ATLANTA — Two years after Kamala Harris lost the presidential election to Donald Trump, she still delights Democratic donors and activists with jabs against him, saying the Republican is “callous, corrupt and incompetent” and calling him the “decorator in chief” for his White House renovations and gold adornments.
The former vice president also has plenty to say about what her party, the electorate and the country should do next as she also considers whether to run again.
“This is the moment where we turn that anger into action,” Harris said more than once during a busy schedule in the final stretch of the midterm campaign.
Harris campaigned for candidates across seven states, ending with a recent two-day visit to Georgia. It was, in part, the kind of nostalgic tour seen from Barack Obama and Bill Clinton — two-term presidents whose last campaigns are behind them — and the barnstorming from potential future contenders such as Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
As the first Black woman elected to nationwide office, Harris urged fellow Black Americans to “honor the ancestors” with their votes. She also said she has become unapologetically “transactional” by demanding more from politicians.
Harris, a U.S. senator and attorney general from California before joining Joe Biden on the 2020 ticket, also pushed fellow Democrats to govern aggressively and she called for “structural work” that she said was necessary to reinvigorate American democracy: Supreme Court expansion, statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and reconsideration of the electoral college.
“I think she’s hitting all the right notes,” said Melinda Johnson, a retired nurse who attended a Fulton County Democratic Party fundraising gala that Harris headlined in Atlanta.
Harris made it to early presidential primary states, including Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan. She also went to Mississippi, not exactly a hotbed of presidential politics, on behalf of U.S. Senate candidate Scott Colom.
“The South is in play,” she said. “When Democrats invest in the South, we can win in the South.”
In Georgia, Harris delved into civil rights history as she accused the U.S. Supreme Court of “backdoor racism” with its decision to gut the Voting Rights Act and allow Republicans to redraw boundaries for congressional districts that now elect nonwhite lawmakers.
“Ruthlessness” is key, she said at the Democratic dinner in Atlanta. “Not ruthlessness in the sense of cruelty … but in our willingness to use our power to deliver on our commitments.” Democrats, she said, “can no longer let process stand in the way of progress.”
Throughout her stops, Harris nodded implicitly to her loss to Trump.
“You know we’ve been spending the last year and a half, so many of us, going through a range of emotions,” she told students. “Anger, depression, sadness, frustration, a sense of helplessness and powerlessness.”
Warning that Trump could try to meddle in Tuesday’s election, she echoed one of the president’s mantras to encourage people to vote.
“In this case,” she said at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church, “we just need to turn out in really large numbers that would be too big to rig.”
Time is rapidly running out for Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who are preparing for one last grueling push to reach voters in the mayoral election by Tuesday. With the UC Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll showing a dead heat, the two are expected to fan out across the city over the weekend, hoping to generate some free news coverage, a burst of social media posts and face-to-face contact with voters.
Bass is planning another appearance Saturday with real estate developer Rick Caruso, who was a ferocious critic of the mayor in the wake of the Palisades fire but mended fences with her in recent months. She also has a rally that day in Westlake with organized labor and a tour of small businesses in Boyle Heights with state Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles).
Raman heads Saturday to a Halloween block party in the San Fernando Valley and an event in downtown L.A. featuring workers from Unite Here Local 11, which has sent canvassers to knock on doors on her behalf. On Sunday, her agenda includes a church service in Boyle Heights and a door-knocking event in Northridge.
“This movement is reaching every corner of Los Angeles, and this weekend, we’re taking that energy all over this city,” Raman said.
Mayor Karen Bass speaks to volunteers who are phone banking at her campaign headquarters on Oct. 25, 2026, in Los Angeles.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Bass and Raman had already ramped up their schedules in recent days. The mayor appeared Thursday evening with Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, one of her endorsers, at a news conference about streetlight repairs in Hollywood. The following morning she was in Encino, talking to residents frustrated with Raman’s performance in their district.
In an interview with The Times, Bass summed up her packed itinerary using a single word over and over.
“Voters, voters, voters, voters. And that’s what I’ve been doing,” she said. “I’m just exhausted. Voters and media, from early morning until late at night.”
You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter
Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Raman, for her part, tried to develop an overarching theme around her events, standing outside Department of Water and Power headquarters in downtown L.A. on Tuesday to highlight the issue of soaring electrical bills and heading to Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday to ding the mayor over her oversight of SkyLink, the elevated airport people mover that is behind schedule and $1.4 billion over budget.
Those and other news conferences were built around her promise to provide greater oversight as mayor. But over the weekend, Raman is expected to dial back the policy a bit, heading to two Día de los Muertos events and going trick-or-treating with her twins.
The Garcetti gang stumps for Raman
With the battle for L.A. mayor now in the home stretch, one longtime political figure has managed to stay largely out of the public eye: former Mayor Eric Garcetti, who served at City Hall right before Bass.
We can’t say the same for many former members of Garcetti’s political and government teams. Over the last few months, they’ve been popping up at a number of Raman events, and a few have had pivotal roles with her team as she runs for mayor.
Nithya Raman, center, joins supporters including registered nurse Kerry Cavazos, left, with SEIU 121 RNs, at Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles on Oct. 20.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Raman has been relying heavily on campaign strategist Jeff Millman, who was a Garcetti advisor on and off throughout his mayoral tenure. She’s turned to Rick Cole, a former Garcetti deputy mayor now on the Pasadena City Council, for policy guidance. And she has Dae Levine, a onetime Garcetti communications director, staffing her within City Hall.
But there’s more. The city’s former heat officer, Marta Segura, who was pushed out earlier this year, appeared at Raman campaign events focused on her support from environmentalists and Latinos.
Former high-level Garcetti advisor Rick Jacobs has shown up for several Raman news conferences, including a recent one celebrating her endorsement from County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. In 2020, a member of Garcetti’s security detail accused Jacobs of sexually harassing him. Jacobs denied harassing anyone. The city paid $1.8 million to resolve the officer’s lawsuit.
Jacobs, a consultant, counts the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters as one of his clients. However, he is not working with their independent expenditure committee supporting Raman.
Other onetime members of Team Garcetti have pitched in financially.
Renee Dake Wilson, a former Garcetti planning commissioner, has donated at least $30,000 to independent expenditure committees backing Raman, plus an additional $3,600 directly to her campaign. Former Garcetti aide Leo Daube, now working for Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, has donated $2,800 to Raman since she entered the race.
Finally, Raman has relied on Jamie York for help with research, matching funds and compliance with city and state ethics rules. York was part of Garcetti’s campaign team in the 2017 election, helping with campaign fundraising.
State of play
— CARUSO CRACKS: After months of hedging, billionaire Rick Caruso revealed that he intends to vote for Bass, following nearly two years of sharp criticism of the mayor’s record. “For the love of LA, I must put the past behind me,” he said. Caruso said it’s not an endorsement.
— RATTLED BY ROBO-RAMAN: Raman’s campaign filed a lengthy ethics complaint against Thrive LA, a pro-Bass advocacy group, over its decision to set up an AI chatbot phone line mimicking Raman’s voice and mocking her record on homelessness. Thrive LA responded by saying it played by the rules and that its satirical chatbot is protected free speech.
— BATTLING FOR SMALL BIZ: Bass and Raman have been sparring over their approach to small business, with the mayor accusing her rival of ignoring those constituents. Business owners offered a more complex picture.
— SWITCHING TEAMS: Political operative Solomon Rivera left his high-level post in the mayor’s office earlier this year, resurfacing a few months later as principal officer with Unidos Con Bass, an independent expenditure group. Ethics experts questioned whether his change in jobs runs afoul of a law prohibiting coordination between outside campaigns and their favored candidates. Rivera’s lawyer said no coordination occurred.
— DSA DELAY: The Democratic Socialists of America once again postponed a vote on whether to rescind the L.A. chapter’s endorsement of Raman, over concerns she hadn’t taken a tough enough stand against Israel.
— OIL-DRILLING BAN: The City Council voted Wednesday to phase out oil drilling over the next two decades, making L.A. the largest city in the country to do so. Bass’ office signed the ordinance Thursday.
QUICK HITS
Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to fight homelessness went to South L.A., focusing on two sections within Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s district.
On the docket next week: Duh! Tuesday is the last day to vote in the election.
Stay in touch
That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
Two experienced leaders of the largest law enforcement agency in the country face off, four years after their first showdown, to once again helm the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Here’s what you need to know about:
The candidates
Incumbent Robert Luna is a former Long Beach police chief who came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2021 and unseated Alex Villanueva in the November 2022 election. Luna has presided over declines in homicides and violent crime as well as establishing a period of relative calm after Villanueva’s tenure, which was marked by controversy and scandal. Luna’s office, however, has come under scrutiny, including when a grenade accidentally exploded in a department parking lot, killing three deputies.
Villanueva switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in the first two years of his leadership and was a regular on Fox News vilifying “woke” culture and criticizing Democrats. Villanueva launched, then walked back, a criminal-leak investigation of a Los Angeles Times reporter, and he was ordered to testify after sheriff’s deputies took and shared pictures at the site of Kobe Bryant’s helicopter crash.
State of the race
In the primary election, Luna received 44.2% of the vote versus Villanueva’s 21.7%. Luna also has raised more money for his campaign. From Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, he had raised more than $1.3 million; Villanueva had raised a little more than $320,000.
Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva speaks to constituents Sept. 12 at a campaign stop at the Burbank Assn. of Realtors.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Issues
Staffing and retention
Under Luna, the number of new deputies who graduated from the sheriff’s academy rose by nearly a third from 2024 to 2025, with more than 400 graduates last year, the department said. Recent data also show that retention rates have risen under Luna after a steep decline toward the end of Villanueva’s tenure.
Villanueva claims that he keeps up with the department he once ran, and that deputies frequently complain to him about understaffing and low morale.
Crime trends
Under Luna, violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%. Data show that property crimes were broadly down from 2022.
Villanueva again maintains that deputies he has stayed in touch with feel that crime has run rampant since he left office.
2028 Olympics
Villanueva argues that Luna is ill-prepared to handle the next four years, including assisting with the Olympics.
Luna refuted the claim by pointing to the role his department played in the multi-agency law enforcement effort to maintain public safety during the World Cup this year.
The race for L.A. city attorney delivered a shock this spring when incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto was ousted, an upset the likes of which hadn’t happened in nearly a century. The pair of candidates who remain have since laid out their widely differing visions of the job.
Here’s what you need to know.
The candidates
John McKinney is an L.A. County deputy district attorney with nearly 30 years of legal experience. He vows to clean up what he calls a blighted downtown and work closely with his boss and backer, Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, to reduce crime in the city.
Marissa Roy is a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice. She plans to use the office to fight for tenant and wage workers. Her vision of the city attorney is to be the “people’s lawyer” for L.A.
In their own words
Here are the Q&As with each of the candidates.
State of the race
Roy is leading in the race to become the next Los Angeles city attorney. She was ahead by 10 percentage points in the most recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
Still, some local voters don’t know the candidates by name.
Issues
Criminal justice
McKinney is focusing his campaign on tamping down quality-of-life crimes in the city such as organized retail theft, drug dealing and street racing. McKinney would prioritize public safety and vows to go after demonstrators who block freeways or engage in conduct similar to the 2024 pro-Palestine encampments on UCLA’s campus.
Roy wants to funnel nonviolent offenders to diversion programs such as mental health treatment or vocational training.
Hefty legal payouts
McKinney said he’d lean on his long experience as a trial attorney to quickly decide which incoming lawsuits against the city should be fought and which should be settled in order to reduce the city’s legal costs.
Roy wants to bring civil litigation back in-house to rein in the millions spent on outside counsel. She also argues for beefing up the claims process so legitimate suits are settled effectively and frivolous ones are fought.
How each candidate would handle Trump
McKinney would work to balance respecting federal authority as required by law against protecting the constitutional rights of city residents and defending local resources if threatened by federal overreach.
Roy has made fighting the Trump administration a centerpiece in her campaign.
Homelessness
McKinney wants to use the court system as a “last resort” to leverage people into accepting services or shelter.
Roy says renter protections will be vital to stemming the city’s homeless crisis.
Late one afternoon, at the intersection of South La Brea Avenue and Obama Boulevard, Shirley Dace cold-called fellow Angelenos and encouraged them to give L.A. Mayor Karen Bass a second term.
“I love Karen Bass because of all the experience she has,” Dace, a retired flight attendant, told me between phone calls. “Karen Bass was raised here. She knows the city. … I’ve seen her around at different events.”
Meanwhile, roughly 10 miles to the northeast, Christian Perez and Marium Mohiuddin organized a night of door-knocking for Bass challenger Nithya Raman in Boyle Heights.
“I think she’s incredibly intelligent and I want to give her an opportunity,” said Perez.
Given the ICE raids and general denunciations of immigrants, Mohiuddin, a Muslim and Canadian immigrant, said he’s been impressed by Raman’s outreach to minority communities. And Raman is an immigrant, too.
“I want a mayor that’s going to protect me,” said Mohiuddin, who speaks out against Islamophobia and antisemitism, “and I really feel like Nithya would go to bat for us.”
You may have noticed a pattern here. Lots of positivity.
I figured that with just hours to go before election day, you’ve heard plenty from me and others about City Hall dysfunction, about each mayoral candidate’s flaws, and about undecided and uninspired voters here in the land of budget-busting rent, broken sidewalks and blue tarps.
It appeared for a while as if Raman wouldn’t even make it out of the primary, and then it looked as though she had a comfortable lead over Bass in the runoff. But if the latest poll can be trusted, it’s hard to pick a winner. So today I’m going to shed every cynical bone in my body — only temporarily, I promise — and hand the megaphone over to people who unabashedly like either Bass or Raman.
And to be honest, in connecting with these folks on the phone, by text and in person, I was inspired by their interest in civic affairs (if only there were more like them), and their belief that their vote matters.
So here goes, and I’ll start with the incumbent.
::
Shirley Dace, as she worked the phones at Bass headquarters, referred to a five-page list of personal achievements and positive developments during the mayor’s first term. Violent crime is down, solar street lights have been installed by the thousands, Metro rides are free for students, thousands of affordable housing units are on the way and thousands of homeless people have been brought indoors.
“We have a homeless problem, and I realize that,” Dace said, but she believes there’s been progress. “It takes a while to solve these problems.”
One day I happened upon a social media post by Christian Green, who said he was driving by Bass headquarters and popped in to volunteer. I reached him by phone, and the West L.A. College professor told me he volunteered for Bass four years ago, too. Green said he was once in the foster care system, and said Bass has supported foster youth initiatives dating back to her time in Congress.
Bass is the first Black woman, and first female, to be elected mayor of Los Angeles. Given the history of the city’s power structure, economy and racial makeup, Green said, “that is not something we should take lightly.”
One of Green’s students in African American studies, 23-year-old Kioi Shropshire-Maina, also works as a Bass volunteer.
“I’ve heard about her since I was a kid,” said Shropshire-Maina, a communications major.
One of the things he likes about Bass is that her career has followed a long and varied public service trajectory. She first worked in healthcare as a physician assistant at County-USC, then became a social justice activist and co-founder of the Community Coalition, followed by a leadership role in the California Assembly and 12 years in Congress.
“She’s always been kind of like the standard of public service,” said Shropshire-Maina.
He pushed back when I mentioned that Raman seems to be the candidate with more backing among younger and more progressive voters.
“I definitely think Miss Bass has a lot of youth support. I’ve seen it myself. We organize events all the time, and people turn out,” said Shropshire-Maina.
“She’s the most progressive mayor Los Angeles has ever had,” he added, saying he thinks that has played out in her approach to homelessness. She inherited a huge challenge, Shropshire-Maina said, but moved away from policies that criminalized homelessness. “It started with her executive directive … which made government be more proactive and work across departments, and not just rely on police.”
Volunteers work a phone bank for Mayor Karen Bass’ reelection campaign on Oct. 25.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
At Bass headquarters, Shropshire-Maina worked at one phone bank table while Philip Rosen of Hollywood and Christina Schiepe of Westchester worked another table. Rosen said Bass is a pragmatic Democrat who has been dealt a lot, with homelessness and the Palisades fire, “but she’s taken accountability,” and he believes Raman will be accountable primarily to the Democratic Socialists of America.
Schiepe, who had been to Bass headquarters twice previously, is 16.
“I can’t vote, but you know, at least I can do something that could help the cause,” Schiepe said, telling me her parents also support Bass, and one issue in particular stands out for her.
“We really are not happy with the ICE raids going on at the moment,” she said, and Bass “has done a lot to kind of combat that … and try to get them out of Los Angeles.”
Schiepe said she wants to study political science in college, so who knows. Maybe she and Shropshire-Maina will run for office one day, and I can volunteer for them.
Now on to Raman.
Jane Demian, an Eagle Rock retiree and longtime activist and volunteer, said she would have voted for Bass if the opponent were Pratt, but Raman will get her vote.
Demian thought there were some bumps in the rollout of the mayor’s homelessness plan, but she thinks Raman did a good job as head of the council’s homelessness committee. She noted that Raman was one of the founders of the SELAH neighborhood homeless coalition, which steers people in the direction of housing and case management.
“I’m not put off as others are by her DSA connection. DSA is made up of people who want to provide economic support to working people,” Damian said. The “main focus is affordable housing, healthcare, and good wages for working people.”
Just as the Bass volunteers had their scripts to work with, Raman supporters touted the candidate’s work on renter protections, cleared encampments and a reduction in homelessness in her council district. I met with Mid-City residents Perez and Mohiuddin at La Monarca in Boyle Heights, where they were distributing literature to volunteer door-knockers.
Perez, who works in post-production, and Mohiuddin, who works in communications, both like the specificity they hear in Raman’s comments about homelessness, City Hall accountability and greater urgency in problem-solving.
Los Angeles Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who is challenging Mayor Karen Bass, speaks at an Oct. 19 news conference in North Hollywood.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“When I see Nithya Raman speak, I see someone who’s sincere, who’s kind of a wonk,” and isn’t afraid to dive into policy minutiae, said Perez, or to forge a path independent of the political establishment or dependent on endorsements from fellow council members.
Perez and Mohiuddin voted for Bass four years ago, but don’t think she’s earned a second term.
“It’s very hard to find an Angeleno who’s happy with government,” Perez said.
The change Mohiuddin wants to see, she told me, is simple. She wants for a candidate “to say something’s going to happen, and then stick to it.”
As Perez sees it, Bass has attempted to position herself as the candidate of the people.
“But in canvassing and speaking to people throughout the city … there’s a lot of people who are disappointed with the status quo and perhaps not enough has happened in the last four years to justify them giving [her] another shot,” he said. “So I do think there is an aspect of [voters being hungry for] fresh blood and energy in order to confront the emergencies the city is facing.”
Whatever the outcome on election day, Mohiuddin said, there will be a victory of sorts.
“We’re still going to have a woman leading the city.”
Voters will elect two new Los Angeles City Council members on Tuesday, one representing the San Fernando Valley, the other South Los Angeles.
In the 3rd District, businessman Tim Gaspar and longtime local government employee Barri Worth Girvan are vying to replace Bob Blumenfield, who is termed out. The district includes Canoga Park, Reseda, Tarzana, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.
In Council District 9, residents are preparing for a historic shift: No matter who wins, the district will elect a Latino council member for the first time since 1963.
The South L.A. district has long been represented by a Black council member, but over the last few decades it has undergone a demographic shift and today is about 80% Latino. Councilmember Curren Price also has termed out. Estuardo Mazariegos, co-director of the L.A. chapter of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and Jose Ugarte, who previously served as a deputy chief of staff to Price, are vying for the seat.
District 3
Gaspar led the June primary with 46.1% of the vote compared to Worth Girvan, who secured 42.5%. Both candidates have spent the last few weeks of the campaign knocking on doors and making their case to voters, saying major issues like public safety and cleanliness are common concerns.
Gaspar, who founded an insurance agency in the Valley that he sold in 2021, would bring a pro-business perspective to City Hall, and among his top priorities would be eliminating “red tape” to stimulate small businesses in the region.
“We need somebody who’s going to come to the table with different ideas,” Gaspar said. “If we keep doing the same thing as before, we’re going to keep getting the same results.”
Worth Girvan, who worked as L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s district director for three years before running, would use her experience in the public sector to advocate for the West Valley.
“I am fortunate to have experience at every level of government,” she said. “That’s going to allow me to leverage relationships and know how to work together across jurisdictions to get things done.”
The race has been filled with accusations. Two weeks ago, Worth Girvan’s campaign published an ad featuring Christina Rackohn, a former employee whose family company merged with Gaspar’s insurance company, who alleged he created a hostile work environment.
Worth Girvan also filed an ethics complaint against Gaspar with the City Ethics Commission in October, alleging he failed to report more than $150,000 in personal and business expenditures related to his campaign and violated the city’s matching fund rules.
Gaspar called the allegations about creating a hostile working environment and violating campaign finance violations “lies.” He said he is focused on campaigning in the final week before the election.
Gaspar said Worth Girvan is a career politician who will only maintain the status quo.
“If she ends up getting elected, she’s going to have the same ideas and the same ways of addressing these issues as what got us into this mess in the first place,” he said.
On homelessness, Gaspar has criticized the city’s Inside Safe program and said a housing-first approach doesn’t work. He praised the anticamping zone law but believes the city should be tougher against encampments.
Worth Girvan supports Inside Safe but wants more permanent housing built instead of relying on interim housing. She would expand the city’s CIRCLE program, which provides 24/7 unarmed mobile response for nonviolent calls involving homeless individuals, to the West Valley.
In fundraising, Gaspar reported bringing in nearly $600,000 during the runoff campaign including matching funds, compared with about $287,000 for Worth Girvan.
District 9
Both Mazariegos and Ugarte share many similarities, including having arrived to the U.S. from Latin America as children and growing up undocumented. Both spent years working as community organizers, but now they diverge on issues such as policing and homeless policies.
Mazariegos and Ugarte were nearly evenly matched in fundraising, with both raising about $350,000 for the runoff in contributions and matching funds. Ugarte placed first in the June primary in a crowded field against five others, winning 39% of the vote. Mazariegos, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America‘s L.A. chapter, came in second with about 26%.
Ugarte’s campaign has received more than $1 million in support from independent expenditures, committees that can receive unlimited donations but cannot coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. Airbnb, Uber and the California Apartment Assn. are among the groups supporting Ugarte.
Mazariegos has criticized the companies supporting Ugarte’s candidacy, accusing them of attempting to displace low-income residents by pouring money into the election.
“They’re trying to displace our community. That’s what this fight is all about,” Mazariegos said. “I know this is a righteous campaign and a righteous cause with the people, alongside the people. Solo el pueblo salva al pueblo.” Only the people can save the people.
Ugarte said he has never met with Airbnb officials but would take a call from any group to figure out what is going to best benefit South L.A., including prioritizing protecting renters.
“I’d open my eyes and see what’s going to benefit South L.A.,” he said. “I want to focus on making South Central clean, safe and affordable.”
While both would defend immigrants, they diverge on issues such as the police budget. Ugarte supports Mayor Karen Bass’ goal of restoring the L.A. Police Department to 9,500 officers, while Mazariegos supports increasing oversight of the department’s budget and reducing its budget to fund other departments, including Recreation and Parks and the Bureau of Street Services.
Ugarte supports enforcing Municipal Ordinance 41.18, which prohibits camps near schools, daycare centers and other “sensitive” areas as a tool to clear homeless encampments. Mazariegos has said all the ordinance does is shuffle people around, and instead the focus should be on addressing addiction and mental health issues.
Mazariegos has been endorsed by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, City Controller Kenneth Mejia, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), United Teachers Los Angeles, L.A. Forward and several labor unions.
Ugarte has been endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Action Fund, Rep. Sydney Kamlager Dove, the late Dolores Huerta and Councilmember Tim McOsker.
WASHINGTON — Next week’s elections are widely seen as a referendum on President Trump, his team and his party, with most voters telling pollsters they seek a check on his power. But the midterms will also serve as a reckoning for one of the least productive sessions of Congress in a century.
A stunningly low 10% of Americans approve of the job performance of Congress, which has passed fewer bills and conducted less oversight than any of its predecessors in modern history, according to scholars of the legislative branch.
The biggest achievement of unified Republican control has also become one of its biggest liabilities. Deeply unpopular when signed, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has only grown more controversial, with most Americans still unclear on what’s in it — and those who do know largely disapproving of the law, which cut taxes for businesses and billionaires while adding trillions to the national debt.
A summer Politico poll found that just 8% of Americans believe the law has improved their bottom line. The bill cut billions of dollars for food stamps and over a trillion in health programs and Medicaid.
Two other significant bills passed by this Congress — the Epstein Files Transparency Act and a housing reform package targeting corporate purchases of single-family homes — ultimately became law over Trump’s opposition, leaving Republicans little credit for bipartisan wins.
“It’s not a partisan statement to say that the current Congress will go down in history as one of the most ineffective in history,” said Charles Stewart III, director of the Election Data and Science Lab at MIT. “It may not be the most ineffective, but it’s down there.”
Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that congressional performance can be measured by several criteria, including the quantity and quality of legislation, its oversight of the executive branch, investigations of government and private-sector failures, and its defense of congressional powers and ethical standards.
By all accounts, he said, “the 119th Congress is an abysmal failure, perhaps the worst I have seen in well over five decades of immersion in the legislative branch.”
Senate pages walk through the halls outside the Senate chamber in the Capitol on Oct. 1, 2026. The Senate had completed its last votes in the middle of the night before going on recess through Nov. 9.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
A recent Fox News poll found that government corruption is voters’ top concern this year, surpassing even the economy. Yet the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to deliver meaningful oversight. The enrichment of Trump, his family, allies and aides has gone uninvestigated, while Senate Republicans continue to block legislation targeting insider trading by members of Congress.
It has been a running theme from Democrats working to unseat Republican incumbents, with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York — slated to become speaker of the House if Democrats win control of the chamber — repeatedly characterizing the current session as a “do-nothing” Congress.
Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola speaks at a campaign event Oct. 29, 2026, in Juneau, Alaska.
(Chloe Anderson / Associated Press)
In Alaska, Mary Peltola, the Democratic nominee for Senate, accused her GOP opponent, Sen. Dan Sullivan, of doing nothing to stop Trump’s tariff policies or his war with Iran. Democrat Sherrod Brown in Ohio has attacked the Republican incumbent Jon Husted for his procedural attempts to end debate over legislation on the Epstein files. And Democrat Adam Hamilton has targeted Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas for voting for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that jeopardized funding to rural hospitals.
Defending the record of his majority, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has highlighted a decline in prescription drug prices, the elimination of “wasteful spending” on various federal programs and bipartisan housing reform. Only so much can be accomplished with a razor-thin majority in the chamber, Johnson has said.
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) listens as U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) lends his support at a campaign rally on Oct. 29, 2026, in Platteville, Wis. Van Orden is in a rematch from 2024 with Democrat Rebecca Cooke for the state’s 3rd District seat.
(John Moore / Getty Images)
Trump has vowed on the campaign trail that, if kept in power, a Republican Congress would pass a $5,000 dividend to each American, despite its thin record to date.
Critics of the speaker say Johnson’s deference to Trump — and relinquishing of congressional authority to the executive branch — has unilaterally ceded power, souring voters on unified government.
But Stewart, who also co-directs a voting technology project with Caltech, said Congress’ problems run deeper than its current record.
Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) speaks during a campaign stop at the Palmetto State Armory on Oct. 30, 2026, in Columbia, S.C. Graham is running about even in the polls against her opponent, South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Annie Andrews.
(Win McNamee / Getty Images)
“Not only is Congress not pushing back against the administration, or even innovating in policy, but its members also don’t seem especially interested in serving their constituents on the small-ball aspects of representation,” Stewart said.
“It’s hard to say members of this Congress are connecting with their constituents as they did in decades past,” he added. “We’ll see if that lack of constituency connection will have an impact on the results.”
The proposition creates a down payment loan program, totaling up to $25 billion, for middle-income families looking to buy a new home in California. The program would be run by the California Housing Finance Agency, which already oversees several homeownership assistance programs.
The state would sell bonds to fund the program. It would pay back investors using interest and loan payments from the program — not taxpayer money. The California Housing Finance Agency would administer the program, including setting interest rates for the loans.
To qualify, prospective borrowers would need to buy a newly constructed home or a home that never has sold before, such as a commercial building that was converted into condos. Borrowers wouldn’t need to be first-time homebuyers, but they would need to earn no more than 200% of the median local income; for a family of four in Los Angeles County, that amounts to no more than $216,200 a year.
There also would be limits on the sales prices of homes bought with help from this program. While the exact price would depend on the county, generally the homes would need to sell for between $1 million and $1.5 million. Homebuyers would need to put at least 3% down, and the state finance agency could provide a loan up to 17% of the sales price.
The loans would function like fixed-rate second mortgages.
According to the California Budget and Policy Center, the earnings that would qualify a family for down payment assistance could vary greatly depending on where they planned to buy a home. Per the center’s calculations, a family of four buying a home in Madera County would have to earn no more than $166,800 a year, while a family in Santa Clara County could earn up to $375,800 a year and still qualify.
Other specifics would be worked out if voters pass the measure. That includes the interest rates charged on this second mortgage, which, according to the Budget and Policy Center, likely would be higher than the current rates for conventional mortgages, which have hovered around 7% for a 30-year mortgage.
Because revenue bonds, which would be used to fund this program, are riskier than other bonds, investors might demand a higher return, translating to a higher interest rate.
SACRAMENTO — Xavier Becerra is poised to make history as California’s first elected Latino governor, according to a new poll.
But the survey shows voters, and Latinos in particular, have mixed views on the significance and impact of Becerra’s probable win.
According to the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, the veteran Democratic politician was backed by 61% of likely California voters, compared with 34% who supported his Republican rival, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. That is slightly up from a September IGS survey that showed Becerra leading by 25 percentage points.
“He’s solidified almost unanimous support now among Democrats. Republicans are almost unanimous in the other direction,” IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said.
Becerra, a former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, congressman and state attorney general, “hasn’t offended any significant parts of the Democratic Party” and has united the party’s voters by “hammering away” against President Trump, DiCamillo said.
When asked to name one or two top priorities for the election, 40% of likely voters chose pushing back against the Trump administration, followed by 34% who cited reducing the cost of living. It’s a reversal from the mid-September survey, when 44% of likely voters said the cost of living was a top issue and 37% listed fighting Trump.
Both of those issues far outweighed the concerns of California voters about other issues that dominated the political discourse in past elections, including fighting crime, creating jobs and improving public education and healthcare.
Becerra’s supporters “are over the top on fighting Trump administration policies,” DiCamillo said. “I mean, 62% of his supporters state that as their greatest concern in this election. It’s really uniting the Democrats.”
The survey reveals a generational split between voters: Those younger than 50 were more likely to name the cost of living as a top issue, while voters 50 and older were more likely to name Trump’s policies.
Latino voters were more evenly split between the two issues, and more focused on other needs than voters of other ethnic and racial groups. They were more likely to list priorities including reducing taxes, fighting crime and protecting immigrant communities than white, Black, or Asian American likely voters.
Days before voting ends in the Nov. 3 election, 53% of likely voters have a favorable view of Becerra and 41% see him unfavorably. Hilton’s image continues its upside-down trend: 56% view him unfavorably and 34% have a positive opinion.
“There’s been a lot of negative campaigning by Hilton, but it doesn’t seem to have had any impact,” DiCamillo said. “Becerra is just riding high on his image rating with the voters. This is the highest image rating we’ve measured for him.”
The survey asked voters whom they expected to win the race, regardless of which candidate they are supporting. Ninety percent of Democrats and 80% of voters not affiliated with a major party expected Becerra to win. Half of Republicans and 58% of those who identify as MAGA said they believed Hilton will win — a striking number in a state where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 and the GOP has not won a statewide race in 20 years.
“They are hoping against hope,” DiCamillo said.
If he wins Tuesday’s election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Becerra would become the first-ever Latino elected governor and the first Latino in that office in 150 years.
Becerra’s support among Latino and white voters closely mirrors that of the overall electorate, with 60% favoring him. Becerra received a warmer reception from Black and Asian American voters in the state, according to the poll.
Asked how they felt about the possibility of electing a Latino governor, just over a third of all likely voters and 45% of Latino voters said they felt “proud.” But majorities of both groups — 52% of Latino voters and 58% of likely voters — believe electing the state’s first Latino governor is either “not too important” or “not at all important.”
For better or worse, voters also have low expectations about the impact of a potentially historic election.
Sixty-one percent of likely Latino voters, and 57% of total voters surveyed, do not believe that having a Latino governor would reduce racial inequalities in the state. And similar numbers doubt it would worsen racial tensions.
Among Latino voters, 40% believed electing a Latino governor would ease fear in their communities, but 43% disagreed. The remainder had no opinion.
“While greater than 4 in 10 Latinos feel proud and think it is important to elect a Latino governor, they also recognize that it will take much more than a single elected official to ease the fears and difficulties experienced by the Latino immigrant community,” IGS Co-Director G. Cristina Mora said. “With Trump still in office and prices still high, Latino voters seem cautious yet hopeful about the new governor.”
The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Oct. 19 to Sunday. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 1,477 respondents who already voted or were considered likely to vote in the November election, from a larger group of 2,787 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.
CHANDLER, Ariz. — At balloon-adorned tables in red, white and blue, a handful of voters inside a church gymnasium listened as Medina Moore explained what to do if federal agents show up at the polls.
Call a hotline, she told volunteers, where attorneys will be ready to respond. Take videos, report what you see and remove yourself from any situation that becomes intense, she advised.
It was one of Moore’s final poll monitor trainings in the Phoenix area before election day, preparing a few new “peacekeepers” to join the ranks of about 200 she has recruited from local faith groups in the Phoenix area to greet voters, answer questions and keep an eye out for issues at voting sites on Tuesday.
“It feels very urgent this year,” said Moore, the voting rights organizer for the Arizona Faith Network, a coalition of religious groups. “We’re in an era of information overload. Being able to educate voters on what’s true and what’s not is very important.”
As lawyers nationwide prepare defenses against possible election interference by the Trump administration and election officials train for worst-case scenarios, ordinary citizens across the country are also readying to help. Through nonpartisan groups, parents are training to be poll monitors, law students are staffing legal hotlines, veterans are holding voting events and business owners are signing pledges to back local election officials.
The grassroots efforts, underpinned by various voting and democracy nonprofits, amount to a striking push by American voters to help uphold the nation’s election system in the face of possible threats from its own government. More than 21,000 people nationwide have been trained as nonpartisan poll monitors through the Election Protection coalition, the program that Moore used, along with thousands of others through other nonprofit and partisan efforts.
The effort is aimed at helping ensure voter turnout at a time when Trump’s rhetoric has eroded public trust in the system and many GOP-led states have enacted new ballot rules for voters to navigate. Worry among voters about whether their ballots will be counted has accelerated, according to organizers; in a recent AP-NORC poll, just under half of American voters expressed confidence that midterm votes will be counted accurately.
“People who vote occasionally or it’s their first time voting or they haven’t voted in a while, they all have questions on ‘If I vote, will my vote count?’” said Rebekah Caruthers, president of the Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group that is working with college students to monitor voting on campuses. The best way to combat those fears, she said, is for as many people as possible to “show up and exercise their right.”
Since returning to office, Trump has undertaken a sweeping effort to exert control over and cast doubt on U.S. elections, and the administration has intensified its efforts as the midterms draw closer.
“Be careful of the voter fraud,” Trump said at a Texas rally Tuesday. “We’re going to watch that voter fraud.”
Glendale Mayor Jerry P. Weiers, Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Andy Biggs, Cindy Biggs and Sam Darmo, co-chair of the Assyrian-American Republican coalition and president of Assyrians for Justice, stand for the national anthem at an event in Glendale, Ariz., on Oct. 24, 2026.
(Rebecca Noble / Getty Images)
This week, Trump offered $1 million to anyone who reports voter fraud that leads to a conviction, the latest in a string of incentives he has floated related to the midterms and another suggestion of rampant election fraud.
U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche last week said the Justice Department did not intend to interfere with elections. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) committed to a peaceful transfer of power if Democrats win a majority, saying, “We’re going to follow the Constitution,” but predicted there would be no transfer because Republicans would win the majority. Trump told reporters Tuesday that he would respect the election results “if they’re honest elections.”
Preparations by lawyers, nonprofits and Democratic lawmakers to anticipate how the Trump administration could try to interfere with the midterms have been underway for months. Courts have already blocked many of the administration’s steps, including attempts to access state voter rolls, restrict voting by mail and demand states change some election rules.
The grassroots effort has grown out of existing programs — the Election Protection coalition has been operating since 2000 — but interest from volunteers is particularly high this year, organizers from several groups said.
“Voters are responding to the moment that we’re in right now,” said Saige Draeger, a senior policy associate at Verified Voting, a nonprofit that advises states on the use of voting technology and is part of the Election Protection coalition. “I think they feel like it’s incumbent upon everybody to make sure this election goes smoothly.”
In Arizona, an epicenter of Republican efforts to deny the 2020 election results, partisan tensions have long been high, and residents cite concerns about potential political violence surrounding the election.
Now, election denialism is on the ballot: The Republican nominees for governor, secretary of state and attorney general each played a role in Trump’s denial of the 2020 results. Alex Kolodin, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, filed lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results.
The outcome of the race could be consequential for the 2028 election, because secretaries of state play a key role in certifying their states’ results, and presidential elections can come down to a single swing state. Along with the Arizona race, those in Nevada, Michigan and Georgia are being closely watched by pro-democracy groups.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signs a commemorative bill before a game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Texas Rangers at Chase Field on Sept. 3, 2025, in Phoenix.
(Norm Hall / Getty Images)
On street corners, the campaign signs for Kolodin and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, the Democratic incumbent, duel: “Protect every vote,” say Kolodin’s. “Protect your vote,” Fontes’ read.
Organizers focused on election protection efforts stress that the goal is to ensure every voter casts their vote and the person who gets the most votes is declared the winner — all regardless of political party.
“With the level of polarization that we have nationally right now, people might mistake and think that calling for a free, fair, democratic election is somehow partisan,” said Hardy Merriman, an organizer with the Hold the Line project, which has recruited about 650 volunteers to ask their local leaders to sign on to a pledge affirming they back free and fair elections. “It’s really important for actors to get off the sidelines … and say, no, actually it’s not.”
The mission of the poll monitors is to answer voters’ procedural questions, ensure no one is incorrectly turned away from voting and provide a friendly nonpartisan face — “be a peaceful presence,” Moore said. They can help voters navigate state laws — in Arizona, for instance, a requirement to show an approved form of identification when voting.
The monitors are also trained to call the attorney-staffed hotline to report anything out of the ordinary: long lines that may deter people from voting, people being turned away from the polls, aggressive electioneering from partisans outside the polling place or law enforcement showing up at voting locations.
Monitors trained through the Election Protection coalition will be stationed in 40 states and the District of Columbia, while about 3,000 legal professionals will be staffing the hotline, said Camille Wimbish, national director of campaigns and field programs for the Election Protection coalition, which is a project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
“It gives voters reassurance that there is someone who has their back at voting locations,” Wimbish said. “It also just shows our determination as a community to stand up and say that we care about our elections, we want election day to be a joyful, peaceful, celebratory experience for all of us.”
PJ Boone-Edgerton Longoni, 70, who attended Moore’s mid-October training in Chandler at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, said the idea of poll monitoring made her a little nervous, but she believes there is a “high-stakes need” for citizens to show up.
“I want to be a support,” she said. “All this misinformation gets people not to trust anything, and that lack of trust causes things to fall apart — because democracy is based on trust.”
A federal judge in California on Friday barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots.
The order issued by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in the Northern District of California was in response to a suit filed earlier Friday by labor unions seeking to bar the Justice Department from intimidating election workers.
Notably, the emergency order was issued without the Department of Justice weighing in on the case.
“Election Day is around the corner,” wrote Thompson, who was nominated by former President Biden. “Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
It also bars the Justice Department from demanding local election officials segregate or not count ballots that the federal government deems may have been cast by ineligible voters.
“This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve,” April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday night.
The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has warned that “any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.”
On Thursday, the Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to election officials in Los Angeles County. The subpoenas request any documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining the allegations about noncitizen voters. They also seek any information about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted. At least three L.A. County election officials have been asked to appear before a grand jury the day after the election.
It is unclear whether the Justice Department intends to bring criminal charges against anyone. The department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.
Outside groups win access to the disputed list
In another Friday ruling, another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. They want to examine who is on the list and assess its impact on eligible voters.
It will be the first time that a nongovernmental organization will have the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the list of some 20,000 names. The federal government promptly appealed the decision on Friday evening.
The Democratic candidate for California governor, Xavier Becerra, is an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
The two groups sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data have been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens. It argued that the data-matching methods risk disenfranchising or deterring citizens from voting. On top of that, plaintiffs argued, the lists could disproportionately target naturalized citizens who are legally entitled to vote.
The Justice Department argues that there is just as much to lose if the ballots aren’t separated.
“Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the vote of an American citizen,” Kiersten V. Pels, a spokesperson for the department, wrote in an email. “The Department makes no apology for protecting those votes.”
In a separate but related 9th Circuit Court decision on Friday, a panel of judges ruled that federal investigations into illegal voting by noncitizens will remain on hold in nine states until after election day.
The judges, all nominated by Democratic presidents, found that the aggressive and public investigations led some citizens to decide not to engage in election-related activities out of fear of being wrongly targeted.
The judges said the investigations, which are looking into alleged illegal voting in past elections, can resume after the midterms wrap up Tuesday.
Riddle, Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writer Swenson reported from New York; Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
The war over California’s elections intensified late this week after three Los Angeles County officials were slapped with criminal grand jury subpoenas related to their handling of thousands of state ballots, which the Justice Department has demanded be set aside amid claims they could be cast by noncitizens.
Labor unions and voting rights groups hit back, sending a fresh wave of action into the tempest of federal lawsuits already swirling around the ballot clawback order. The storm surged back through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday morning and appeared on a path to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would decide whether to hear the case.
Voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare, law enforcement experts and elections officials say. Yet the Trump administration has doggedly pursued claims to the contrary. Under the subpoenas, L.A. County officials are being ordered to hand over troves of internal documents — emails, text messages and other material — related to their handling of the administration’s demand to sequester 20,000 contested ballots.
The subpoenas also order them to produce any evidence they may have collected “which tends to indicate an alien has voted.”
Prosecutors charge that widespread noncitizen voting disenfranchises Americans by diluting their lawful votes.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Dean Logan and hundreds of workers who report to him are heading into Tuesday’s election under the cloud of criminal investigation, with department bureaucrats ordered to appear in federal court in Santa Ana on Wednesday morning.
“Threats and intimidation have no place in elections,” Logan said.
Who has been subpoenaed and what do the orders seek?
So far, at least three workers from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s Office have been summoned as part of the probe, though the Associated Press reported that prosecutors in all four of California’s federal districts were sending out similar orders.
The Justice Department already subpoenaed thousands of voter records from state and local officials related to claims that noncitizens were voting en masse in California. Now, prosecutors are seeking virtually any written communication from within local election offices about how they responded to those demands to identify and remove such voters, including lists of employees who were told of the directive.
Courts have questioned the reliability of the Justice Department‘s list of potential noncitize voters.
Additionally, the workers must hand over any communications — including self-deleting texts from apps such as Signal — related to the office’s efforts to block noncitizen voting.
The subpoena also demands any evidence the city might have collected indicating even a single noncitizen has voted in an election, as well as details about anyone who might have “aided and/or abetted” them.
“When California has actual knowledge of noncitizens in their voter rolls, if they help them vote, they are now aiding and abetting a criminal offense,” California Central District First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli told Fox News this month.
He doubled down with a post on social media this week, saying his office “will hold accountable anyone who unlawfully participates in our elections and those who aid them.”
Is the Los Angeles County registrar of voters under criminal investigation?
Maybe.
Logan has not been subpoenaed, but the subject of a criminal investigation typically is not subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury because the Constitution’s 5th Amendment protects people from having to testify against themselves.
The Justice Department declined to comment on whether or not Logan might be prosecuted.
“While DOJ maintains that a civil remedy is still available, all agree that noncitizen voting is properly addressed through criminal law,” a spokesperson said.
Instead, the threat of prosecution hangs over virtually any worker who processes ballots the Justice Department might seek to contest.
“They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” President Trump posted on social media as the fight ramped up this month.
A lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of workers by the Service Employees International Union and its partners called the subpoenas part of “a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in the hard and important work of administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election.”
The union’s suit also alleged that thousands of California voters could be disenfranchised if courts don’t block the federal government’s efforts “to coerce them into halting the processing and counting of ballots.”
“Threatening these election workers with criminal prosecution for faithfully executing their responsibilities in accordance with federal and state law is plainly illegal and, unless enjoined, risks disenfranchising tens of thousands of lawfully registered voters,” the suit said.
Elected officials also rushed to condemn the move.
“The Trump Administration’s escalating attacks on our hardworking elections officials in California are unacceptable,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote on social media.
Can the subpoenas be blocked?
That depends.
An expected order from the Supreme Court could neuter much of the Justice Department’s demand, as the bulk of what officials have been asked to hand over relates to the 20,000 contested ballots whose fate will be decided in Washington, D.C.
The union suit also asks the court to shield election officials from prosecution for counting ballots, which effectively could block the underlying criminal investigation.
Will my vote be counted?
State and local officials have vowed to run the election as usual. The courts have so far supported their effort, with a panel of 9th Circuit judges writing Friday that they “decline the United States’ invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text.”
The judges — two Trump appointees and one nominated to the bench by President Biden — ruled 2-1 in favor of California.
“If the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts,” the panel held.
That decision, handed down just before noon Friday, all but ensures the issue will reach the Supreme Court and be decided there before polls close Tuesday.
But with hundreds of thousands of ballots already returned and hundreds of thousands more moving through the mail over the weekend, the legal fight still could cause delays. And a ruling for the Justice Department from the Supreme Court could snarl the process further.
“Major concerns remain that granting the United States’ requested relief might result in immense hardship to Defendants and harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy,” the 9th Circuit panel wrote.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Friday that it has approved a proposed $2.1-billion sale of Patriot air defense interceptors for Ukraine after Kyiv had accused the Pentagon of delaying delivery of the vital munition needed to stop Russian ballistic missiles.
The State Department said that 500 Patriot missiles are being purchased for Ukraine with donations from Canada, Germany and Norway through a U.S. program and that no American funds were involved.
“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political and economic stability in Europe,” the department said in a news release.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned this month that his country had nearly run out of the vital military munition it needs to combat Moscow’s attacks as tensions with President Trump’s administration escalated.
The Ukrainian leader had accused the Pentagon of delaying the delivery of the missiles that other countries have purchased for Ukraine. He also said U.S. intelligence that warns of incoming Russian attacks had been interrupted and the Starlink satellite internet service had been throttled. Ukraine says Starlink speeds and intelligence have been restored.
The Los Angeles Community College District is the largest community college district in the nation, serving 200,000 students with a budget of $10 million.
Voters will elect three members to the board.
Seat 2
Steven F. Veres
Veres is a member of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees and works as a state political adviser. He says he has worked to strengthen job training programs and improve graduation rates and wants to make college as affordable as possible.
Robert Payne
Payne taught at L.A. Mission College, worked on movie crews and ran an import business. He would focus on low enrollment growth. He also wants to make community colleges “cheaper, faster, better” in part by offering students more training for specific jobs and less expensive online textbooks.
Kristina Irwin
Irwin serves on the general advisory board at Santa Monica College. She previously served on the board of trustees at Palisades Charter High School. She wants to offer students more tools to succeed in college and to establish “preentry” programs in every local high school to better prepare students for community college.
Adriana Cabrera
Cabrera served as president of the Central Alameda Neighborhood Council and co-founded Empowering Youth in South Central. She wants to make student services easier to navigate and to strengthen financial aid and other support, including for food, housing, child care and mental health.
Roy Payan
Payan has suspended his campaign.
Seat 4
Nancy Pearlman
Pearlman is an environmentalist who served on the LACC Board of Trustees from 2001 to 2017 and taught part time at all nine colleges. She would focus on improving low enrollment while ensuring students are given the necessary support and resources to succeed. She also cites the need to make sure faculty receive equal pay.
Darryn Harris
Harris is a government and community affairs officer for St. John’s Community Health and teaches at Santa Monica College. Harris wants to tackle the affordability crisis blocking student achievement by building more low-cost housing on district land and making it “easier for students to get help with food, transportation, child care, and other basic needs.”
Adam Bruno
Bruno has worked as a therapist helping children and been a community college student. His main goals are to increase enrollment and make it easier for students to afford college. He’d explore student stipends as a way to make community college more affordable.
Elaine Alaniz
Alaniz serves as a public affairs specialist with the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience. She wants to better prepare students for a changing workforce and ensure classroom instruction “keeps pace with a rapidly changing workforce” in the age of artificial intelligence and other technologies.
Isidro J. Armenta
Armenta did not reply to The Times’ survey.
Priscilla Umana
Umana works as an American Sign Language interpreter. She says the district’s biggest challenge “is the high percentage of students experiencing housing insecurity, homelessness, and food insecurity.” She would work with the district to expand affordable housing, work-study opportunities and food aid.
Jason R. Aula
Aula has worked as a political campaign consultant and in the world of mobile apps. He considers fraud a major issue including people posing as community college students to steal financial aid. He proposed a moratorium on noncitizens attending district schools and a focus on pandemic learning loss.
Seat 6
Gabriel Buelna
Buelna serves on the board of trustees. He also is an attorney and teaches history and political science at Cal State Northridge. He said a key issue is making college more affordable to students and ensuring that they graduate. He also said the board must conduct strong fiscal oversight of the billions in voter-approved bond funds.
Tonia Arey
Arey has worked in real estate, public advocacy and community engagement. Arey would work to implement campus safety plans, support additional academic advising and career education and more closely “examine spending, contracts, program outcomes and administrative costs to ensure resources reach classrooms and directly support students.”
Randall Winston
Winston works as a licensed architect and attorney and serves as Los Angeles’ deputy mayor of infrastructure and climate resilience under Mayor Karen Bass. Winston’s priorities for the district include ensuring colleges are a pathway to opportunity and good jobs, that students can afford basic needs and people historically shut out of higher education are let in.
Voter ballots were mailed to all registered California voters starting Oct. 5. But if you prefer to vote in person, here’s what you need to know about casting your ballot ahead of and on election day, Nov. 3.
How can I vote in person now?
The first vote centers opened for early in-person voting on Oct. 24 but only in Voter’s Choice Act counties. L.A. County is among the 30 VCA counties where you can vote in person early.
But in-person early voting expands significantly Saturday, with locations open across the state.
To find your polling location, you can visit your county elections official’s website or the secretary of state’s website here.
There are about 2,000 safety-net clinics in California that deliver primary care to underserved populations. Proposition 44 would set limits on how these federally qualified health centers spend their money.
The basics
Proposition 44 asks voters to require federally funded community health centers to spend at least 90% of their total annual revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose.”
The impact
If the proposition passes, the state attorney general will be responsible for determining what services fall into that category. If spending on administrative or non-healthcare functions exceeded 10% of total revenue, a clinic would have to pay a penalty equal to the amount it overspent.
Dig deeper
Proposition 44 was backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the same union that is pushing Proposition 40, the controversial billionaire tax. The union appears to be the main supporter of the proposal and says the restrictions would prevent excessive spending on executive salaries, fundraisers and other administrative expenses.
There is a diverse array of opponents, including the California Medical Assn., the California Teachers Assn., the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the state Democratic Party and the state Chamber of Commerce. They say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation.
The Trump administration has frozen, terminated or delayed billions in congressionally approved research grants since last year. Proposition 38 aims to backfill some of that loss by creating a stable source of money to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.
The basics
Proposition 38 would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to uncover treatments that help the immune system fight diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease more efficiently.
The impact
The measure would require at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. It also would authorize the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health and allocate half of the bond revenue to it. The remaining funds would be used for competitive grants that focus solely on immunology and immunotherapy research.
Californians would take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for about 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The Yes on 38 campaign says the proposition pays for itself: 10% of all proceeds from the licensing of immunotherapies must be returned to the state to offset the total cost of the bond measure, including interest.
However, it’s difficult to predict whether any research projects will lead to marketable treatments.
Dig deeper
Proposition 38 is backed by organizations including the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the ALS Assn., as well as a majority of local chapters of Democratic organizations across the state. Supporters say the proposed funding could give those afflicted with chronic illness hope and potentially more options for treatment.
Its opponents have said the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely small pool of qualified recipients. Only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria, according to No on 38, the campaign against the proposition.
Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the Yes on 38 campaign, said “lots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.”
But she said at a virtual news conference in mid-September that it was “very likely” that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy “will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria.”
Ultimately, Swanson said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.
The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” into whether agency officials, and Justice Department attorneys, had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.
The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet, would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles apart.
The hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes questioned Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.
Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course’s closure and renovation?
At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.
Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while work goes on.
The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.
“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.
Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.
At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said came about only this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.
Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Park Golf Course.
The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.
Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.
“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”
Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.
Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.
“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you,” you can break the law.
That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets. The tax applies to people with a net worth of at least $1 billion who resided in California on Jan. 1.
Impact
Ninety percent of the tax would fund healthcare, and 10% would go toward education and food assistance.
The tax would affect hundreds of billionaires whose net worth includes assets such as their businesses, stocks and other investments. Real property, pensions and retirement accounts generally would be excluded.
Proposition 41
It’s called the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness and Efficiency in California Government Act. But it is deeply connected to Proposition 40 and is funded by foes of the billionaire tax.
The basics
Proposition 41 requires the state auditor to review programs funded by proposed special taxes before they appear on the ballot. More importantly, it also prohibits new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit.
Impact
The Legislative Analyst’s Office says passage of Proposition 41 could prevent Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, from becoming law even if voters approve it. This could happen if Proposition 41 receives more “yes” votes than Proposition 40.
Proposition 42
Proposition 42 would limit the state’s ability to impose certain new taxes. But it’s more complicated and far-reaching than that description might sound. And, yes, it’s also backed by opponents of Proposition 40.
The basics
Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.
Impact
The Legislative Analyst’s Office says Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40 because the two measures conflict with each other. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law, the office says.
Dig deeper
The billionaire tax was pushed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and has some labor and progressive support, including from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the state Democratic Party. They say the tax is needed to help the less fortunate and that the super-rich can afford it. But key Democrats and some key unions are not supporting it.
Critics include some of California’s richest people, and they are spending a fortune to defeat it. They say it will hurt innovation and drive the wealthy out of the state, hurting the treasury.
A federal appeals court for the second time Friday denied a Trump administration request to block 20,000 ballots from California voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens — ruling that the administration had failed to show that “such extraordinary relief, during an ongoing election, is clearly required by law.”
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution gives the state and Congress the power to decide how elections are run, and that allowing the Trump administration to “misuse” federal statutes to “prescribe” how California must process ballots would “override the plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself.”
“Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so,” the judges found.
The panel’s majority — comprised of Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — wrote that “if the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts.”
They also wrote that separate federal law prescribes sweeping changes to voter lists 90 days prior to an election, especially given questions about the reliability of the Trump administration’s list of purported noncitizens.
“The suspect reliability of these lists found by the district court reflects the concern Congress sought to mitigate with the 90-day quiet period,” they wrote.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, dissented — arguing that his colleagues erred in denying a basic request by the Trump administration to ensure only citizens are voting.
“The federal government proposes a modest remedy — stopping California from mixing the ballots of citizens and suspected noncitizens,” Bumatay wrote. “This solution would not cancel any vote but would allow time to verify the eligibility of suspected noncitizens. The district court, and now our court, denies this reasonable request.”
Now, voters will consider significant changes to recall rules for elected state officials.
The basics
Under current law, when an elected official is recalled in California, the election for their replacement occurs at the same time. Proposition 5 breaks up that process into two parts, prioritizing the voters’ right to oust an official before selecting a replacement.
The impact
This ballot measure would amend the state constitution to change the current recall system. Under the proposed changes, voters would first be asked to choose whether or not to oust an official. Then, in the event of a recall, the official would be replaced by appointment, succession or special election at a later date. In the case of a special election, the former officeholder could run again.
The measure also would designate California’s lieutenant governor as the de facto replacement for a recalled governor until the next term.
Dig deeper
California’s rules for recalling politicians date to the Progressive era and were seen at the time as a way to give more power to voters.
But there have been concerns in recent years that the process needs reform, especially after the 2021 recall that Newsom overwhelmingly beat back; it cost local and state governments more than $200 million.
After the Newsom recall failed, the Legislature began a bipartisan task force to suggest changes.
Your ballot is overflowing with decisions you need to make. Some you’ve probably heard about — Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman for L.A. mayor, Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton for California governor, the controversial billionaire tax.
But there are also some more obscure races on the L.A. County ballot that are important as well. Here are seven to keep an eye out for.
Los Angeles County sheriff
This is a rematch between rivals for the job of running the Sheriff’s Department, which also oversees county jails.
Robert Luna is the sitting sheriff. The former Long Beach police chief, Luna came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2022, arguing that incumbent Alex Villanueva had taken the department in the wrong direction. Luna points out that violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%.
Alex Villanueva was elected sheriff in 2018 in an upset victory. His tenure was marked by controversy and scandal, and he became a fixture on Fox News, where he appeared repeatedly to vilify “woke” culture and criticize Democrats. He faults Luna, claiming the department has issues with recruitment and retention. He also says the department does not have the resources it needs.
L.A. County Charter Amendment A
This measure deals with labor negotiations for key public safety personnel in L.A. County.
Basics
Measure A is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration between county government and negotiators representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety workers if contract talks reach an impasse and no compromise can be reached. It would alter the current last step, in which county supervisors can impose a final offer that these employees must accept — by law, public safety personnel cannot strike.
Impact
The initial phase of contract talks still would have union and county representatives seeking to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal, with a presumption that both sides would negotiate in good faith. But if a gap remains and an impasse ultimately is declared, the supervisors no longer would dictate the final offer. Instead, a three-member arbitration panel would be formed. The county and union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as chair. If they can’t agree on the final panelist, a state entity could provide a list of qualified arbitrators to choose from. The arbitrators would focus on key employment elements such as wages and hours and would hold hearings and receive evidence from the parties. At the end of the process, a binding result would be issued and made public.
Read more:
L.A. County Charter Amendment E
This is a highly complicated measure that involves jail financing and seeks to clean up some bureaucratic muddles.
Basics
Jails: In 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives. The problem? Voters later approved the county reform effort Measure G, which had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect.
Governance: Measure G also created, among other things, a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Officials determined that for true independence, the commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter.
Impact
Backers say Measure E would clean up those messy governmental issues.
L.A. County Superior Court judges
Voters will decide runoffs for four open judge seats:
Maria Ghobadi and Rhonda Haymon are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 64 seat.
Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 65 seat.
Anthony “A.J.” Bayne and David DeJute are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 87 seat.
Donna Tryfman and David Ross are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 131 seat.
