Politics Desk

The FBI Tuesday morning raided a mansion in Beverly Hills in connection with an investigation into former Congressman Eric Swalwell, sources told The Times.

Swalwell, a Democrat from Dublin, dropped out of the California governor’s race and resigned from Congress in April after allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staffer and acted inappropriately with other young women, which he denied at the time. Before he dropped out of the race, polls indicated that Swalwell was among the front-runners.

On Tuesday, FBI agents were in Beverly Hills executing a search warrant on North Roxbury Drive in connection with the probe.

“We are executing a search warrant. Court documents are sealed. No arrests are planned,” said FBI spokesperson Lourdes Arocho.

The raid is taking place at the home of billionaire Stephen Cloobeck, sources confirmed to The Times.

Swalwell stayed at the home several times while campaigning and used it for political events before he was kicked out in April after the allegations against him became public. In one of his last acts there, Swalwell filmed a video denying the rape and sexual assault.

Cloobeck, 64, is a one-time California gubernatorial candidate and a well-known figure in Democratic politics. He got rich in the timeshare industry, eventually selling his Las Vegas-based Diamond Resorts company to a private equity firm for $2.2 billion. He immersed himself in Nevada Democratic politics, growing close with the late U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, and later launched his long-shot bid for California governor.

He quickly faded in the crowded field, failing to garner above 1% in any poll, and then threw his support behind Swalwell. More recently, he has found himself in the news for being embroiled in a criminal case with Adva Lavie, an OnlyFans model accused of seducing rich men for money.

In August, agents seized Swalwell’s electronic devices and raided his Washington home, even briefly holding the former lawmaker at San Francisco International Airport, a person familiar with the inquiry told The Times.

The source said Swalwell was held in August at SFO for search purposes and released the same day. Federal prosecutors are using civil rights law to pursue an inquiry into his conduct as a member of Congress. Authorities in New York and Los Angeles County are conducting separate investigations.

His home was also searched during the summer, the source added, based on a warrant in connection with a civil rights investigation concerning the sexual assault allegations.

Investigators sought to seize Swalwell’s white iPhone and MacBook Pro, according to court records.

They sought the devices as part of their inquiry into whether Swalwell violated a federal law that makes it a crime for anyone acting under official government authority to willfully deprive a person of their constitutional rights, according to the court filings.

Swalwell has denied any wrongdoing, but the accusations upended the California governor’s race and shook Capitol Hill, where both parties reckoned with a culture of secrecy and silence around sexual impropriety.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A 37-year-old Illinois man is charged with sending threatening letters to members of Congress containing a white powder, including one with a note reading “HAH enjoy the gift,” according to federal court records.

The criminal complaint unsealed Monday claims Matthew Ungelsbee sent at least four plain white envelopes with a powdery substance to elected officials in Chicago. They were postmarked in Springfield, Illinois, on Oct. 19 and had Unglesbee’s name handwritten in the return address section.

Unglesbee, of Quincy in southwestern Illinois, is charged with mailing threatening communications and perpetrating a hoax. He was scheduled to appear in court Monday afternoon. Court records did not list a defense attorney, and a phone number for Unglesbee could not be found. A Facebook message to a Matthew Unglesbee in Quincy was not immediately returned.

FBI agents interviewed Unglesbee at his home on Sunday and he told them all the letters contained salt, court records show. He claimed he’d sent the letters after hearing someone talk about similar mailings in the news earlier this month.

Testing confirmed the white substance was not dangerous. The records did not identify the substance.

A motive was unclear. But Unglesbee said he knew the congress members would “take it serious” because the powder might be perceived as anthrax, which he knew was dangerous and could prompt a response by hazmat teams, according to the complaint.

“Unglesbee claimed he was joking but recognized the recipients would not know he was joking and could perceive it as a threat,” the complaint stated.

Investigators said none of the recipients opened the letters. The most recent envelope was received Oct. 23 at the office of a U.S. senator, records show. It contained a white powdery substance and a handwritten note reading “HAH enjoy the gift,” according to the documents.

The investigation began after an anonymous tipster reported overhearing Unglesbee in a restaurant talking about mailing a suspicious substance to members of Congress. The tip was received Oct. 16, and the FBI tracked Ungelsbee down after the envelopes arrived at the congressional offices days later.

The recipients of the mailings were not named. Authorities searched Unglesbee’s home and found a fifth envelope addressed to another congress member’s Washington, D.C., office, the records show.

Earlier this month, federal authorities said they were investigating letters with “suspicious substances” that had been mailed to congressional and election offices nationwide. That investigation by the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and U.S. Capitol Police was first disclosed in a message from the Senate Sergeant at Arms obtained Oct. 15 by the Associated Press.

Unglesbee denied involvement in those mailings.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez’s reelection bid, once helped by his high-profile fight against President Trump’s immigration policies, is in peril as he tries to recover from allegations of sexual misconduct.

The accusations, which Gomez denies, have left the 51-year-old Eagle Rock Democrat vulnerable to an upstart challenger from Highland Park who earned a reputation for antagonism while serving on the area’s neighborhood council.

Angela Gonzales-Torres, 31, is seizing on Gomez’s issues in the race to represent California’s 34th Congressional District, a Latino-majority territory spanning Koreatown, Boyle Heights, East Los Angeles, Glassell Park and adjacent neighborhoods.

Gonzales-Torres, who has worked part-time jobs as an academic counselor for formerly incarcerated students and at an affordable housing development, is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and counts support from other national progressive organizations.

Over the last week, she campaigned at UC Berkeley alongside fellow progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), appeared on left-wing streamer Hasan Piker’s show and rallied in Los Angeles with Parkland, Fla., school shooting survivor and activist David Hogg.

Gonzales-Torres has linked the accusation against Gomez to the politician’s onetime ally former Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Bay Area Democrat who saw his campaign for governor derailed when several women came forward with allegations of impropriety. Swalwell has also denied wrongdoing.

“We’re going to take on this apparent culture in Congress in which men appear to abuse their positions of power and abuse women and younger staffers,” she said on Piker’s show.

In August, attorneys representing a woman released a statement accusing Gomez of sexual assault. Days earlier, the House Ethics Committee had announced an inquiry into Gomez, elected in 2017, over alleged “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.”

Gomez denied wrongdoing while acknowledging mistakes outside his marriage — a sharp contrast with his image as the lawmaker who founded the Congressional Dads Caucus to champion family-friendly policies and famously carried his infant son in a baby carrier during the protracted votes for House speaker in 2023.

Gomez has avoided the public eye since the accusations surfaced, declining media interviews and campaign appearances, giving further momentum to his opponent.

“They’re trying to fly so far under the radar to not bring attention to the [allegations] or to me,” Gonzales-Torres said during a get-out-the-vote event in Eagle Rock.

Gonzales-Torres’ history in Highland Park

Gonzales-Torres, who graduated from UCLA, has described a childhood in Highland Park, where she was raised by her mother after her father was deported to Mexico following a domestic violence charge.

Reflecting the anxieties of thirtysomethings like herself, she’s talked about going without health insurance, working multiple low-wage jobs and questioning whether she can afford children.

In 2023, she was elected to the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, on which she served two years advising City Hall on issues and policy matters. She opposed new liquor licenses and took stances against gentrification, a hot-button issue in Highland Park, where some longtime business owners and residents feel squeezed by rising rents.

Her year as president on the area council proved contentious, prompting several former colleagues to issue a statement Saturday criticizing her congressional bid.

Jens Jonasson, a member of the neighborhood council’s board of directors, characterized her tenure as chaotic, arguing that her unwillingness to compromise derailed board initiatives, including a proposed resolution supporting the Gaza Strip.

“She is not ready for the office she is asking voters to entrust to her,” Jonasson and three other board members said in the joint statement.

Darren Gold, who succeeded Gonzales-Torres as board president, alleged that she falsely accused him of shaking her. Gold was briefly removed from the board during an inquiry but reinstated after a city investigation.

In a 2024 podcast interview with Hear in L.A., Gonzales-Torres referred to Gold as a “very Zionist gentrifier man, a white man” and a “threat to my community.”

Gold told The Times he had never publicly staked out a position on Israel or Gaza.

“If she assigned me that label because I’m Jewish, that is antisemitic,” Gold said. “My concern is less about what she called me than whether she can turn her rhetoric into results and treat people respectfully when they disagree with her.”

Another board member, Caroline Aguirre, filed a police report in 2024 accusing Gonzales-Torres of aggressively pointing a finger at her during a meeting. The report did not result in an arrest or charges.

Gonzales-Torres declined to comment on the incidents involving Aguirre and Gold.

In 2025, Gonzales-Torres mounted a bid for one of 13 at-large neighborhood council seats, finishing last in a field of 23.

Her supporters pointed to her dedication to Highland Park and the work she’d done to help previously incarcerated youths.

Jesse Rosas, a Figueroa corridor business leader, echoed her concerns about neighborhood displacement and wants a representative more involved in the area.

“She’s a young lady who can bring change to the community for the better,” Rosas said. “I’ve seen her trying to do the best that she can.”

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Pasadena-area Democrat who met Gonzales-Torres through her work as an academic counselor, said she’s impressed with her interest in challenging federal immigration laws.

“She’s had a firsthand account into some of the way that the immigration raids are directly impacting our students,” Pérez said.

Gomez runs on anti-Trump record

Despite the abuse allegations, Gomez has the power of incumbency and name recognition in a vast and diverse district.

A spokesperson pointed to his lawsuit challenging the Trump administration over access to immigrant detention centers as well as his advocacy for tenant protections and affordable housing.

If reelected, Gomez said in a statement, he aims to reverse federal healthcare cuts, lower living costs for working families and push for an end to the Iran war.

“Anyone can promise to stand up to Donald Trump, but I’ve proven I can take him on and win, whether it’s in Congress, on the picket lines, or in the courts,” Gomez said.

Both candidates back progressive priorities such as a Green New Deal and Medicare for all. Gomez advocates redirecting funding away from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while Gonzales-Torres calls for abolishing ICE.

Gonzales-Torres is also criticizing Gomez for receiving financial support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. An AIPAC-affiliated political action committee spent more than $1.7 million supporting his 2024 campaign, and the group helped direct donations this cycle.

For some voters in the district, neither candidate is ideal.

Ray Rios, president of the Hillside Homeowners Assn. in El Sereno, wants to see more from Gomez when it comes to federal funding for the district. He also voiced skepticism over the DSA’s anti-policing platform and questioned whether Gonzales-Torres can build the institutional relationships needed to deliver federal resources.

“Her lack of experience is a consideration, a big consideration,” said Rios, who intends to vote for Gomez.

While Gomez beat back progressive challengers in recent election cycles, the local DSA chapter has built momentum across the district, winning City Council seats, noted Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

“Even without the allegations, this would be a competitive race,” Guerra said. “Then you add that, and that really hurts him.”

As the weeks pass, the transition framework being tested by the U.S. State Department for Venezuela is becoming increasingly clear. On Monday the 26th, a senior State Department official told the press: “That is the goal here:  a new TSJ before the end of this year; a new CNE shortly thereafter; declare the vacant – permanent vacancy in the presidency that triggers the six-month cycle for the presidential election.  And that’s – and then that election will happen, run by the nonpolitical CNE and governed by a TSJ that you’re not going to go to and basically annul the results of the elections because it’s been compromised or politicized the way the regime used it in the past.”

Secretary of State Rubio has been consistent on this point: institutional conditions in Venezuela must be restored before elections can be held. This is also what Venezuelans have demanded for years: an independent Supreme Court, TSJ, and an electoral board, CNE that ensure the will expressed through elections is respected. This is the exact opposite of what occurred in 2024, when the regime used the CNE and the TSJ to disregard Edmundo González’s electoral victory.

Venezuela must undergo a process of institutional reorganization, which will be a central component of the political transition. The first issue to be addressed is the “absolute absence” in the Presidency of the Republic following January 3rd. While the individual who served as Executive Vice President has filled that void, under the Venezuelan Constitution, it is indisputable that we are facing a case of “absolute absence,” which must be resolved according to the rules outlined in the Constitution itself.

In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber could play a significant role by interpreting—in accordance with the Constitution—any questions that may arise concerning this “absolute absence” and how it should be resolved. Furthermore, regarding the organization of elections, the Electoral Chamber could play a decisive role by resolving issues related to restoring the conditions for electoral integrity—conditions that are essential in Venezuela.

Given the lack of political will on the part of the interim authorities to repeal laws that run counter to human rights, the Constitutional Chamber could declare such laws null and void.

This is why the roadmap adopted by the negotiating team is based on a highly sound logic: Venezuela’s institutional vulnerability is so severe that the country cannot sustain an electoral process—such as one for the presidency—without first stabilizing, at the very least, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the National Electoral Council.

Naturally, this is not incompatible with the demand for elections, as María Corina Machado calls for.

However, it seems both logical and prudent first to restore the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the National Electoral Council to take that step securely.

Voters in the Northern California city of Vallejo passed a ballot measure adopting binding arbitration with its public employee unions more than 50 years ago, following a bitter police strike.

The goal was labor peace. Under binding arbitration, an independent referee is brought in when negotiators hit an impasse. The final decision on wages, benefits and working conditions is taken out of the hands of the local elected officials and placed squarely with the arbitrator.

With Measure A on the Nov. 3 ballot, Los Angeles County voters have a chance to do much the same thing here.

The measure is being pushed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees who by law cannot go out on strike, and who say binding arbitration adds balance to the negotiation process by taking away the unilateral authority held by the county Board of Supervisors.

No formal opposition to Measure A has been submitted. But in his summary of the potential impact this year, county chief executive Joe Nicchita shared news stories showing how binding arbitration has played out in other jurisdictions, including Vallejo.

In 2007, a mediator determined that despite fiscal travails, Vallejo couldn’t reduce the size of its fire department. Eight months later, with little budgetary wiggle room, the city declared bankruptcy.

Vallejo had been the first California municipality to adopt binding arbitration. In 2010, the voters decided to ditch it.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell voiced concerns about Measure A when the board discussed placing it on the ballot this year.

“Arbitrators aren’t elected,” she said. “They’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things.”

The board voted 4-0 to place binding arbitration on the Nov. 3 ballot, with Mitchell abstaining. Supporters say there are sufficient protections to prevent the county from experiencing the financial tribulations that Vallejo and other cities suffered in part because of binding arbitration.

“This process opens up the books, allows the parties to come together and base decisions on facts rather than political preferences, and it also shows whether there are actually resources to meet the demands that are coming,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, an architect of the measure, said in an interview.

Horvath previously noted that just six of the 21 jurisdictions in California that have instituted binding arbitration, including two counties, have had to resort to it.

If a majority of county voters approves Charter Amendment A, it will cover 14 bargaining units representing some 16,500 county workers, among them lifeguards and deputy medical examiners. It would not apply to bargaining units whose workers can strike.

In the current system, if the sides are unable to reach an agreement, the supervisors can impose a final offer that the unions must accept. While contract negotiations are frequently contentious, historically the supervisors mandating final terms is rare; The Times previously reported that it has happened only twice since 2001.

Under the proposed measure, contract negotiations would begin as they do now, with the presumption that both sides bargain in good faith. However, if agreement proves impossible and an impasse is declared, a three-member arbitration panel would take over.

In that case, the county and the union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as the panel’s chair. The arbitrators would hold hearings and weigh evidence related to employment elements such as wages and hours. In the end, the binding ruling would be made public.

Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the current process began with a group of labor unions launching a signature-gathering drive to put binding arbitration before voters. That led to working with the supervisors and the county chief executive, who, Hsieh said, wanted to ensure there were certain safeguards.

Hsieh said binding arbitration would represent an important and balanced change.

“Currently, the employer has near unilateral control over what the contract provisions are,” he said.

He added that the threat of going before arbitrators would spur both county and union negotiators to reach an agreement before someone else takes over, and that it would prevent either side from pushing a “wild proposal” that arbitrators would quickly reject.

Dave Gillotte, president of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 L.A. County Fire Department employees, agrees that the very threat of winding up in binding arbitration would encourage negotiating teams to cut a deal.

“Binding arbitration really brings about leverage to move both parties to work hard to get a contract done, where we don’t have that now,” Gillotte said.

The practice of using binding arbitration to resolve union and government disputes has been around for decades.

“These are routine laws that are part of the labor relations framework,” said Justin McBride of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

The strong union support for binding arbitration would seem to suggest that the process favors organized labor over elected local governments. McBride said academic studies don’t support that premise, and that neither side overwhelmingly comes out on top.

He pointed to a 2010 study from Cornell University that examined decades of negotiation outcomes in New York. One finding was that after a few years, the number of cases that wound up in arbitration declined, indicating that the sides learned to work together.

“Everyone gets a deal, and just like in a lot of contracts maybe both parties aren’t 100% with it, but that’s kind of the nature of collective bargaining,” McBride said.

Still, there have been instances in which decisions by independent arbitrators contributed to a municipality’s economic challenges, and elected officials were unable to unwind the rulings.

In her interview with The Times, Horvath said arbitrators would be expected to make decisions that consider the county’s fiscal situation.

“That’s what this is designed to do,” she said.

While no formal opponents to Measure A are listed on the ballot, some progressive groups aren’t on board. The voter guides for community organization L.A. Forward and prison abolition proponents La Defensa both urge a “no” vote. The inclusion of the Sheriff’s Department influenced that decision.

“We believe law enforcement special interest groups should not be treated as labor or given more leverage in negotiations,” La Defensa wrote in its guide. “More money and more power for the Sheriff’s Department is the crux of our opposition. By bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards, Measure A weaponizes a process we would otherwise support.”

Labor unions and other supporters are digging deep. The unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other employee groups reported raising $7.7 million through mid-October to campaign in favor of Measure A, according to financial disclosure reports.

No campaign funds have been reported in opposition to Measure A.

A national panel of the Democratic Socialists of America decided Monday to once again delay voting on whether to uphold or rescind the Los Angeles chapter’s endorsement of Nithya Raman in the L.A. mayor’s race over concerns that Raman hadn’t taken a sufficiently tough stance against Israel.

The left-wing group’s National Political Committee had begun a review of the DSA-L.A.’s endorsement of Raman after some members pointed out that Raman hadn’t been asked for her position on “R22,” a DSA resolution that requires local chapters to inquire about a candidate’s support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel before they are endorsed.

The committee met last week and again Monday, when it voted to work with DSA-LA to organize an Oct. 31 meeting with Raman to assess her position on BDS and other issues related to the Gaza conflict.

If she fails to “provide clear and unequivocal commitments” to their questions, the national committee will vote on whether to rescind DSA-LA’s endorsement, a spokesperson confirmed.

If Raman wins the Nov. 3 election, the group also wants a commitment by her to oppose weapons being shipped to Israel out of Los Angeles International Airport.

If Raman has not “expressed support for BDS and condemned weapon shipments out of LAX” by Jan.1, the National Political Committee will “compile the documentation of fair and ample opportunity for education about the Palestinian struggle for liberation necessary to begin a disciplinary process under R22 and thereafter schedule a vote on expelling Nithya Raman on those grounds,” according to a resolution approved by the committee.

The Raman campaign sent a statement to DSA on Monday during the national committee meeting that outlined her stance on BDS.

“I believe the best way for working Angelenos to stand in solidarity with Gaza is through non-violent protest, legislative action, and diplomatic pressure, including BDS,” Raman said in the statement.

The Raman campaign declined to say whether the council member personally supports BDS, and pointed The Times back to the statement she sent to the DSA and other statements she has made in the past. Raman has said she does not plan to make BDS part of her mayoral platform.

Some Angelenos in DSA were frustrated with the move to rescind the endorsement.

“I feel that this is unnecessary, but that I am encouraged that Nithya has actually expressed support for Palestine and our priorities and that she is compliant with R22,” said Clayton Ryles, a member of DSA-LA who also serves on the 27-person national committee, after the meeting. “Not everybody agrees on that.”

Ryles — one of a few DSA-LA members on the committee — plans to vote against rescinding the endorsement. He also supported Raman’s endorsement as a member of DSA-LA.

Revoking DSA-LA’s endorsement of Raman would have represented a major incursion by the national organization into the local chapter’s politics, invalidating a democratic vote to endorse Raman that passed 937 to 484 in September.

The co-chairs of DSA-LA acknowledged that they had failed to include a question about BDS on their candidate questionnaire, though they said they had inquired about Palestine both on the questionnaire and during a candidate interview.

“This was an oversight,” Leslie Chang and Sean Wakasa, the co-chairs of DSA-LA, wrote in an email to members.

“Nithya had strong answers on Palestine in her DSA-LA questionnaire, in public forums … and in her response to the NPC today,” Chang said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “We are disappointed that the members of the NPC passed their resolutions without reading the materials we sent them, which clearly answer the many questions that are posed to us in the two resolutions.”

“In these last few days of the election, we would like to focus on electing our entire slate and continuing to fight for working Angelenos,” Chang said.

The dueling campaigns over a Pasadena ballot measure that would levy a special tax on property owners for fire department funding are heating up in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.

In a press release, the city of Pasadena last month encouraged neighborhood associations, homeowner groups and other organizations to host informational sessions on Measure PFD, featuring presentations from Fire Chief Chad Augustin and other city staff.

But if you ask opponents of the measure, these events are actually campaign stops.

The presentations focus on “everything that supposedly won’t happen” if the measure fails, according to a press release from the No on Measure PFD Campaign.

“The city has turned the fire department into the grassroots campaign arm for Yes on PFD,” said Matt Klink, a consultant for the No campaign.

Augustin disputed that characterization of the presentations and said he’s provided only factual information about the measure so residents can understand the choices before them. “That, in my mind, is education, not advocacy,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Yes on Measure PFD Campaign has accused the No campaign of running a digital ad and using website language suggesting that local firefighters don’t support the measure.

“None of the Pasadena firefighters support a no on Measure PFD,” said Raffy Bitchakdjian, president of the Pasadena Firefighters Assn. 809. “So for them to use our name, our likeness, and actually go say that is very deceptive.”

Here’s what to know about Measure PFD:

A federal appeals court Monday denied an emergency request from the U.S. Justice Department to step in and block California election officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has questioned.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two judges appointed by President Trump and one by President Biden — ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the request, given that a lower district court has not yet made a ruling on it.

But two of the three judges also wrote separately to make clear they also would have denied the Trump administration’s request on other grounds, if they did have jurisdiction.

In an unsigned order — joined by Judge Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — the court granted a request from Los Angeles County to dismiss the appeal, writing that the Trump administration “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” its request for a temporary restraining order barring the ballots from being counted before filing its unusual appeal to the appellate panel.

The court found that the “emergency” the Trump administration asserted was in part a “self-constructed one” and that delays in the district court were partly attributable to its “own delay in filing suit, in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots, in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale, and in communicating to the court its desired relief.”

Both Bennett and Sanchez also each wrote a concurring opinion — in which they made clear that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request even if they did have jurisdiction, too.

Sanchez wrote that federal law would bar the court from issuing such a demand on state elections officials so close to an election.

“The United States seeks to have a federal court dictate to California the manner in which it must administer its own electoral process by segregating mail-in ballots and undertaking a citizenship verification process the State has never done before,” Sanchez wrote. “The proposed injunction would transform California’s election rules for an election that is already underway and would cause widespread confusion among voters and election officials, divert election administration resources, and ‘usher in electoral chaos.’”

Bennett wrote that he would have denied the Trump administration’s emergency request for several reasons beyond jurisdiction, including that it would be likely unconstitutional under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which he wrote “confers broad authority only on Congress and the States, not the Executive,” and Congress has not acted to say that California’s existing laws for ensuring only U.S. citizens vote are problematic.

“Thus, under the Elections Clause, the legislature’s statutory scheme remains as the only method to do so,” Bennett wrote.

Bennett wrote that there are existing California laws to deal with the harm the Trump administration claims it is suffering, but that granting its request to intervene could “result in immense hardship” to the state “and harm the public by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy.”

Bennett wrote that the Trump administration “offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California’s ongoing election.”

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee, dissented — arguing the Trump administration was well within its legal rights to intervene, and the appellate court did have jurisdiction to grant its request and bar the state “from accepting and processing ballots likely cast by aliens until their citizenship could be verified.”

“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”

The ruling clears the way for the lower court to proceed with a hearing scheduled Tuesday afternoon before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Los Angeles.

Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, previously rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to obtain California’s full voter rolls, calling that demand unlawful and a threat to democracy in January. Other federal judges made similar rulings in dozens of states across the country.

The question at issue Tuesday — and hashed over by the appellate court during oral arguments Sunday — is whether the courts should bar the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from processing and tabulating the flagged ballots until they can provide to the Trump administration proof that those individuals are citizens.

The Trump administration has argued in court filings that the federal government is suffering irreparable harm each day such counting is allowed to continue, as once California ballots are removed from their mail envelopes or cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate those ballots from others.

More than 3 million ballots have already been cast in the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections statewide, and more than 500,000 have already been cast in L.A. County.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued in court filings that the administration’s demands to segregate 20,000 ballots and vet those voters for citizenship with just days to go before the election are impossible to comply with and would cause catastrophic disruptions if elections officials across the state were forced to try.

They have also said the demands are clearly unconstitutional, illegal under state and federal law, and based on federal immigration and third-party data sets that have been shown to be deeply flawed, inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

While the appellate court’s formal ruling Monday adhered closely to the technical issue of jurisdiction, its conversation Sunday did not — with both Bennett and Sanchez expressing substantial doubts about the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s request, just as they did in their separate concurrences.

Bennett grilled Matthew Donnelly, the attorney for the Justice Department, on how the executive branch’s demands squared with the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly gives states the power to set laws regarding the time, place and manner of elections and Congress — not the executive branch — oversight over those laws.

Bennett said that while the Trump administration is “unhappy” with how California law ensures voters are citizens — namely by requiring that they attest to their citizenship upon registration — the state has the right to determine its election laws under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, and Congress has not challenged its process.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Bennett and Sanchez both questioned how the appellate court could step in and adjudicate whether to grant the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the state’s election when it is not a fact-finding body, and the district court was never given a chance to develop a record of facts — including around the dueling and contradicting claims about the origins and reliability of the federal government’s list of “likely” noncitizen voters and the state’s claims that an order forcing them to segregate out the votes at this late stage in the election would cause catastrophic harm to the election process.

Carter is sure to pick those issues back up on Tuesday.

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman’s campaign team has filed a complaint with the city Ethics Commission against an outside group backing Mayor Karen Bass, claiming its social media campaign promotes an interactive AI phone line with a voice falsely identified as that of Nithya Raman.

The ads, paid for by Thrive LA, are styled as real estate advertisements for a fictitious “Nithya Raman Realty.” Some show an image of Raman holding a tent, with the slogan “Keeping Tents on Our Streets.”

The ads are intended to promote the idea that Raman isn’t tough on homeless encampments, which Raman says misrepresents her position. People who call the number get a Raman sound-alike saying “We’re bringing tent communities to your block. Would you prefer them outside your children’s school, the library, or right outside your home?”

Raman’s campaign claims that Thrive LA broke campaign rules by failing to report the AI phone system on required campaign spending forms, and imitating Raman’s voice without stating who paid for it. Not disclosing that it’s an ad could lead voters to believe the AI voice is actually Raman, according to the complaint.

Ana Teresa Dahan, the executive director of Thrive LA, called the complaint “false and absurd” and added that the organization’s ad spending has been properly disclosed. She said the satire ads are protected political speech and abide by campaign finance rules. The advocacy group will continue running ads until Election Day, she said.

“Nithya Raman wants to run the second-largest city in America, and she can’t handle a parody phone number. Imagine how she’d handle a budget crisis, or a wildfire,” Dahan said. “The only real complaint here is the one Angelenos have about her record.”

Thrive LA defines itself as a centrist political advocacy group backed by business and community leaders. The group also received backlash over anti-Raman ads its ran during her 2024 reelection campaign for councilmember.

How to address the city’s homelessness crisis has been a central issue in the Nov. 3 election between incumbent Bass and challenger Raman, a City Councilmember. Raman has voted against imposing no-camping zones proposed by other City Councilmembers in their districts, but has said she would not oppose such zones if elected mayor.

Raman says she is committed to ending homelessness, but the city has gone about it the wrong way and that no-camping zones just push the problem from one neighborhood to another.

Bass made homelessness a central focus of her first term as mayor and launched Inside Safe to move people into hotels, motels and other interim housing. Unsheltered homelessness decreased for the first two years, but the latest homeless count showed the numbers are growing once again.

The anti-Raman ads, posted on Instagram, show videos of a recreational vehicle driving around L.A. On the vehicle are posters featuring Raman. One shows her pointing toward a large arrow labeled “Designated Poop Zone” next to the words “Coming to a Neighborhood Near You!” One poster includes a phone number that leads to the AI phone line.

The AI-generated voice carries a live conversation with the caller, and doesn’t clarify it’s not a real person unless prompted. When asked by The Times if the phone is being answered by Raman, the AI bot said, “I’m a fictional AI. I’m as imaginary as my campaign promises.”

The advertisement violates state law that prohibits the distribution of digitally fabricated audio of a candidate within 30 days of an election, according to the complaint.

“It’s both sad and illegal for Karen Bass’ conservative allies to be cloning Nithya’s voice, manufacturing her words, and hiding who is paying for it, all to deceive voters,” Liz Garcia, spokesperson for Raman’s campaign, said in a press release. “These are desperate tactics from corporate interests determined to keep their grip on City Hall.

The city’s Ethics Commission didn’t immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Independent expenditure committee that support political candidates have increasingly come under question. These groups can raised unlimited amounts of campaign donations but cannot coordinate its activities with the candidate.

Any audio communication for an independent expenditure group must clearly state that it’s a political ad at the beginning or end of the audio, according to the city’s campaign rules. When inquired by The Times on Monday morning, the AI bot did state the ad was paid for by Thrive LA, uses artificial intelligence and isn’t coordinated with a city candidate or committee.

In audio recordings included in the complaint, the AI bot said that it couldn’t disclose who paid for the line when asked by callers.

Some small business owners in Raman’s district have said they’ve battled homeless encampments and public safety issues without support from Raman’s office.

Even so, homelessness in Raman’s district dropped by 49% this year, and the candidate says that if elected she aims to deliver those same results citywide.

WASHINGTON — President Trump offered $1 million Monday to anyone who reports voter fraud that leads to an arrest and conviction, escalating his efforts to cast doubt on the midterms as Republicans risk losing control of Congress.

“Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The offer comes as the Trump administration has moved more aggressively to intervene in the midterms, including an effort in Alaska to invalidate a potential Democratic victory in a U.S. Senate race and a push in California to segregate ballots from voters the administration considers likely non-citizens.

Trump did not say how the tips should be submitted to the federal government or who would decide whether a claim qualifies for a reward. The White House declined to comment beyond Trump’s social media post.

Last week, the administration launched a separate program that is meant to pay people for providing information to the administration to combat fraud. When announcing it, Trump said he would personally decide who gets paid.

“I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving, and I’ll determine, and I will be very generous.”

It is unclear whether Trump, who has spread false claims about the nation’s voting systems and routinely questions the integrity of the elections, intends to play a similar role over the voter fraud tipping system.

In the lead up to the midterms, Trump has tried to assert more control over the elections, calling on Republicans to “nationalize” voting and pushing for restrictions on mail-in ballots. Trump has also cast doubt over the integrity of California’s primary election, claiming without evidence that Democrat cheated — an allegation that was investigated by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is run by a Trump loyalist.

Even as Trump says he wants “honesty in our elections,” the president told supporters at the Republican Party convention in Dallas in September to “cheat like hell, like they do.”

Trump’s efforts to cast doubt over voting come as polls show Republicans facing headwinds heading into the Nov. 3 election as Trump’s popularity sags amid voter concerns over the economy.

As Trump has tried to rally supporters in red states, he has also vowed to give every American adult $5,000 if Republican retain control of Congress. The promise drew bipartisan criticism, with some even calling the idea a potential bribe.

Oct. 26, 2026 9:23 AM PT

NEW YORK — The Trump administration last year illegally fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, from her job as a federal prosecutor in New York, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Maurene Comey, who was an assistant U.S. attorney for a decade, was illegally fired in July 2025 despite her work on some of the nation’s highest-profile cases and consistently receiving “the highest accolades from supervisors and peers alike,” Judge Jesse M. Furman found.

After her firing, Comey sued the Justice Department and others, saying her termination violated the constitutional separation of powers, the 1st Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

She asserted that she was fired because she was the daughter of James Comey, whom President Trump has long viewed as an enemy, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, the judge noted.

Furman rejected the government’s claim that Comey could be fired because federal prosecutors exercise the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers.

He said the government’s claim that Congress is barred from regulating the removal of federal prosecutors “flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent.”

Furman added: “Indeed, to accept Defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system.”

The firing violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act and her 5th Amendment due process and statutory rights, the judge ruled.

Furman reserved judgment on Comey’s 1st Amendment claim pending further arguments to be submitted by each side, though he said he was inclined to dismiss the claim because it was largely moot since she is now in private practice and no longer seeks actual reinstatement.

The judge granted Comey retroactive reinstatement and back pay from the date of her firing through Dec. 20 to “make her whole” and ensure that she doesn’t suffer adverse employment consequences for the “unlawful termination.”

Comey’s lawyers, Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret Donovan, lauded the ruling.

“This hard-earned victory belongs to Ms. Comey, to all civil servants, and to all fighting for the rule of law,” they said in a statement. “As the Court correctly held, to accept the government’s argument about unlimited executive power ‘would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system.’ This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the President is not above the law.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The Justice Department during the Trump administration has fired scores of career employees, including prosecutors and FBI agents, who participated in investigations of President Trump or who were perceived as opposed to the administration’s agenda. Some of those firings have also resulted in federal lawsuits.

The firing of Maurene Comey was seen as particularly personal, given her father’s longtime adversarial relationship with Trump.

The president fired James Comey as FBI director in May 2017 as the bureau was investigating ties between Russia and the Republican’s successful 2016 campaign for the White House. Trump in the years since has repeatedly called for Comey to be jailed, and his Justice Department has worked with mixed success to make that happen.

An earlier criminal case accusing James Comey of having lied to Congress in 2020 was dismissed by a judge who concluded that the prosecutor who filed the charges was illegally appointed. A separate pending indictment charges the former FBI director with threatening Trump through an Instagram photo of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47,” a case he has sought to dismiss that some legal experts have greeted with skepticism.

Sisak, Tucker, Durkin Richer and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

NEW YORK — Democrats and outside watchdogs are planning a massive presence at the polls on Election Day driven by concerns that President Trump will further leverage the vast resources of the federal government to interfere with a midterm that could hobble his final two years in office.

They won’t be the only ones there. A sprawling election protection effort on the left that is expected to deploy tens of thousands of monitors will be met by the largest-ever monitoring program by the Justice Department and still more observers from Republican-aligned groups. The result could be unlike anything seen at the polls in modern times.

The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning. The network includes traditional government watchdogs such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union plus a flood of volunteers assembled by state Democratic parties, congressional leaders, national activist groups and organizations focused on protecting democracy.

The Democratic National Committee created a first-of-its-kind cybersecurity unit staffed by former CIA and FBI officials to monitor and report online misinformation, including artificial intelligence deepfakes, said Jane Kleeb, vice chair of the DNC.

That’s as Democratic mayors, attorneys general and secretaries of state host tabletop exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, such as a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at voting locations or the seizure of ballots and voting equipment.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have assembled a legal team that rivals that of any presidential campaign.

“We’ve never done this before,” Kleeb said of the party’s sweeping efforts. But “we’ve never had to deal with the president of the United States saying that he may seize ballots, put ICE agents outside polling locations and other kinds of very clear direct threats to the voting process.”

The Department of Justice has already filed lawsuits in California and Alaska that could affect ballot counting or certification.

While Trump continues to make baseless allegations of cheating in the election, administration and military officials have said they have no plans to deploy immigration agents or troops to polling sites.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis blamed “radical Democrats” for creating fears about election security by refusing to enact voter ID requirements and other Republican-backed measures.

“President Trump has done more than any other president to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said.

Tens of thousands of volunteers trained to observe

State Democratic parties have trained an estimated 10,000 volunteers to observe polling places and report anything potentially concerning they might see from federal agents. Common Cause has trained roughly 16,000 more volunteers to stand watch at voting precincts, said Suzanne Almeida, vice president of states for the group.

She said a broader Election Protection coalition involving 300 other groups has trained tens of thousands more.

Smaller pockets of volunteers from other groups also are preparing to show up, including roughly 100 organized by Senate Democrats and hundreds more from a Democratic-allied group called Save America, which is training clergy members, veterans, teachers and other local community members. National groups such as Indivisible and MoveOn are activating their own expansive networks.

There are so many organizations working to protect the voting process — including many that cannot legally coordinate with each other — that some officials involved worry about unintentionally creating chaos outside polling locations.

Almeida said Election Day confusion is possible in some precincts but the nature of the threat requires a collective effort.

“It will actually take all of us if some of the threats we are most worried about come to pass,” she said.

Trump administration sends its own team

Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” whether the Republican administration is planning to send ICE agents to polling places.

“There is no plan to do that,” she responded.

Still, the Justice Department is planning its largest-ever election monitoring effort, with about 1,000 department staff expected to observe voting and ensure federal laws are being followed, spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. That comes after a primary season in which the department said it deployed more than 100 election monitors across hundreds of polling locations.

At least one of those placements sparked tensions with local officials. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said the behavior of two monitors during that state’s primary was “a bit aggressive” and “irregular.” A Laramie County clerk said the Justice Department monitors arrived at the polls intending to interview voters, but her office didn’t allow it.

The department disagrees that the monitors did anything improper, Pels said. She added that the monitors are trained to comply with federal law governing conduct at polling places and won’t “interfere with the voting process.”

Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the Trump administration’s monitors could intimidate voters or abandon the duty they’ve had for decades to protect against civil rights violations.

The department plans to send them to every state, focusing on high-population areas, jurisdictions that have had problems in the past and districts with close elections, according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.

The Republican National Committee said its operation involves deploying “election integrity deputy state directors” in 22 states, among them Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.

Those workers are the “eyes and the ears of the RNC in the field” who recruit volunteers and organize trainings, said Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director. Their mission is to surface anything that seems unlawful.

At the same time, the RNC has enlisted nearly 22,000 poll workers and is recruiting poll-watching volunteers for competitive districts. The poll watchers will “observe the process and help ensure election rules are followed in accordance with the law,” Triolo said.

Local election officials prepare for increased attention

While federal monitors have quietly observed elections for decades, largely without incident, some election officials are taking precautions.

Chris Swope, the city clerk in Lansing, Michigan, said he preemptively contacted law enforcement and his attorney in case federal monitors violate election law, although he expects them to abide by the rules.

The Democratic Mayors Association issued guidance to local Democratic officials with detailed instructions about what to do if federal agents appear at polling locations.

It notes that federal law prohibits the presence of federal immigration agents, the FBI or other investigative personnel. It also issued a reminder that federal agents are not allowed to be armed at the polls, nor are they allowed to interact with voters or handle ballots or election equipment.

Justice Department officials have said their monitors won’t be armed and will not interfere with voting. Asked about department monitors being sent to Georgia, Trump told a reporter recently: “They’re not going to do anything other than watch.”

Some of the poll observations have already begun. Mary Corcoran, Save America’s executive director, said her group’s volunteers have been monitoring precincts during early voting in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio to help give voters a sense of security.

“The fear is the point, and we must do something about it,” she said. “Left unanswered, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”

Peoples and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writers Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jessica Hill in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — You haven’t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I’m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I’ve figured them all out at last.

I’ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I’ll share here. Heads up: I’m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.

Anyway, here’s my thinking:

Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond

The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.

But it’s an expensive item — costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.

This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I’m a “no” vote.

Proposition 2: Doubles the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund

It requires the Legislature to pour money into the state savings account until it reaches 20% of general fund tax revenue, rather than the current 10%. The fund can be tapped when the economy sours and revenue falls.

Sure, save away if you can. Yes.

Proposition 3: Makes high tax rates permanent

This would cement the nation’s highest state income tax rates into the California Constitution — up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.

The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.

My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, “temporary” shouldn’t be translated into “permanent.” And there’s no rush. The rates don’t expire for five years. No.

Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns

This would allow the state and local governments to create partial public financing systems for political candidates. “Charter” cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already can.

Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.

Proposition 5: Changes recall elections

Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal, only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.

This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes

Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers

Middle-income buyers could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They’d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.

This makes sense. Easy yes.

Proposition 38: Medical research bond

The state would borrow $8.4 billion to fund research into cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other ailments. The state cost: at least $500 million annually for 20 years.

My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition’s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.

Proposition 39: Voter ID

This would force everyone to show a government ID before being allowed to vote. Those casting mail ballots would need to write a four-digit PIN on the back of the return envelope.

There’s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.

Proposition 40: The billionaire tax

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ worth, probably raising tens of billions of dollars. Ninety percent would go to healthcare to replace federal funding cutbacks.

This is nutty. There’s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn’t have a one-time tax anyway. It’s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who’s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.

Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills

Ignore their superficial intents, the sole purpose of both measures is to invalidate the billionaires tax.

I don’t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.

Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes

Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.

It’s ridiculously confusing. But I don’t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That’s undemocratic. No.

The low-profile measure would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.

This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they’d need to close shop. No.

Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects

This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.

It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.

Happy voting. I’m glad I didn’t vote early so there’d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal”: Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth-tax supporters
Against the wind: Hope and despair simmer among California Republicans ahead of election day
CA vs. Trump: ‘This is not normal’: Feds demand California counties set aside ‘likely’ noncitizen ballots

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

It was around noon on October 25th when news broke that María Corina Machado returned to Venezuela after almost a year in exile and following her several failed attempts to come back in recent weeks. Then, reports on social media indicated that she was actually in Barquisimeto. Then I confirmed she was in Santa Rosa, a village near Barquisimeto where the Santa Rosa Sanctuary is located.

In recent years, Machado has used such religious elements in her discourse and political persona, which makes the choice of the Santa Rosa Sanctuary as the setting for the formal announcement of her return to be somewhat unsurprising. This is the temple where every January 14 starts the biggest event in Venezuela’s catholic calendar: the procession of Divina Pastora, whose image is precisely in Santa Rosa. 

Shortly after knowing this, I went to Santa Rosa in order to see the public reception. Near the entrance of the town, an unusual number of cars and motorcycles were parked, and people were walking to join the impromptu demonstration. There was already a large crowd gathered at the square in front of Santa Rosa church. Many took pictures with their phones, and some started to sing the national anthem. When it seemed like MCM was about to leave, people shouted to see her without much success. 

The small caravan of vehicles carrying her and her companions slowly made its exit through the crowd trying to get at least a glimpse of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Some carried Venezuelan flags and signs of Vente, her political party. Bystanders moved along, struggling to catch up, while the cars slowly made their way to the town’s entrance. 

There was a very small presence of chavista-governed Lara state police officers, far from the crowd, but the entire atmosphere was peaceful. As the vehicles left, people started to disperse. At that moment, a brief rain came over us. Someone said that we were getting a shower of blessings.

It’s too early to tell what will be the role María Corina will have in the ongoing political situation the country finds itself in right now, but for her supporters that showed up, this was a clear sign that good things are about to come. 

The landmark Casa Vega Mexican restaurant in Sherman Oaks was honored in May with a sign proclaiming its corner of Ventura Boulevard as “Casa Vega Square.”

Mayor Karen Bass was there, and so was City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, whose district is on the other side of the San Fernando Valley. The event was perhaps more notable for who wasn’t there: Nithya Raman, the mayoral candidate whose City Council district includes Casa Vega.

To Raman’s critics, the episode represents what they say is one of her biggest flaws as an elected official: not tending to the parochial needs of her district. Bass has sounded that theme repeatedly during the mayoral election campaign, including calling Raman “contemptuous of her constituents” during their televised debate on NBC4 and Telemundo 52 Oct. 13.

Raman called that “a lie.” Some of Raman’s constituents beg to differ, saying her office has seemed unwilling to help with a broad array of city services, including fixing broken sidewalks and removing homeless encampments.

“She’s just been MIA,” said Jessica Lewis, who owns Dragonfly Cycle and Train, a fitness studio in Sherman Oaks. “I would send photos of what I was experiencing, like human feces at my front door, encampments at the back door … all those emails just fell on deaf ears.”

Raman spokesperson Stella Stahl disputed that contention, saying the council office has “a proactive constituent service team.”

“Our approach is to listen to those who live and work in a neighborhood, then use every tool the city has to fix what they’ve told us is broken,” Stahl said.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, left, and challenger Nithya Raman during their debate before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Raman co-presented the motion to designate Vega Square, along with Councilmember Rodriguez, according to documents filed in March. Raman was unable to attend the ceremony because of scheduling conflicts, Stahl said, but other Raman staffers were present.

Councilmember Rodriguez said her staff spearheaded the designation, part of her broader work to “enshrining the many positive contributions that Latino families have made throughout our city.”

To be sure, Raman has constituents who are big fans. Marissa Rodriguez said she wasn’t aware of the web of licenses and city permits she would have to obtain before she could open her wine shop in Studio City, Dia Natural Wine. The process felt monumental, she said, and nearly impossible to complete on her own.

She reached out to Raman’s team, and said the council office’s help was integral to Dia Natural Wine making its debut in 2022.

“I thought I could do this myself, and at a certain point, I hit a ton of roadblocks at the city,” Marissa Rodriguez said. “They were extremely helpful in just sort of helping me navigate who I needed to talk to.”

Tyler Simmons, who owns a coffee wine bar, Reunion & Co., on Hyperion Avenue in the Franklin Hills neighborhood of Los Feliz, said Raman and her team have always been receptive to his community’s needs.

In response to complaints of speeding, he said, Raman’s office helped get four speed tables — a flatter, wider version of speed bumps — installed in the intersection near his business last year.

“She’s done her best,” Simmons said. “I think there’s larger systemic issues at play within the city … it’s bigger than a councilperson, unfortunately. I’m hoping, if she wins, she’ll help change all that.”

Sidewalks in disrepair along the 1300 block of Ventura Blvd on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, in Sherman Oaks, California. Christy Vega, owner of Casa Vega, claims that Nithya Raman, Councilmember, Fourth District, has been unhelpful and ignored her requests to get certain city services, including street sidewalk repairs and addressing homelessness in her parking lot. (Gary Coronado/For The Times)

A street in disrepair along the 1300 block of Ventura Blvd on Friday, Oct. 16, 2026, in Sherman Oaks, California. Christy Vega, owner of Casa Vega, claims that Nithya Raman, Councilmember, Fourth District, has been unhelpful and ignored her requests to get certain city services, including street sidewalk repairs and addressing homelessness in her parking lot. (Gary Coronado/For The Times)

On the other hand, Casa Vega owner Christy Vega rattles off a long list of complaints when discussing Raman and her office. She said she’s spent years seeking help from Raman’s staff, including to make repairs on sidewalks and pavement outside the restaurant, and to remove a homeless encampment that sprang up during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“With Raman’s office, they viewed me as a nuisance rather than someone who’s trying to keep her employees safe,” Vega said.

Vega is supporting Bass in the Nov. 3 election, and she sits on on the board of Thrive LA, an advocacy group backed by business and community leaders that is running ads against Raman in the mayoral race and also ran anti-Raman ads during her 2024 City Council reelection campaign.

Vega says she’s not supporting Raman because of her experience seeking help from Raman’s council office for problems her business encountered, including cars being broken into in the restaurant’s parking lot and muggings on the street out front. One employee was stabbed at a nearby bus stop, and another fell because of the potholes in the alley behind her restaurant, she said.

At one point, Vega said, she called Raman’s office to ask for help in fixing the curb near her restaurant that was damaged during a street racing incident.

Vega said she was told by Raman’s office that she would need to fix the curb herself, meaning she’d have to pull permits, hire a contractor and pay out of pocket for the repairs Vega said she pushed back, and a staff member suggested she move to another district.

Raman’s office didn’t comment on that assertion, but Stahl said that the Bureau of Street Services isn’t funded to repair damaged sidewalks, and the responsibility falls to the adjacent property owners.

“Every constituent who contacts our office deserves a response, and we take Ms. Vega’s concerns seriously. People often reach out to us on their hardest days,” Stahl said. “Unfortunately, we weren’t able to accommodate it at that time. Telling constituents no to basic service requests is frustrating for residents and for us, and it’s part of why the council member ran for office.”

Councilmember Rodriguez, who represents the northeast San Fernando Valley, said she’s stepped in to help business owners in Raman’s district over the years. Most recently, she helped Vega with permitting issues on the restaurant’s outdoor patio.

A sign for L.A. Councilmember Nithya Raman’s district office on Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

“I’ve heard some of the same frustrations and stories from many people. … It reflects a pattern,” said Rodriguez, who is backing Bass for mayor. “If this is your audition [for mayor] based on your performance in your own district, I think it’s an example of the responsiveness of what people can expect.”

Sophia Brodetsky, who owns the Valley Inn restaurant with her husband in Sherman Oaks, isn’t happy with either mayoral candidate, but said Bass’ office has been more receptive to her needs.

Brodetsky has endured robberies, property damage and homeless encampments that have disrupted her restaurant that dates back to 1947, she said.

“They’re running for office right now. They promise you an arm and a leg, but they don’t deliver,” Brodetsky said.

According to Vega and Lewis, owner of the Dragonfly gym, a number of Sherman Oaks business owners reached out to Bass after she was elected mayor in 2022 to voice their concerns about Raman’s stewardship of the district.

The mayor met with a group of business owners in the area in 2023 and she convened weekly safety meetings between business owners, district leaders and local law enforcement to address their concerns, Vega said.

Vega said it was Bass and Rodriguez who helped her navigate the permit process when she sought to open an outdoor patio for her restaurant last year.

“I wasn’t a supporter of hers. I wasn’t someone that she owed any favors to,” Vega said of Bass. “She answered the phone immediately, and she heard the panic of my voice and my tears, and she said, ‘I’m on it.’”

Lewis, however, said she and others felt betrayed by Bass when she endorsed Raman for reelection in 2024.

“That just felt like a huge slap in the face,” Lewis said.

Lewis said she plans to vote for Bass, but reluctantly. Keeping her business afloat has felt nearly impossible at times, she said, but getting help from both the council and the mayor’s office has been an even tougher hurdle.

“The council office would blame the mayor’s office. The mayor’s office would blame the county,” Lewis said. “It was like everyone was just pointing fingers at someone else, and no one was actually doing anything about it.”

My fellow Californians, let us begin with an intelligence test.

Our great state has been voting since early October. Folks have been mailing in their ballots, dropping them off at collection sites and even showing up at in-person centers.

So raise your hand if you know — or even just assume — elections officials have been doing something with those ballots as they arrive, other than just throwing them in a pile.

Congratulations, hand-raisers. You are now officially smarter than the entire U.S. Department of Justice. Or at least more honest.

On Sunday, the lawyers for the DOJ managed to get a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to convene a rare emergency hearing because, OMG, people are actually voting and California is processing ballots!

Who could have possibly known?

Even though it’s literally law that counties count ballots in a timely manner; even though it’s happened in every other election; even though the daily tallies of how many ballots are received are posted online by the secretary of State; even though there are live camera feeds of ballots being processed in Los Angeles — somehow the U.S. government didn’t know this normal election procedure was happening, it claimed.

It wasn’t until late Friday, when DOJ lawyers read a filing by California DOJ lawyers laying out that L.A. is, like, actually opening mail-in ballots, that the U.S. DOJ realized that ballots are being opened. About 600,000 so far in L.A.

That seemed “absurd on its face,” argued California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel.

Armed with this previously unknowable information, Trump’s lawyers were begging the appeals court to take their flimsy, constitutionally questionable case away from the judge who had already promised to rule on their requests on Tuesday and immediately give them an injunction to further their election conspiracy claims.

Most folks are aware of the background of this drama, but here’s the quick recap.

President Trump for years has falsely but incessantly claimed that Democrats are colluding with undocumented people to help them sneak into the country in exchange for illegally voting in mass numbers for Democrats. This is not happening, but the president is obsessed with this conspiracy, so much so that he is weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack states, California in particular, in a bid to prove his delusions correct, and perhaps as a bonus, undermine democracy.

A few months ago, the DOJ came to the state of California and claimed it had a list of 190,000 people it believed were illegally registered to vote. That list has since dropped to 20,000. But with all the investigative power of the government hard at work on this, only 28 people in California have been indicted by the feds during this no-holds-barred effort, and it looks as though not all of those cases will hold up.

Undeterred, Trump lawyers tried to get a California judge to order the state (and Los Angeles) to set aside ballots that it claims to have doubts about. They asked the judge in that case for a temporary restraining order forcing L.A. County to do that, and the judge agreed to rule on that request early next week, in an already-expedited fashion.

But then the Trump lawyers learned about all that ballot processing and demanded the judge instead rule by Saturday afternoon — though the reasoning here seems iffy. When the federal judge assigned to the case didn’t rule by Saturday, an absurd ask that didn’t even allow enough time for lawyers to file briefs, the feds ran to the 9th Circuit, claiming that failing to rule on Saturday was a de facto denial of their request.

Basically, it seems the Trump lawyers were arguing two things. First, that once ballots are counted, they can’t be uncounted, and if there are illegal ballots, that hurts all voters. Sure, OK.

But again, there is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion, and the lists of potential vote scofflaws compiled by the government have been shown to be error-ridden. They may also involve the use of a mysterious non-government “third party” to gather the information that not even the Trump lawyers could identify Sunday.

DOJ lawyers also claimed they had just learned that once a ballot is taken out of the envelope, there was no way to reconnect that ballot to the voter who cast it — because our votes are anonymous. Therefore, the 20,000 ballots had to be grabbed before they were separated from the documents inside.

The lawyers did not explain why they needed to know how a person voted to confirm they illegally voted. The envelopes are retained by county elections officials, but apparently the Trump lawyers feel it’s critical to tie them to particular votes.

But here’s the thing — there are simply not enough illegal voters to sway a Los Angeles election, or a California one for that matter. We have a system to ferrets out problematic ballots right now, and a separate criminal system that can hold illegal voters accountable. Two weeks before an election isn’t a time to demand ballots be withheld — unless you’re trying to undermine trust.

The appellate judges did not seem impressed by the federal laywers’ arguments, questioning more than once if the 9th Circuit even had jurisdiction since states are in charge of elections, not the federal government. There was even some reading of the 10th Amendment. You know, the one the don’t-tread-on-me types love that reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.”

We should expect a ruling sooner rather than later, but the real question remains, why the emergency? The DOJ is involved in another voting lawsuit in Washington, D.C., where the plaintiffs, led by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, have asked for a restraining order of their own stopping the government from creating national lists of who it thinks should vote, and using janky, secretive information gathering to do it.

It’s also true that the original case was reassigned from a Trump-appointed judge to one appointed by Bill Clinton. There has been speculation the switch may have been viewed unfavorably by the feds, though the Clinton-appointed judge, David O. Carter, was given the case because of his experience in the subject matter.

The D.C. restraining order could be decided in the next few days. I’m not saying the cases are related, or that the judge should or does matter, but the Trump DOJ’s argument in California is basically that its list of 20,000 is really solid, reliable information.

If the D.C. federal judge rules first that the government information gathering is potentially both an overreach and sloppy, it makes it that much harder for another judge, or the appellate court for that matter, to rule that the list is so critical that they must step in.

So maybe there is an emergency.

Just not the one the government is claiming.

WASHINGTON — At first glance, President Trump’s decision to relax U.S. sanctions on Russia despite its continuing invasion of Ukraine was a dramatic break from principles that guided American foreign policy for most of a century.

Since the end of World War II, U.S.-Russian relations have oscillated between hostility and friendship, but one element was consistent: When Russia tried to take over one if its neighbors, the United States pushed back.

This time, though, the United States appeared to favor the aggressor, not the victim.

“The Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of being an honest broker,” Richard N. Haass, a former senior State Department official under then-President George W. Bush, wrote last week. “It has gone all in on Russia’s side.”

The break from long-standing tradition was real, but it should not have been entirely surprising.

Trump has long expressed admiration for Russia’s autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin — part of a syndrome one of his former aides, Fiona Hill, has called “autocrat envy.”

“He wants to rule like them,” she said, referring to the president’s bromances with Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and other strongmen.

Meanwhile, Trump often expresses disdain for democratically elected leaders of smaller countries, and he reserves a special loathing for the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

He has repeatedly said Zelensky was foolish to resist Russia’s 2022 invasion because, in his view, the larger country is almost certain to win the war.

“Russia is a massive country,” he said this month. “Even if it loses a million soldiers, it still has a million more. Ukraine doesn’t have that kind of manpower.”

Moreover, Trump has long believed U.S. companies could reap an economic bonanza from Russia’s resource-rich economy. As a real estate magnate, he spent 30 years seeking deals in Moscow; in 2008, his son Donald Jr. said Russians had provided the Trump Organization “a lot of our assets.”

In the short run, the president hopes to boost Republican prospects in next week’s midterm elections by buying diesel fuel from Russia — a move aimed at lowering prices at the cost of bolstering Putin’s war economy. (It hasn’t worked; the price of diesel has risen slightly since Trump’s decision.)

But he has a longer-term goals as well. He has long believed better relations between the United States and Russia would be good for both countries, no matter who’s in power in Moscow. And he has long yearned openly for a Nobel Peace Prize — and one way might be to arrange a durable ceasefire in Ukraine.

All those factors have led Trump to overturn two major elements of traditional U.S. foreign policy.

Instead of supporting Ukraine, the victim of a foreign military invasion, he’s been pressing the Zelensky to accept Putin’s demands for territory.

“President Trump still wants a personal relationship with Putin, and he wants to change the nature of the bilateral U.S.-Russian relationship. Ukraine is in the way. So what President Trump is trying to do is get Ukraine out of the way. … President Trump wants Zelensky to capitulate,” Hill said.

“Zelensky has to want to settle this war, and if he doesn’t, I think it’s going to be a very bad thing,” Trump said last week.

As he issued that advice, Ukraine’s army was experiencing interruptions with three forms of U.S. military help: Starlink, the communications system it uses to guide its anti-drone missiles; U.S.-provided early radar warnings of Russian missile attacks; and supplies of Patriot anti-missile weapons. U.S. officials claimed the three incidents were not deliberate — but to Ukrainians, they felt like a warning.

Meanwhile, instead of putting pressure on Putin through the traditional means of economic sanctions, Trump said he was trying to entice the Russian leader to negotiate by giving him preemptive rewards.

“I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table,” he explained on Truth Social. “Great progress is being made.”

But signs of that progress were hard to find. In St. Petersburg last week, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, presented Putin with a ceasefire proposal that the Americans negotiated with Ukraine and European countries. A top Putin aide dismissed the document, saying it “contained little of real value.”

Instead, the Russian president offered to increase Russian fertilizer exports to U.S. farmers. And he said he hoped Trump would join him at a summit meeting in China with Xi.

Ukraine has not been invited to that meeting, which prompted Haass to resurrect an old diplomatic aphorism: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

Haass and other veterans of U.S. negotiations with Russia fear that Putin is merely stalling for time and pocketing Trump’s concessions while he tries to grind Ukraine down with missile attacks on Kyiv and other cities.

“If Trump and Witkoff were serious, they would give Putin 15 days to say yes to their ceasefire proposal — and if he doesn’t, they would impose new and tougher sanctions,” said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. “There are still a lot of things they can do that would put Russia in a corner.”

But that has not been Trump’s inclination so far.

The irony, Hill said, is that even if Trump gets his way, that may not produce the victory he appears to expect.

“Putin and Trump are not the only actors in this,” she said. “Ukraine is not anybody’s to give. Its not Putin’s to have, and it’s not Zelensky’s. … This whole war is about Ukrainians wanting the right to determine their own future. It’s not Putin’s right or anyone else’s. It’s not Donald Trump’s to give away.”

In a rare Sunday hearing, a federal appeals court judge appointed by President Trump questioned how the Trump administration’s request to intervene in California’s ongoing midterm election in order to force state officials to set aside 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship it questions squares with the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Mark J. Bennett said that while the executive branch is “unhappy” with what California law requires for ensuring voters are citizens, the state has the right to determine the manner of its elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution and Congress has not challenged that process, despite having the ability to do so.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Matthew Donnelly, a Justice Department attorney, said the Trump administration has good reason to believe those ballots are from ineligible noncitizen voters, and has the legal right under seperate federal criminal law to challenge their tabulation until state officials can prove otherwise.

Donnelly said both federal criminal law and state election law bar noncitizen voters from casting ballots, but “the problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision.”

The exchange came during an hour-long hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Justice Department’s unprecedented emergency request that the court order California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan to immediately stop counting ballots from the 20,000 flagged voters until they can definitively prove those voters are U.S. citizens.

The appellate panel — on which Bennett was joined by circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay, another Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, an appointee of President Biden — did not issue a ruling, though a decision is expected soon given the emergency nature of the appeal.

How it will rule is unclear, though both Bennett and Sanchez hammered Donnelly with questions about how the Trump administration’s position squared with the law.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Sunday that the court seemed “very likely to reject” the Trump administration’s appeal, with Bennett and Sanchez having “expressed great skepticism on both jurisdiction and the merits.”

In addition to questioning its constitutionality, Bennett also questioned how the appellate court even had jurisdiction over the case, given that the Trump administration appealed the matter to the appellate court before the lower district court had a chance to assess the facts in the case or issue an order.

“How do we have jurisdiction when the district court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously?” Bennett said. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”

Bennett also questioned why the appellate court should ignore the claims of state elections officials that having to comply with the Trump administration’s demands in the few remaining days before the Nov. 3 election would be catastrophically disruptive to the election, given that the lower court has had no chance to assess those claims.

“Isn’t that sufficient to give us pause as to whether we should do exactly what [a state expert] avers is going to cause a catastrophe?” Bennett asked.

Bennett’s questions evoked many of the arguments made by the state in its own filings in the matter, which were repeated by California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel during the hearing.

Siegel said there was “nothing” for the appellate court to review, given there has been no fact finding and no order out of the lower court, and that the administration’s demands were unconstitutional and illegal. He said the court did not have to wrestle with many of the arguments being put forward by the Trump administration, because it should simply reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and send the matter back down to the lower court.

Bumatay appeared most interested of the three judges in the damage done when noncitizens do vote, and the underlying question of how the state should handle objections to alleged noncitizen voters when they arise.

Siegel and Seth Waxman, an attorney for Logan, said there are existing processes for that — which require the challenger to present extraordinary proof, which they said the Trump administration has not done for the 20,000 voters it has flagged.

Sanchez repeatedly questioned the provenance of the administration’s list, asking which third parties were involved in providing the data. Donnelly could not answer, which Sanchez said raised questions about the reliability of the list.

The Justice Department appealed the case after a lower district court judge declined to immediately rule last week on its request for a temporary restraining order barring California officials from tabulating the flagged ballots.

In court filings, the administration argued that once mail ballots are removed from their envelopes in California, or a ballot has been cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate it from other cast ballots.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued the demands are illegal, impossible to comply with before the Nov. 3 election and based on deeply flawed federal immigration and third-party data sets shown to be inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

In court filings, they have argued that the Trump administration’s argument “rests on mere suspicion, aroused by suspect data,” and that its lawsuit is at best “a reckless political stunt” and at worst “threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Independent elections experts have said the Justice Department’s efforts break with longstanding department policy of not wading into election-related issues within 90 days of an election, to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters.

They also have said the Trump administration’s lists of alleged noncitizen voters and its authority to intervene are both questionable, including because the U.S. Constitution empowers states to run elections with oversight from Congress, not the executive branch.

The Justice Department sued California, Weber and Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters — whom McCotter claimed were “likely noncitizens.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has claimed federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California, and has defended the methods used to identify those voters. He and other federal prosecutors in the state also recently charged 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote.

On Friday, the Justice Department sent letters to county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens, drawing from the same list of 20,000 at issue in the case against Weber and Logan. In those letters, the Justice Department gave the county officials 48 hours to comply, and threatened them with criminal punishment if they refuse.

State officials have said neither Essayli nor other Trump administration officials have provided proof to back up their claims, and that their list of 20,000 voters is clearly inaccurate. Logan said a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered and had never voted.

More than 3 million people have already cast ballots in California — and more than 500,000 have already done so in Los Angeles County.

The challenge to the 20,000 ballots in California is just the latest Trump administration attempt to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms.

Federal judges in dozens of states have rejected Justice Department lawsuits demanding the states turn over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Federal judges also have rejected multiple Trump executive orders trying to institute national voter ID and citizenship checks, and his administration’s attempt to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots.

Other cases — including over the Trump administration using unproven and inaccurate federal data sets to question the citizenship of state voters — are pending.

Democrats and voting rights groups are also bracing for fresh litigation from the Trump administration to challenge the outcome of pivotal election results the president doesn’t like — and are already defending against a lawsuit the Justice Department brought at Trump’s urging in Alaska, preemptively challenging a Democratic win in the Senate race there based on a third candidate sharing a similar name as the Republican incumbent.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Trump administration’s lawsuit to block certification of Alaska’s Senate results if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses the race, arguing that the legal challenge was a necessary step to avoid confusing voters in the closely watched midterm race.

Some election experts have said the move is another attempt by the Trump administration to meddle in the Nov. 3 midterm elections in the event Republicans don’t fare well. Democrats as well as some Republicans have criticized it.

Blanche, however, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that President Trump — who said Friday in reference to the lawsuit that he was “the one that said do it” — is not trying to overturn state election results “in any way, shape or form.”

“We wish that we didn’t have to do this. We hope for a resolution that works,” Blanche said.

Republicans fear that a second candidate on the ballot who is named Dan Sullivan — a retired teacher and school administrator from the tiny fishing community of Petersburg — could siphon away votes from the GOP senator and tip the outcome in favor of Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman. Because Alaska has ranked-choice voting, there are more than two candidates on the general election ballot.

A day after the lawsuit was filed Thursday, Peltola called it “just flagrant, flagrant corruption, in my opinion,” and a diversion tactic by Republicans. Alaska’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, also criticized the lawsuit in a social media post.

Trump told reporters Sunday that he believed the ballot was illegal because it was unfair and that Sen. Sullivan should be identified to voters as the sitting senator. Courts, however, have ruled otherwise, upholding both Sullivans’ spots on the ballot.

“At least let him use the name Sen. Dan Sullivan as opposed to incumbent, because a lot of people don’t know what incumbent means,” Trump said.

Alaskan voters will see “Dan S. Sullivan” identified as a “registered Republican” and “incumbent” on their ballots, while “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” is listed without party affiliation.

Blanche represented Trump as a personal attorney — including the case in which Trump was convicted of felony fraud — before the Republican president appointed him to lead the Department of Justice, which filed the lawsuit in Alaska. Blanche defended Trump in his election inference case before voters elected Trump to a second White House term, effectively ending the criminal prosecution.

Blanche told CNN host Dana Bash that it was “crazy” for her to ask him if Trump was trying to lay the groundwork for the same sort of election challenges that occurred before a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — the source of the election interference case, in which Trump was indicted on felony charges, and for which he was impeached.

“We are not doing anything improper. We’re not doing anything we’re not allowed to do. And we have to let the process play out,” Blanche said. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — [and] President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way shape or form.”

The lawsuit, Blanche said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” is meant to “put guardrails in place” to preserve possible evidence of voter confusion at the polls.

“It’s not saying, ‘Don’t certify.’ It’s saying, ‘If a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify.’ And that’s consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens,” he said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

Alaska’s Democratic Senate candidate, Mary Peltola, and her family suffered minor injuries in a car crash while driving to a campaign stop, her campaign said Sunday.

Peltola required medical attention after the accident Saturday, which happened when another vehicle crashed into the one transporting Peltola and her family, the campaign said. The family was on their way to the Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Banquet in Anchorage.

Peltola, an Alaska Native and former congresswoman, is challenging Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, hoping to become the first Democrat in nearly two decades to represent the state in the Senate.

Both candidates have tried to rally support from Alaska Native voters, a key constituency in the high-stakes race that has become one of the most watched in the nation.

On Friday, President Trump — who held a rally in support of Sullivan earlier this month — said he told his administration to sue to block certification of the race if the incumbent loses. The lawsuit cites potential confusion with another candidate who is listed on the ranked choice ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

Peltola’s campaign manager, Cheryl Bruce, wrote in a statement that the candidate was in “good spirits” following the accident, but her medical providers recommended she reschedule events Sunday and Monday to recover.

The incident delayed what her campaign announced as the “Alaska Always Tour,” an eight-stop push through the last week before election day. Her campaign said she will resume events Tuesday, with a stop in Homer, Alaska.

The ad was repugnant.

You know the one I’m talking about — Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s attack on opponent Amy Acton using her clearly troubled mother, who failed to protect Acton as a child from her rapist stepfather and instead abandoned her kids to stay with the now-deceased pedophile.

Wow. Even in 2026, that’s a lot.

The ad, released last week on the internet and set for a television blitz through the election, has sparked condemnation even from Republicans. Some anyway. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance (a close friend of Ramaswamy’s) have defended it, much to the chagrin of decent people everywhere who have labeled this a make-it-or-break-it moment for the Grand Old Party.

Trump called getting Acton’s mom on camera “hitting pay dirt.”

“Why shouldn’t somebody use that?” Trump said Friday. “To me, that’s something that’s very much fair game.”

Trump’s right, in his world anyway. His faithful may not like the ad, but it’s not a deal-breaker.

The appalled, left and right, are wrong on this one — this is not a turning point for the Republican Party or the moment it realized its soul was in the frying pan.

When Ramaswamy loses — and he’s likely going to lose, if polls are right — it won’t be because Republican voters finally believe the party has sunk too low, lost its way or lacks morals. And when the postmortem happens on the right, it won’t examine whether exploiting victims of sex abuse is a smart move. (Full disclosure: One of my relatives is an advisor of Ramaswamy.)

Instead, the ad will eventually be seen as a great gift to Donald Trump for two reasons.

First, it allows Ramaswamy — his endorsed candidate — to lose without it being the president’s fault for starting a war, tanking the economy and generally being entirely unpopular with average Americans. Get ready, because if Ramaswamy goes down, Trump will spin it that Democrats and the corrupt media misrepresented the ad and lied about Ramaswamy. Not Trump’s fault, just further proof of why his battle is righteous.

Second, it allows him to test the loyalty of his MAGA acolytes ahead of 2028, and folks, I’m sorry to say it’s a test they are likely to pass with flying colors. Vance laid this out clearly in his defense, reserving his scorn for Republicans who dared to be anything but steadfast.

“Stop whining about an advertisement and go win the race in 13 days,” Vance said in response to a question about the ad. He added he was “disgusted” that his fellow Republicans were seemingly more upset about the ad “than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America.”

For all the angst about sexual abuse, even of minors, the forever Trumpers honestly don’t care as long as their candidates win and maintain power. Just ask Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Ask E. Jean Kelly. Ask Victim A in the Matt Gaetz allegations, or Christine Blasey Ford if you can remember that far back. The list goes on.

MAGA diehards may holler and stomp about how much they hate pedophiles, but they hate Democrats more. Trump has told these voters to ignore the ad and vote Ramaswamy. I predict more of them do it than decency permits — because we’ve seen this MAGA mental split before, where they somehow set aside all of their so-called outrage when Trump tells them to do something.

These voters are clear that the Trump regime presents a real opportunity to remake the country into a conservative bastion in ways that will be hard to undo, and they will overlook even the indecency of exploiting childhood rape.

“Vivek is Great, there is no one better for Ohio. That’s a wild story,” responded one supporter on Truth Social after Trump posted a defense of the ad.

“I love how Vivek does not hesitate to call out wrongdoings,” wrote another.

Others tried to turn the topic to their conspiracies about Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, two bogeyman of the right for their race and religion. The responses of Trumpers to his post were exactly on brand — deflecting or blaming media and disinformation for skewing the issue. (Trump and Ramaswamy are claiming that the ad isn’t about sexual abuse, but only about whether Acton is truthful.)

With that veneer of justification, it’s likely his most devout base in Ohio, led by the 20% of voters who consider themselves white evangelicals, will stick with their guy. Nearly 8 in 10 white evangelical Protestants support Trump, and they are motivated voters who have disconnected the Trump reality from the Trump promise for years.

Despite all the outrage across the country about the ad, it’s likely the final tally in Ohio will remain largely as it would have been before the kerfuffle. Ramaswamy was down in the polls before he dove into the muck of the past few days. A reliable Cook’s poll put Acton ahead 49% to 44% — one of the reasons Ramaswamy was desperate enough to try this last-ditch smear.

I’ll bet an Ohio buckeye the final count isn’t far outside that margin, with no sign of a massive drop in Republican support of Ramaswamy, despite all the posturing and hand-wringing. If he loses, it is likely more about the surging racism against Indian Americans, especially with young conservatives, than one ugly ad.

But those Republicans who denounced the ad will face the president’s punishment. The ad is not a mistake. It is an inadvertent test. By embracing the ad even as it’s disparaged nationally, the president is discovering exactly who he can, and can’t, trust as he heads into the two most difficult years of his decadelong rule — the part where he stops pretending to be anything but what he is, a corrupt and greedy man intent on maximizing power and wealth. The part where he challenges elections.

We are watching the last of the old-guard Republicans being purged thanks to the ad. Republicans who have gathered up the tattered shreds of their integrity and courage over this ad are shredding them to nothing on this moment, giving Trump insight into who might stand up to him when the protection of our democracy is on the line.

Trump has started lashing out already, making sure those potential last-round conscientious objectors are damaged.

After current Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine called for Ramaswamy to stop airing the spot, labeling it “deeply troubling,” Trump attacked him — even though DeWine said he continued to support Ramaswamy as his replacement. (DeWine is facing term limits.)

“Mike DeWine, who I unfortunately helped get elected years ago, when he was losing by 16 points prior to my doing a Rally for him was, as usual, disloyal to the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media.

DeWine was far from alone.

Trump’s days of conning himself into a coalition are behind him — well into his second term, is now consolidating power behind his core, public opinion be damned.

The independent voters that may indeed not vote or change votes because of the ad were just as likely to switch over gas prices or wars.

The ad was never for them, but rather just for this outrage, this push to motivate the base with just the sort of grimy bullying Trump does best — I believe him when he says he wishes he could make an ad like this. Trump will rally in Ohio this week with Ramaswamy, and it’s likely most Republicans will somehow have transmuted their outrage into support by the time he appears in person.

His base understands his support of the ad is an expression of power. His base understands the trade they are making. His base doesn’t care what happened to Acton, because she will never give them the America they want.

His base likes the ad, even if they won’t admit it.

Oct. 25, 2026 10:03 AM PT

ANCHORAGE — A little more than one week before the midterm elections, the leading candidates in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race are trying to rally support from Alaska Native voters, a key constituency.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola both spoke at last week’s Alaska Federation of Natives conference in Anchorage.

The organization previously endorsed Peltola, who is Yup’ik, during her House races in 2022 and 2024, but it did not issue endorsements this year.

Both candidates have highlighted support from Native organizations and leaders ahead of the Nov. 3 election. Sealaska Corp., a regional Native corporation in southeast Alaska, has endorsed both of them, calling it a way to “honor their contributions and commitment to our communities, and to honor the diverse positions of our shareholders.”

The race is among the most closely watched nationally, with control of the Senate at stake. On Friday, President Trump — who held a rally in support of Sullivan earlier this month — said he told the Department of Justice to sue to block certification of the race if the incumbent loses. The lawsuit cites potential confusion with another candidate who is listed on the ranked-choice ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

Sen. Sullivan is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, while Sullivan Jr. is listed without a party designation. U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche wrote on social media that the lawsuit is necessary to make sure officials “have the information necessary to make a determination as to whether Alaskan voters were confused or [misled].”

Many voting rights advocates and Democrats have pointed the lawsuit as an improper political use of the Justice Department and an example of Trump’s interference in the upcoming election, following up on his threats to assert federal control over the vote.

Alaskan Natives represent about one-fifth of the state’s population, but they can face challenges to voting in remote communities. Advocates have raised concerns in recent years with polling locations in some villages opening late or ballots not arriving on time to be fully counted due to mail delays.

There’s also cynicism about whether participating in elections will make a difference.

“There’s legitimate hesitations about whether whoever they vote for is actually going to impact them,” said actor and activist Dallas Goldtooth, who is Bdewakantunwan Dakota and Dine and came to Alaska to encourage conference attendees to vote. “And our job is to say, hey, whether that matters or not, there’s an opportunity for you to make sure that your voice is counted. And I want to encourage people just to take the opportunity as much as possible.”

Sheri Buretta, who chairs the board of Chugach Alaska Corp., an Alaska Native corporation, introduced Sullivan to the conference Thursday as “one of our strongest champions.”

Sullivan, speaking as part of a congressional delegation update, said he’s learned important lessons from Native leaders. He cited work he’s done on issues such as pushing to ensure that Alaska Native Vietnam War-era veterans have access to land allotments.

Peltola, during a candidate forum Friday, became emotional speaking about the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people and said additional law enforcement resources are needed. She also expressed support for fisheries. Subsistence fishing is critical in many Native communities.

“I will always fight to restore our fisheries. I feel like working on fish issues is my life’s work,” she said.

Energy is also a crucial issue in Alaska, including within Native communities.

Peltola recently said Alaskan Native people were being “absolutely crushed” by high costs from the ongoing war with Iran, which Sullivan has supported. Many rural communities rely on diesel for electricity and to heat their homes.

Sullivan has argued the war against Iran is temporary and that the “forever war is the Democrats’ war against Alaskan energy.”

Many Native leaders on Alaska’s petroleum-rich North Slope see oil drilling as crucial to their region’s economy, and they believed their voices weren’t heard while President Biden was in office. His administration sought to restrict drilling in places like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but Trump and the Republican-led Congress have rolled those efforts back.

Peltola has said she supports expanded oil and gas drilling and would work with Trump to accomplish that. But Sullivan and his allies have tried to align her with what they refer to as “Lower 48 liberals” who oppose more drilling.

Bohrer and Daley write for the Associated Press. Bohrer reported from Juneau.