw a right-wing military coup that ousted the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende. He proceeded to rule the country until 1990. His government became known for its widespread human rights abuses and brutal oppression of political dissent, with thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured.

While Kast has rejected the label “far right”, he has repeatedly defended Pinochet’s government. Of Pinochet, Kast famously quipped, “If he were alive, he would vote for me.”

Opponents also sought to draw attention to Kast’s family ties: His father, Michael Martin Kast, was born in Germany and had been a member of the Nazi Party. The elder Kast immigrated to Chile in 1950.

Reporting from a polling site in the capital of Santiago, Al Jazeera correspondent Lucia Newman noted that Sunday’s victory was a historic one for Chile’s far right. But, she noted, Kast has sought to moderate his platform to better appeal to voters in the current election cycle.

“This is the first time since 1990 — since the military dictatorship before 1990, when Chile returned to democracy — that such a conservative government will be in power,” Newman explained.

“It’s really not certain just how conservative it will be. Jose Antonio Kast was a supporter of former dictator General Augusto Pinochet. He has shirked away from that in recent years, and certainly in this campaign.”

In the wake of Kast’s election victory, right-wing leaders from across the Americas offered their congratulations in statements on social media.

“Congratulations to Chilean President-Elect [Jose Antonio Kast] on his victory,” Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote. “The United States looks forward to partnering with his administration to strengthen regional security and revitalize our trade relationship.”

Argentina’s libertarian leader Javier Milei likewise chimed in, hailing it as a major win for his conservative political movement.

“FREEDOM IS ADVANCING,” Milei wrote, echoing his own campaign rallying cry.

“Enormous joy at the overwhelming victory of my friend [Jose Antonio Kast] in the Chilean presidential elections! One more step for our region in defense of life, liberty, and private property. I am sure that we will work together so that America embraces the ideas of freedom and we can free ourselves from the oppressive yoke of 21st-century socialism…!!!”

Ecuador’s right-wing President Daniel Noboa, meanwhile, said that “a new era is beginning for Chile and for the region”.

This year’s presidential race was the first time since 2012 that voting had been compulsory in the country. There are approximately 15.7 million eligible voters in the South American country.

Kast originally came in second place during the first round of voting on November 16. He scored about 23.9 percent of the vote, compared with Jara’s 26.8 percent.

But polls had widely favoured him to win in the run-off. While Chile’s left wing held a primary in June and coalesced around its victor, Jara, right-wing parties did not hold a primary to choose a coalition nominee.

The result was a fractured right in the first round of voting. But in the final contest, Kast was able to sweep up votes that had previously gone to his right-leaning adversaries, earning him a comfortable win.

Still, Kast faces a divided National Congress, which is expected to blunt some of his more hardline proposals. Kast will be sworn in on March 11.

Dec. 14 (UPI) — Chileans head to the polls Sunday in a presidential runoff election in which the son of a Nazi party member, who has pledged to build a border wall to keep migrants out of the country, is the leading candidate.

Far right former congressman Jose Antonio Kast, 59, built his campaign on a promise to remove tens of thousands of undocumented migrants from the country. He faces Jeannette Jara, 51, a former labor minister in the administration of center-left president Gabriel Boric.

Jara, the leading candidate of the left-wing coalition, finished the first round of polling with 27%, but right-wing candidates, including Kast, secured more than half of the votes.

Kast is a known admirer of Chilean military strongman Augusto Pinochet, and a staunch opponent of abortion rights and same sex marriage.

The campaign has featured a bitter fight between Jara and Kast, with each attacking the other’s ability to address crime, migration problems and a lagging economy.

Jara has pledged to attract more investment in the country and to secure the border while also addressing health care needs. Kast has campaigned on corporate tax cuts, deregulation and departing undocumented migrants.

Both are using the approval rating of the outgoing Boric’s approval rating, hovering at 30%, as a platform for their campaigns, pledging to improve on the job he has done.

Chile has seen a sharp upturn in murder and other violent crime in recent years as international criminal groups have stepped into a country that has long been considered relatively docile.

The feat has spread to other Latin American countries, including Costa Rica and Ecuador.

Boric is considered to have failed to fulfill most of his stated agenda to strengthen public services. He also failed to address problems brought on by organized crime, election watchers have said.

Voters have called for more migration reform, tighter security and for the country to distance itself from Boric’s failed policies.

When Indiana adopted new U.S. House districts four years ago, Republican legislative leaders lauded them as “fair maps” that reflected the state’s communities.

But when Gov. Mike Braun recently tried to redraw the lines to help his fellow Republicans gain more power, he implored lawmakers to “vote for fair maps.”

What changed? The definition of “fair.”

As states undertake mid-decade redistricting instigated by President Trump, Republicans and Democrats are using a tit-for-tat definition of fairness to justify districts that split communities in an attempt to send politically lopsided delegations to Congress. It is fair, they argue, because other states have done the same. And it is necessary, they say, to maintain a partisan balance in the House of Representatives that resembles the national political divide.

This new vision for drawing congressional maps is creating a winner-take-all scenario that treats the House, traditionally a more diverse patchwork of politicians, like the Senate, where members reflect a state’s majority party. The result could be reduced power for minority communities, less attention to certain issues and fewer distinct voices heard in Washington.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky fears that unconstrained gerrymandering would put the United States on a perilous path, if Democrats in states such as Texas and Republicans in states like California feel shut out of electoral politics. “I think that it’s going to lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,” he said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Although Indiana state senators rejected a new map backed by Trump and Braun that could have helped Republicans win all nine of the state’s congressional seats, districts have already been redrawn in Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Other states could consider changes before the 2026 midterms that will determine control of Congress.

“It’s a fundamental undermining of a key democratic condition,” said Wayne Fields, a retired English professor from Washington University in St. Louis who is an expert on political rhetoric.

“The House is supposed to represent the people,” Fields added. “We gain an awful lot by having particular parts of the population heard.”

Under the Constitution, the Senate has two members from each state. The House has 435 seats divided among states based on population, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. In the current Congress, California has the most at 52, followed by Texas with 38. The District of Columbia and U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico have no voting representation in either chamber of Congress.

Because senators are elected statewide, they are almost always political pairs of one party or another. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only states with a Democrat and Republican in the Senate. Maine and Vermont each have one independent — who caucuses with Democrats — and one senator affiliated with a political party.

By contrast, most states elect a mixture of Democrats and Republicans to the House. That is because House districts, with an average of 761,000 residents, based on the 2020 census, are more likely to reflect the varying partisan preferences of urban or rural voters, as well as different racial, ethnic and economic groups.

This year’s redistricting is diminishing those locally unique districts.

In California, voters in several rural counties that backed Trump were separated from similar rural areas and attached to a reshaped congressional district containing liberal coastal communities. In Missouri, Democratic-leaning voters in Kansas City were split from one main congressional district into three, with each revised district stretching deep into rural Republican areas.

Some residents complained their voices are getting drowned out.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has defended California’s gerrymandering effort — approved by voters last month — as necessary to fight what he calls a power grab launched by Trump. Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe of Missouri has defended his state’s redistricting — approved by GOP lawmakers and signed into law by him — as a means of countering Democratic states and amplifying the voices of those aligned with the state’s majority.

All’s ‘fair’ in redistricting?

Indiana’s delegation in the U.S. House consists of seven Republicans and two Democrats — one representing Indianapolis and the other a suburban Chicago district in the state’s northwestern corner.

Dueling definitions of fairness were on display at the Indiana Capitol as lawmakers considered a Trump-backed redistricting plan that would have split Indianapolis among four Republican-leaning districts and merged the Chicago suburbs with rural Republican areas. Opponents walked the halls in protest, carrying signs such as “I stand for fair maps!”

Ethan Hatcher, a talk radio host who said he votes for Republicans and libertarians, denounced the redistricting plan as “a blatant power grab” that “compromises the principles of our Founding Fathers” by fracturing Democratic strongholds to dilute the voices of urban voters.

“It’s a calculated assault on fair representation,” Hatcher told a state Senate committee.

But others asserted it would be fair for Indiana Republicans to hold all of those House seats, because Trump won the “solidly Republican state” by nearly three-fifths of the vote.

“Our current 7-2 congressional delegation doesn’t fully capture that strength,” resident Tracy Kissel said at a committee hearing. “We can create fairer, more competitive districts that align with how Hoosiers vote.”

When senators defeated a map designed to deliver a 9-0 congressional delegation for Republicans, Braun bemoaned that they had missed an “opportunity to protect Hoosiers with fair maps.”

Disrupting an equilibrium

By some national measurements, the U.S. House already is politically fair. The 220-215 majority that Republicans won over Democrats in the 2024 elections almost perfectly aligns with the share of the vote the two parties received in districts across the country, according to an Associated Press analysis. It was made possible, however, in part by a gerrymander of North Carolina districts in the GOP’s favor prior to the 2024 election.

But that overall balance belies an imbalance that exists in many states. Even before this year’s redistricting, the number of states with congressional districts tilted toward one party or another was higher than at any point in at least a decade, the AP analysis found.

The partisan divisions have contributed to a “cutthroat political environment” that “drives the parties to extreme measures,” said Kent Syler, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University. He noted that Republicans hold 88% of congressional seats in Tennessee, and Democrats have an equivalent in Maryland.

“Fairer redistricting would give people more of a feeling that they have a voice,” Syler said.

Rebekah Caruthers, who leads the Fair Elections Center, a nonprofit voting rights group, said there should be compact districts that allow communities of interest to elect the representatives of their choice, regardless of how that affects the national political balance. Gerrymandering districts to be dominated by a single party results in “an unfair disenfranchisement” of some voters, she said.

“Ultimately, this isn’t going to be good for democracy,” Caruthers said. “We need some type of détente.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions is likely to make California’s top court less receptive to authorizing gay marriage, legal experts said Thursday.

On a 4-3 vote, the New Jersey high court refused Wednesday to declare that same-sex couples should be permitted to wed. The jurists instead said the Legislature must provide same-sex couples with the same rights as spouses, possibly under a civil union law.

Santa Clara University professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on California’s Supreme Court, said New Jersey’s ruling would incline the California court to be more “restrained” on same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think this will push them in the direction” of approving same-sex marriage, Uelmen said.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court is one of the most liberal in the country, while California’s top court is considered cautious and moderately conservative. Although a split ruling like New Jersey’s has less weight than a unanimous decision, “the impact it has seems more likely to be negative than favorable toward a right of gay marriage,” said Stephen Barnett, professor emeritus of law at UC Berkeley.

Unlike New Jersey’s, California’s top court will not be able to issue a compromise ruling, law professors said.

In New Jersey, the jurists ruled that same-sex couples must be given the rights and privileges of marriage, but left it to the Legislature to say whether the resulting unions should be labeled “marriages.” Same-sex couples in California already have most of those rights under a strong domestic-partners law.

“New Jersey was able to split the baby in half,” Barnett said. “In California, that has already been done.”

UCLA law professor Brad Sears agreed.

“Unlike in New Jersey, the California Supreme Court is not going to be able to avoid the marriage question,” Sears said.

The California Legislature passed a bill in favor of same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. A state appeals court earlier this month rejected same-sex marriage, and the California Supreme Court will decide whether to review the ruling by the end of the year.

“The hot potato is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, and they don’t have anywhere to toss it, “ Sears said.

The New Jersey decision is not binding on California, but it could be cited in arguments to the court and thus sway deliberations by indicating a legal trend.

Sears and gay-rights lawyers insisted the New Jersey ruling would be more helpful than harmful to the campaign for same-sex marriage. New Jersey’s ruling was sympathetic to the demands of gays to marry, whereas the high courts in Washington and New York flatly rejected same-sex marriage in rulings this year.

“So this reverses a trend of a number of losses we had earlier this summer,” said Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group that represented the couples in the New Jersey case.

The New Jersey ruling is “a little bit tepid but way better than a loss,” said San Francisco Chief Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart, who is on the pro-gay marriage legal team.

Even though gays did not win the right to marry in Washington, New York and New Jersey, dissenting opinions in those cases could be influential, Sears said. The New Jersey and New York courts each had three justices in favor of same-sex marriage.

“That a growing number of justices are writing dissenting opinions is helpful at this stage,” said Sears, director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA.

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said the California court could find many legal arguments in the New Jersey ruling to support same-sex marriage.

Gay couples got “90% of what they were asking for in New Jersey — but not marriage,” Tobias said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, though unhappy with the New Jersey ruling, said it made them more confident that California’s Supreme Court will rule in their favor.

If gay-rights lawyers “can’t win in New Jersey, they can’t win anywhere,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes traditional Christian values through litigation.

The issue of same-sex marriage reached the California courts in 2004 after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to marry. Until then, the strategy of most gay-rights lawyers was to work with legislatures to change marriage laws. The lawyers believed it was too early to make legal challenges.

But Massachusetts’ high court had already ruled that same sex-marriage should be permitted, and the marriages in San Francisco gave the issue stronger impetus.

Davidson said it was too soon to know whether activists should have limited their campaign to legislatures instead of courts.

“The history of this is now being written and is unfolding,” he said.

*

maura.dolan@latimes.com

Is the United States orchestrating regime change in Venezuela? Could this spark an all-out war?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks to Alan McPherson, an author and history professor at Temple University who specialises in US-Latin American relations.

The US is continuing the largest military build-up in Latin America in decades and has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. US President Donald Trump has also threatened to attack Venezuela by land “very soon”, while the Pentagon continues to strike alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. At least 87 people have been killed in what human rights groups have called extrajudicial killings and murder.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wants Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro out of power, and has thrown its support behind opposition figure and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado. She supports foreign intervention and wants to privatise Venezuelan oil, leaving many to question how much the ideologies of US politicians and the interests of oil companies are driving the push for regime change inside Venezuela.