Politics Desk

Elon Musk quietly becomes biggest known donor in midterm contests as he tries to save Republicans

Elon Musk, the world’s only trillionaire, has quietly become the biggest known donor in this year’s midterm elections, doling out more than $276 million since July to try to save Republican majorities in Congress.

The numbers, first reported by the New York Times ahead of this week’s federal filing deadline, were confirmed by Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for Musk’s super PAC.

The money includes $158 million given to the Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, one of the largest known political donations in American history, according to the Times.

Another $76 million went to America PAC, a Musk super PAC, which has once again built out a major turnout operation like the one it used to help elect President Trump by knocking on doors in 2024.

Musk also provided $10 million to Lone Star Liberty PAC, a group that supports the Republican nominee for Senate in Texas, Ken Paxton. The race has been a major focus of Musk’s efforts.

It’s a dramatic turnaround since last May, when Musk said he intended to cut back on future political spending. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said at the time.

Despite the cash infusion, Musk has generally kept a lower profile than in 2024, when he appeared on stage next to Trump at rallies, and in the early days of the president’s second term, when he led the Department of Government Efficiency.

He had a falling out with Trump while leaving his government post, but the two have since reconciled. Trump presented Musk with the National Medal of Science last week.

Musk’s net worth has fluctuated around the trillion-dollar line this year based on changes in stock prices, but he topped $1 trillion again last week according to Forbes magazine.

Republican have a gaping financial advantage over their Democratic counterparts — a disparity that has been a rare bright spot for a party that is bracing for major potential losses amid deep voter frustration over the president’s performance, stubbornly high prices and the unpopular war with Iran.

They have been using the money to blanket the airwaves in the race’s final stretch.

“These robust investments have allowed the G.O.P. apparatus to get its message out so Republicans can have a fighting chance to defy history,” Romeo told the Times.

Democrats responded to the news by accusing Republicans of using vast amounts of cash to mask their shortcomings.

“Republicans are hoping to buy these elections, injecting tens of millions into races to try and outrun their unpopular candidates, unpopular president, and unpopular economy,” said Lauren French, a spokesperson for Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Many GOP states have imposed new voting rules this year, some mirroring Trump’s midterm proposals

President Trump has pushed Congress to pass a proof-of-citizenship law, signed an executive order seeking a national voter ID requirement and tried to limit mail voting through U.S. Postal Service changes.

None of those moves succeeded in time to affect this year’s midterm elections. It’s a different matter in the states.

More than three dozen voting laws passed in Republican-controlled states are taking effect for the first time this year, many of them containing elements of Trump’s stalled proposals. They include changes to what IDs are acceptable to register for the first time and requirements to show proof of citizenship, an issue the Republican president has tried but failed to get through Congress.

“Trump’s attacks on our elections are deeply damaging, but they are not happening in isolation,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project. ”Across the country, states are also advancing restrictions that make it harder for eligible voters to cast a ballot.”

Republican lawmakers who support the tighter voting laws, especially around voter ID, describe them as common sense changes that help build trust in elections.

Trump and other Republicans have been pushing for more restrictive rules since the president’s false claims of widespread fraud in his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump’s false claims have resonated with Republican voters, a majority of whom believe Biden was not legitimately elected despite all evidence to the contrary. Trump lost dozens of court challenges, his own attorney general found no evidence of widespread fraud, and reviews, audits and recounts in the battleground states where he contested his loss all affirmed Biden’s victory.

Among the changes confronting voters as early voting gets underway: Students in New Hampshire can no longer use student IDs; Utah voters returning mail ballots must include more information on the envelope; and some voters in Mississippi might need birth certificates or passports to verify their identities.

Changes to voter ID requirements are challenged

New Hampshire state Rep. Donald McFarlane said he sponsored the bill to eliminate student IDs as acceptable for voting because colleges don’t have the same controls when issuing those cards as government agencies.

“The change removes a special exception and applies the same government-issued ID standard to all voters,” he said, adding that his bill had bipartisan support.

Students, he said, can still get state IDs free of charge.

The new requirements have not gone unchallenged.

In South Dakota, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt a new law that includes requiring voters registering for the first time to present the most common forms of ID — driver’s licenses, Tribal IDs and non-driver state IDs. They must be presented in person at places that accept registration.

“Proof of citizenship in itself is not terrible,” said Kathryn Johnson, president of the League of Women Voters of South Dakota.

Her concern is the requirement to present the IDs in person.

“We’re kind of a remote state, so sometimes it takes a drive, and you have to coordinate, you have to take off work, and all of these kinds of things,” she said.

Some Democrats also have expressed support for voter ID during recent debates. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he was open to the idea as long as it wasn’t based on “conspiracy theories.” When legislatures change their state’s voting laws, they typically give election offices and voters time to adjust. Trump wanted federal voter ID and proof-of-citizenship legislation to take effect immediately, forcing election officials and voters to comply in the middle of the midterms.

Ohio seeks to scrub voter rolls

Ohio has a proof of citizenship requirement in effect for the first time this year for those registering to vote or updating their voter registration information at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles location. The state also eliminated its four-day grace period for mail ballots, which now must be received at local election offices by Election Day.

Yet the biggest concern for voting rights groups is an ongoing purge of the state’s voter rolls. The databases used to check citizenship against voter registration lists can be outdated, said Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, which has sued to overturn the law.

“Vast numbers of perfectly eligible voters are vulnerable to being disenfranchised,” she said.

Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, one of the primary sponsors of the bill, challenged the ACLU’s legal action and said the problem it addresses is a real one.

“In the past two years, hundreds of noncitizens have been removed from Ohio’s voter rolls,” she said in an email. “Every single vote cast by a noncitizen disenfranchises a lawful Ohio voter.”

Voters have mixed views on the changes

Outside an early voting center in Wayne County, Ohio, retired steel worker Dan Walter, an independent voter, said he opposes requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote.

“It’s to keep people from voting, it sounds to me like,” he said.

His wife, Jody, a retired aerospace executive and a Democrat, said she felt the same way about Ohio’s new requirement for registering to vote.

“A driver’s license doesn’t prove citizenship, and that’s all they ask for now,” she said. “It’s going to be an obstacle for so many people.”

Genia Fortune had a different view. A nurse, the Millersburg resident described herself as an independent and said she voted for President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and later for Trump. She believes Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and sees requiring documentary proof of citizenship as a necessary precaution.

“I just feel like you need to be a citizen and show proof of ID,” she said.

Voting and election laws have become a regular target for legislatures

The Trump administration has pushed multiple strategies to influence this year’s midterm elections, most of them stymied by Congress or the courts.

Chris Diaz, director of legislative tracking at the Voting Rights Lab, said the group has seen several versions of the Republican president’s proposals passed by his allies in the states.

A recently released report by the group highlighted some of the key areas drawing Republican lawmakers’ attention, including mail balloting, voter ID and the hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls.

Noncitizen voting has been a focus of the Trump administration despite it being a rare problem. The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced it had brought charges in roughly 90 cases for various types of election misconduct, including 50 against people who are alleged to have voted as noncitizens. The U.S. had 227 million registered voters for the 2024 presidential election.

The Brennan Center for Justice has identified nearly 40 laws in 21 states taking effect this election season that will make it harder for eligible voters to register, stay on the rolls or cast ballots.

The report from the center, part of the New York University School of Law, found that many of the new laws target subsets of voters.

“What I want voters to take away from this is that elections are still run by the states and there are still people in many states who are trying to make it harder for you to vote,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, senior director of the center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program. “But that’s all the more reason to go make a plan to vote and participate.”

Fields and Smyth write for the Associated Press. Fields reported from Washington and Smyth reported from Wooster and Millersburg, Ohio.

Source link

A small-town Alaska fisherman has Republicans on the defensive as they try to keep U.S. House majority

In the thick of Alaska’s primary election season this summer, independent Bill Hill took a break from his U.S. House campaign to return home to Bristol Bay.

The world’s biggest sockeye salmon run was beginning, and that meant he needed to get back to work.

“I told my team that I have got to fish,” he said, adding: “Commercial fishing is the way that we pay the bills.”

Hill, 57, grew up in a tiny southwest Alaska village where he said his family had no phone and had to haul water from a nearby lake for cooking and bathing. Today, while he no longer has to fetch water, his lifestyle is not much different. He lives in a remote fishing community of about 430 people that he has called home for nearly half his life.

A retired teacher and school administrator, Hill has positioned himself as a working-class candidate who can relate to Alaskans’ frustrations with high fuel and other costs. He has made affordability and pushing back against billionaires a central theme in his campaign against Republican Nick Begich, who’s seeking a second term in Congress.

“We are pedal to the metal, making sure that every Alaskan knows about this campaign, every Alaskan knows what we stand for and every Alaskan knows that it’s really one of them going to Congress,” Hill told people at a campaign event this week in Juneau, wearing his standard campaign uniform of jeans, a zip-up vest and cap with a fishing company logo. “I need your help getting there.”

The race has become a concern for Republicans as they are trying to hold onto their majority in the U.S. House. Vice President JD Vance held a rally this week for Begich and Dan Sullivan, the U.S. senator who also is in a tight reelection race. President Trump is scheduled to do another in the coming week.

Begich and Republican political action committees have ratcheted up ad spending in the House race since the primary.

Planes, ferries and four-wheelers on the campaign trail

Hill, a first-time candidate who is Alaska Native, faces an incumbent from a prominent family long associated with the state’s politics. Begich’s late grandfather once held the state’s only U.S. House seat. Begich’s uncle Mark was a U.S. senator. Both were Democrats. Nick Begich is a lifelong Republican and has aligned himself with Trump, who has carried Alaska in his White House runs.

Hill’s campaign said he has traveled more than 20,000 miles in the state, including by plane, ferry and all-terrain vehicle, to introduce himself to voters and promote his message.

Begich’s name recognition presents a hurdle for Hill’s campaign, but some Democrats tried to clear a better path for Hill. One suspended his campaign before the August open primary and endorsed Hill. Two other Democrats with virtually no name recognition withdrew after the primary despite being in line to advance.

One candidate registered as a Democrat remains in the top four, Eric Hafner. He has no apparent ties to the state and is incarcerated in New York.

Hafner received 3.8% of the vote, enough to qualify for the ranked vote general election on Nov. 3. His submitted candidate biography appearing in state election materials makes no reference to his stint in federal prison, where he is serving time for making threats against police officers, judges and others.

Hill’s campaign has shared stickers showing Hafner in an orange jumpsuit and calling him a “fake ‘Democrat.’”

“We want to make sure that the Alaskan people are well-informed,” Hill said.

Begich gets support from Trump and the U.S. House speaker

The contest has received national attention, with spending by groups that include the National Republican Congressional Committee and House Majority PAC, which seeks to flip the U.S. House to Democrats.

In early August, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., held a rally for Begich that was closed to reporters. Vance called Begich a “machine” and effective legislator during his rally in Fairbanks, where Vance also gave support to Sullivan, who faces a challenge from Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman.

Trump has cited Begich’s support of his signature package of tax breaks, social service cuts and immigration enforcement that was passed last year. The president plans to headline a rally Tuesday in Wasilla, hometown of Sarah Palin, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee.

Hill said the visits show Republicans are nervous.

“I was not going to get into this race to waste people’s time, to waste people’s money,” he said. “I did my due diligence before jumping in to ensure that there was a path to victory.”

Begich’s campaign did not respond to messages from the Associated Press. On social media, the campaign has highlighted events such as Begich’s visit to the Alaska State Fair and recently has taken swipes at Hill.

Zach Bannon, an NRCC spokesperson, said Begich has delivered “commonsense wins for Alaska,” including support of expanded oil and gas development. He called Hill a “far-left Democrat.”

Hill was endorsed by Democrats but asserts his independence

Hill, who was endorsed by the Alaska Democratic Party, said he is a lifelong independent. He said he will not be beholden to a “party boss” or party line, and he rankled some voters earlier in the campaign by not explicitly saying which party he would caucus with in the House if he were elected.

He has said he is willing to work with anyone on what is best for Alaska. He also has called for bans on congressional stock trading and for limiting the influence of money in elections.

Hill said he wants to help build coalitions, saying he “can be a big part of a small group that makes big changes.”

Democrat Bill Brown came to the Juneau event planning to vote for Hill but wanting to talk with him directly. He said they aligned on numerous issues, including support for the environment, schools and ending “forever” wars.

The retired economics professor said policy is important, but in this political moment he finds himself “most interested in the integrity of the candidate. Bill Hill convinced me on that issue.”

Hill, who is Dena’ina Athabascan, said the top concerns he hears about from Alaskans are the price of fuel and overall cost of living. He said he had to fly home earlier this year and pump fuel oil from the textile manufacturing business he runs with his wife and bring it back to his house in a barrel because the community had run out.

He said fuel prices jumped from about $6.70 per gallon to about $9 per gallon after a barge shipment to his town earlier this year. Prices also have been higher elsewhere, particularly in communities accessible only by air or water. On social media, Hill’s campaign calls out Begich for his support of the Iran war as it posts photos of fuel prices around the state.

Steve Davis, a voter at Hill’s Juneau event this week, called him authentic and a “really good dude.” He said he was drawn to Hill in part because he wants to see Congress reclaim its oversight role. Hill drew applause during the gathering when he said Congress must reassert itself as a separate but equal branch of government.

“We don’t need a unified executive, we don’t need kings,” Davis said. “We need a Congress that actually functions.”

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump’s Medicaid cuts strip refugees and other legal immigrants of their health coverage

New restrictions have stripped Medicaid coverage from certain legal immigrants, including refugees and victims of human trafficking, as part of broader federal changes to the health insurance program that are expected to force millions off their coverage.

The change effective Oct. 1 cut from Medicaid what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of people who legally immigrated to the United States, many of whom work and pay taxes, in the latest Trump administration policy to target foreigners.

The move is part of sweeping changes to Medicaid under President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax cut and policy law, with many set to take effect early next year. The Medicaid changes are projected to result in 7.5 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2025 estimate.

Advocates say that without Medicaid, people will not be able to afford private insurance and will either delay care or end up in emergency rooms, adding pressure to a strained health system. For immigrants, the cuts could be felt more acutely, compounding the effects of other administration efforts to restrict their access to public assistance as part of a broader immigration crackdown.

“This is about telling every immigrant in the United States that they are not welcome here and that they should leave,” said Ben D’Avanzo, a senior strategist at the National Immigration Law Center, which has pursued litigation against the Republican administration over its immigration agenda.

Refugees, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and domestic violence are among those who have lost coverage. Green-card holders were not impacted.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “immigrants must be able to support themselves without taking from overburdened benefits programs paid for by hard-working American taxpayers.”

D’Avanzo said many people who have lost coverage will likely only realize when they need medical care. But for some, the change has been felt immediately.

Dwindling supplies of lifesaving medication

In Tucson, Arizona, María Chacon has been caring for her son Jesus for almost five years since a car accident at 17 left him unable to breathe on his own. He requires a ventilator, a feeding tube and daily medication, and must be turned once every two hours to stop sores from forming. Chacon said he sometimes opens his eyes.

The family is originally from Mexico and entered the U.S. on a T visa, offered to victims of human trafficking, in 2018.

Chacon said Medicaid has helped cover almost $25,000 per month of care for her son, which includes a small stipend for her and her husband as compensation for being long-term caregivers. She said doctors have explained that even if they both worked 24 hours a day, they would not be able to cover the cost of his care.

“Since that day I haven’t been able to sleep. We haven’t been able to eat or anything. We’re wondering what we’re going to do?” Chacon said.

Jesus takes medication that Chacon estimates costs $7,000 a month. The supply runs out in mid-October. Without coverage, she does not know how her son is going to survive.

Chacon found out just days before the cuts that she was losing care. She called the state’s Medicaid offices to appeal. Although she is in the process of obtaining a green card, Medicaid coverage would only kick in five years after she is approved.

Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a right-leaning think tank that seeks less immigration, said the administration “is trying to nibble around the edges” with the Oct. 1 cuts, finding piecemeal ways to curb immigration into the U.S.

Camarota believes the government should screen legal immigrants for income potential and education, reducing the number who might rely on public benefits once they cross the border.

“You need immigrants who are unlikely to need welfare,” he said, or those with high educational attainment.

The administration recently revived a federal rule that could deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits that could include food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers and others.

Chacon believes the cuts to Medicaid coverage are part of the administration’s clampdown on immigrants. She said her son is in no condition to travel.

“I know that’s what he’s doing, but, as my son is, I couldn’t go to Mexico,” Chacon said.

Millions more will be dropped from Medicaid

Medicaid, jointly funded by states and the federal government, has become a political focal point during Trump’s second term. The president has pushed to root out what he describes as fraud in the program. In July, the administration deferred over $1 billion in Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, claiming there was suspected fraud; critics argued the move targeted Democratic-led states.

As more people are cut from Medicaid, the federal government is predicted to reduce program spending by $911 billion, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

In Arizona, officials said 29,000 legal immigrants were cut from Medicaid rolls on Oct. 1. In Florida, estimates are closer to 177,000. Overall, more than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are estimated to lose Medicaid coverage, according to KFF.

As more states implement various restrictions to coverage, 7.5 million people are expected to lose coverage by 2034, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Without coverage, people will turn to emergency rooms for care. When people delay seeing a doctor, conditions can worsen and become even more expensive to treat.

“At the end of the day, it does raise the cost for the states because once you get these people in for something that could have been prevented, they could not go to the doctor because they were uninsured; they most likely will end up at a hospital in an emergency room,” said Carmen Feliciano, the vice president of policy and advocacy at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization.

UnidosUS partners with community organizations to help provide medical care, but Feliciano said they already are overwhelmed and would not be able to support the number of people who are going to lose medical coverage in the coming months.

“We are not going to have the capacity to serve all the people who need it,” Feliciano said.

Schuettler and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

Source link

A Proper Supreme Court Should Be the Cornerstone of Venezuela’s Transition

Is it a good idea to begin the transition through the Supreme Court (TSJ)? Perhaps. In any case, it is the path charted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who—following January 3rd—wields enormous influence over Venezuela’s interim authorities and all opposition players, including María Corina Machado.

Marco Rubio himself stated this on October 9, with Dinorah Figuera by his side: “To achieve a peaceful transition—which is what we desire, a peaceful transition toward a permanent and lasting democracy— a great deal of hard work must be done, along with some patience, and free and fair elections. But beyond mere free and fair elections, there will be a need for institutions that not only uphold democracy but also sustain stability, progress, prosperity, and freedom for the people of Venezuela for the foreseeable future.”

Those institutions are, fundamentally, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) and the National Electoral Council (CNE). In that order.

The argument is simple yet very powerful. We have seen in Venezuela that it is possible to win an election (such as the National Assembly vote in 2015 and the presidential election in 2024) and yet have that victory yield no practical effect: in 2015, the election’s impact was nullified via the TSJ, and in 2024, via both the CNE and the TSJ.

Rubio knows this well, as he has been monitoring Venezuelan politics for many years and has surely heard the explanation of how the regime stripped those election results of their meaning through the TSJ and the CNE. In all likelihood, he heard those explanations from Machado herself. This is the path currently being pursued by the negotiating table comprising the interim authorities and the delegation from the 2015 National Assembly. So far, there have been three results. First, Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) was reformed to improve the balance between lawmakers and civil society representatives within the Judicial Nominations Committee—a body for which 127 candidates have already been proposed. Next, a council was appointed to verify the credentials of TSJ nominees; this council includes four of Venezuela’s most serious and respected legal experts. Third, civilian organizations were invited to put forward members for the Judicial Nominations Committee.

This week, both the Judicial Nominations Committee and the verification council are being formally established. The subsequent step is to call upon legal experts to apply for positions on the TSJ.

Given the current circumstances, it is to be expected that the negotiating table and the Trump administration will exert influence over the entire process, just as they have been doing. In fact, Juan Miguel Matheus—a member of the opposition team at the negotiating table—told El Pitazo that the 12 civil society members who will sit on the Nominations Committee will be selected through that table.

With a transition process in mind, why would having a competent TSJ in place within a couple of months be significant?

For a fundamental reason: under the state model established by the 1999 Constitution, the TSJ holds the final institutional say regarding any decision made by the Venezuelan state. The TSJ has the power to strike down laws passed by the National Assembly, declare presidential decrees null and void, annul acts of the National Electoral Council (CNE), and review rulings from any court in the country.

Therefore—and drawing on Venezuela’s past experience—if we aim to hold free elections, it is far better to approach them with a competent TSJ already in place. A capable Supreme Court of Justice could play a robust role in defending elections based on standards of electoral integrity.

Therefore, initiating the transition through a new Supreme Court is a good idea.

Source link

Column: Take a breath. Educate yourself. Then vote.

The California Secretary of State has mailed a thick “Official Voter Information Guide” to every registered voter. It’s jam-packed with helpful material. But one bit should be totally ignored.

It tells voters to fill out their ballot immediately — ”today” — and return it right now. Don’t take any time, in other words, to think about what you’re voting on.

Here’s what it says in bold ink on the cover of the 173-page guide: “Don’t Delay, Vote Today! Return your ballot as soon as you receive it.”

That’s not just a throwaway line. It’s repeated throughout the guide.

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.

Under “Quick Facts” for the Nov. 3 election: “Return your ballot by mail as soon as you receive it.”

Who’s writing this stuff? Officially it’s from Secretary of State Shirley Weber. But is some high school freshman who hasn’t taken a civics course the actual author? Isn’t Weber or anyone in the vast bureaucracy proofreading with raised eyebrows?

Doesn’t anyone realize there are 14 complex propositions on the state ballot that voters may want to mull over for more than two seconds? They aren’t all what they seem. Some require reading between the lines.

Proposition 1, for example, is an expensive $11.25-billion bond issue for affordable housing — mostly rentals — requiring at least $500 million in annual state costs for 25 years. That cuts into spending for other services such as education and healthcare. Is the new borrowing actually worth it?

Proposition 39 is relatively easy but needs some thought. It would require everyone to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote. Is that really needed when there is scant evidence of voter fraud? And it would invariably slow vote counting even more.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth. Should we set the precedent of taxing people’s wealth? Who’s next? We’ve already got the nation’s highest state income tax.

Proposition 45 would substantially alter the landmark California Environmental Quality Act. It has been terribly abused, stymying housing development. But the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently have streamlined CEQA to expedite home construction. This business-backed proposition is geared more toward easing infrastructure projects. Does it go too far?

Then there are some low-profile propositions that are just mind-numbing.

Not to mention some crucial congressional races that may determine control of the U.S. House.

We’re at the peak of campaign season. TV ads are running practically nonstop. Mailboxes are overflowing with political pitches. There are local candidate debates. And newspaper endorsements.

Let the election season play out. Don’t interfere with the political process.

I intend to do what I’ve always done: Wait until the last minute to vote. Something could happen to change my mind on an issue. I’ll take the filled-out ballot to a post office — or maybe a secure official drop box — a couple of days before the election.

Maybe I shouldn’t take the Secretary of State so literally. But since her “give me your vote now” admonition is featured in an official government publication, some voters are likely to accept it and obey.

This is what Weber apparently really means, as also stated in the guide: “Mail your ballot back as soon as possible. … To be counted, [it] must be postmarked no later than election day. We recommend mailing it at least seven days before election day.”

OK, that’s all she should say. End of lecture.

Still, I resent being urged to mail back my ballot a full week before the election. I’ll take my own sweet time that’s allowed by the law, thank you.

I queried the Secretary of State’s press office about the “vote now” edict but didn’t get a straight answer.

“Of course we absolutely encourage voters to carefully review the [guide] contents … and other trusted sources to make a decision that is best for them,” some unnamed spokesperson emailed. The top cause for ballots being rejected is their late arrival, the aide added.

The Postal Service has slowed its deliveries of all mail, especially in rural areas. Plus, President Trump tried to inject mail voting with crippling rules, but the Supreme Court stopped him.

The secretary’s office also emailed me that “when voters return their ballots early, it ensures more time for the ballot [counting] process.”

“It’s not good policy for the SOS to urge voters to vote the minute they get their ballot,” veteran Democratic strategist Garry South told me. “A lot can happen in the last month. And with a ballot that seems like it’s several feet long, I suspect it’s being done to deal with the criticism of how long it takes to count the votes in California.

“But the goal should be for voters to make considered and informed choices, not just to rush into marking their ballots.”

Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley, said: “Weber is under fire for taking too long to count votes. …. But the answer is for her to count faster, not to push voters to rush their decisions.”

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, points out that vote counting, in fact, has sped up during recent elections. And this year, the Legislature appropriated $29 million to speed up counting much more.

But “I don’t agree with the message” in the voting guide, Alexander said. “It’s a long ballot. People need to take some time to decide.”

Voting is a very personal exercise. It’s my duty not only to vote, but to try to get it right.

It’s not my duty to make vote-counting easier for election officials. It’s their duty to count — more swiftly.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: What Steve Hilton doesn’t get about Xavier Becerra’s parents
CA vs. Trump: FBI whistleblower alleges Trump ordered investigations of L.A.-area immigration protesters.
The L.A. Times Special: Hilton warm on tax cuts, tepid on Trump, cold on offshore wind during gubernatorial town hall

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Source link

Republican Steve Hilton leans on cheeky ads, voter discontent in long-shot campaign for governor

In rural Modoc County, in California’s remote northeast corner, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton donned a beige cowboy hat and climbed atop a horse.

Riding through a grassy field, with his dress shoes in the stirrups, Hilton lamented to a camera that California was “completely being ruined by killjoy bureaucrats” who put too many rules on fun stuff like beach fire pits and bars that stay open extra late.

In coastal San Luis Obispo County, Hilton boarded a bright yellow dune buggy at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area and called the California Coastal Commission “idiots” for trying to end off-road beach driving.

And in the Central Valley, he waved the ceremonial green flag at a stock car race at the Madera Speedway, where he was named grand marshal of the annual Harvest Classic. (The designation caused a minor uproar, prompting the operator of the racetrack to make a fake online concession menu that offered a hot dog and soda for $6 for Republicans and $17.50 for Democrats.)

If it seems like Hilton — the British immigrant and former Fox News talk show host — is just about everywhere, taking just about every media interview that comes his way, well, that’s the point, he says.

He has logged thousands of miles on the proverbial campaign trail, visiting all 58 counties in his quest to lead the nation’s most populous state, where no Republican has been elected to statewide office in 20 years.

Meanwhile, his heavily favored — and far more staid — opponent, Democrat Xavier Becerra, has kept a comparatively low profile, agreeing to just one debate with Hilton and holding few public events, mostly in urban areas.

In a phone interview while driving through Los Angeles, Hilton said: “Whether I’m in Humboldt or Del Norte or Siskiyou County, my joke is, when people say, ‘Where do you live?’ I say I live in the Hampton Inn somewhere in California because we’re basically in a different place every night.”

The odds are against him.

Sure, California produced GOP presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But today, Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in the state, and the current White House occupant shares a mutual disdain with the vast majority of Golden State voters.

Hilton was endorsed during the primary by President Trump, who suggested at a campaign rally this month that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego, drawing swift outrage from both Democrats and Republicans.

Hilton has tried to walk a fine line, appealing to the 6 million Californians who voted for the president in 2024 while simultaneously downplaying Trump’s support.

This summer, Hilton took out full-page ads in The Times and the San Francisco Chronicle asking: “Can you be anti-Trump and still vote for me?”

“Yes, I’m the Republican,” it said. “The ‘Fox News guy.’ Endorsed by Trump. But this election is not about who you hate in Washington. It’s about what you love here.”

Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said that 16 years after the state’s last Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, left office, “it’s safe to say Democrats own all the problems in California.”

“You can’t blame Trump for what’s going on here in California,” she said. “We feel really good about Steve Hilton’s campaign. He is working so hard, up and down the state.”

Hilton has blasted California Democrats as entitled, saying they assume Becerra will cruise to victory in the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom simply because he has a “D” beside his name on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Hilton frequently quotes a September podcast interview by Los Angeles’ Democratic mayor, Karen Bass, who mocked his British accent and said: “The governor’s race right now is over. Our governor’s name is Xavier Becerra. You don’t need an election on Nov. 3. A Republican cannot win in this state.”

Hilton told The Times that Democrats “feel they don’t have to earn your vote. … They can deliver results that are bad as ever, and they don’t need to work hard to deliver results for people or earn their support. And I think it’s that attitude that is going to be their downfall.”

Restaurant patrons watch a political debate on a TV flanked by the American and California flags

Steve Hilton has the support of 33% of likely California voters, according to a recent poll, while rival Xavier Becerra has 58%.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Becerra is a former member of Congress who represented Los Angeles, and he was the California attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden. He has the backing of 58% of likely California voters, compared with 33% who support Hilton, according to a poll released late last month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

The poll showed that voters’ top concern was reducing the state’s high cost of living — followed by fighting Trump administration policies.

Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for the Becerra campaign, said, “Trump has browbeaten his way into the California political discourse” with his mass deportation raids, his willingness to stonewall federal wildfire relief funds for political reasons, and his aggressive tariffs that many blame for driving up costs nationwide.

“Hilton is trying to win an election, so he tries to frame himself as someone who can appeal to the broader electorate,” Underland said. “But at the end of the day, he has the albatross around his neck, which is Trump, who is openly hostile to California.”

Hilton cuts a colorful and pugnacious figure on the campaign trail. He eschews ties and jackets, favoring T-shirts with punchy phrases like, “$ave With Steve” and “WAKE UP” superimposed on a California license plate — a reference to his proposal to eliminate the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and slash vehicle registration fees, which would cut billions in state revenue.

He wears one bracelet with the name of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, whom he called an “incredibly close friend.” Another reads, “Save Girls’ Sports,” calling back to this spring, when he traveled to the state high school track and field championship in Clovis to protest the participation of a transgender athlete.

Steve Hilton, wearing a Charlie Kirk wristband, speaks at a lectern surrounded by campaign signs with pink lettering

Republican nominee Steve Hilton protests transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports during a May 29 news conference in Clovis, Calif.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

Hilton, 57, was born in London to parents who fled conflict in their native Hungary during the 1956 uprising against the Soviet-controlled communist government and later anglicized their surname, Hircsák, to Hilton.

He was a senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, a member of the Conservative Party, though the men’s once-close friendship never recovered from Brexit, Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Hilton supported it; Cameron did not.

Hilton earned a reputation as eccentric but savvy, pushing the Conservative Party to embrace same-sex marriage and more climate-friendly policies. Dubbed “the barefoot revolutionary” for his refusal to wear shoes, Hilton was satirized on the BBC political sitcom “The Thick of It” as Stewart Pearson, the Tories’ “eco-friendly, media-savvy, blue-sky-thinking” communications director.

He and his family moved to California in 2012 after his wife, Rachel Whetstone, was promoted to lead global communications at Google. For six years, he hosted “The Next Revolution,” a weekly Fox News show from which Trump regularly tweeted clips.

In 2015, the couple purchased their home in the Silicon Valley city of Atherton, one of the wealthiest ZIP Codes in the U.S., for $12.5 million, property records show.

Whetstone now leads communications for Sierra, an AI startup founded by OpenAI board Chairman Bret Taylor and Clay Bavor, who met while working at Google. Hilton and Whetstone’s 2024 tax returns show they had a combined household income of $7.5 million, which included his reported earnings of $250,000 from Fox News and her $6.7 million from her then-employer, Netflix.

Hilton became a U.S. citizen in 2021 and last year renounced his British citizenship.

He finished second in the June 2 primary behind Becerra. Under California’s top-two primary system, the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election.

The pack of Democratic candidates was so large that party leaders initially urged struggling candidates — including Becerra — to drop out to avoid splitting the vote. Becerra shot to the top of the polls when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, a front-runner at the time, dropped out of the race after he was accused of sexual assault and misconduct.

Republicans coalesced around Hilton after the president endorsed him over his GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a staunch Trump supporter who later said the endorsement made Hilton unelectable.

Kim Nalder, director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said it is exceedingly difficult for Hilton to distance himself from Trump and the Fox News brand.

“If you had a different brand of Republican they might have a shot,” given the discontent in the state over myriad issues, she said. “But Trump is so politically radioactive in California right now that it is an effective technique to tie this particular candidate to him.”

The governor’s race comes as Californians are deeply frustrated by the state’s exorbitant housing costs, top-in-the-nation gasoline prices and high taxes, as well as its entrenched homelessness crisis.

California’s population growth is stagnant after years of pandemic-era losses, with immigration lagging amid the Trump administration’s crackdown and many residents leaving the state for more affordable parts of the country.

Greg Perrone, past president of the conservative Greater Bakersfield Republican Assembly, said he was impressed with Hilton’s policy knowledge and the amount of detail in his economic plans.

Sir Richard Branson talks with Steve Hilton at a White House event

Steve Hilton, right, chats with Sir Richard Branson before a White House dinner with then-British Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama in 2012. Hilton was an advisor to Cameron.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

“There’s a real concern that the current state of the economy is worse than people expected,” Perrone said. “A lot of people hung their hat on Donald Trump saying he was going to bring down prices, and that just has not happened. There’s a lot of angst.”

Perrone said he remains a Trump supporter, though he has been frustrated by the frenetic roll-out of tariffs that, he said, hurt many businesses. While he has been annoyed that Becerra, in his view, has focused more on the president than laying out his own detailed economic plans, he acknowledged that the strategy plays well in blue California.

Christopher Cole, former chairman of the Lassen County Republican Party, said that in his rural corner of the state, he has seen Trump banners that have hung since 2016 start to come down because people are angry about the Iran war, the high cost of fuel and the economy.

“When Trump stupidly endorsed Hilton, it was the kiss of death for any down-ticket Republican,” said Cole, whose county voted for Trump on 76% of the ballots in 2024, the highest percentage in the state, and was the only one to support Bianco in this year’s primary.

“Hilton is a carnival barker and a very wealthy man,” said Cole, who supported Bianco. “You can’t run a multimillionaire when people are struggling to put food on the table.”

Hilton has made a slew of campaign promises to lower the cost of living, including having no taxes on income below $150,000, lowering energy bills by slashing climate-friendly regulations imposed by Democrats, and having $3 gasoline (though governors cannot directly set the price at the pump, which is driven largely by global crude oil supply and demand).

He has tried to channel the state’s discontent into persuading voters to “try something different” by voting Republican.

During the gubernatorial race debate on CNN last month, Hilton quoted a former Biden domestic policy advisor who reportedly called Becerra a “bitch-ass,” and his campaign promptly launched a website, bitchassbecerra.com, outlining alleged failures of the politician known for his calm demeanor and decades of government experience.

“I think Hilton got dealt a bad card with Becerra making the runoff,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who was Schwarzenegger’s spokesman. “It’s difficult to get anyone outraged about Becerra because he is perfectly boring. He worked for Joe Biden — maybe that upsets some people? — but you can’t associate him with any bizarre, woke policies like you could Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom.”

Hilton’s campaign this month released a provocative, sexually suggestive ad titled “Just Try It!” in which two young women sit on a bed in a candlelit room. An LGBTQ+ pride flag hangs on the wall, and they’re seemingly talking through one’s first romantic encounter with another female.

A crowd of people watching a debate on TV, seated next to a dining area

In a recent poll, voters rated California’s high cost of living as their top concern, followed by fighting Trump administration policies. Above, people gather in North Hollywood to watch the Sept. 30 gubernatorial debate.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Wearing a T-shirt that says, “RESIST,” the anti-MAGA mantra, the first-timer nervously says: “I’ve just never done anything like this before. Like, what if my dad finds out?”

The other woman holds her hand as she fills out a ballot for Hilton then says, “Now lick it,” referring to the mail ballot envelope.

Some conservatives condemned the ad, saying it promoted lesbianism. Liberals criticized it, too, saying it was insensitive to the LGBTQ+ community.

The day the ad launched, he told The Times: “I think there’s a very strong sense that things aren’t working in California, and my argument is: ‘OK, let’s try something different.’”

Later, he said he never meant to offend anyone with the risqué ad, which did, after all, do its job in racking up millions of views online — coveted and invaluable publicity for a long-shot California Republican.



Source link

Judge orders Trump to cancel taxpayer-funded TV ads

President Trump must cancel any remaining television commercials paid for with millions of dollars in taxpayer money to promote his political message, a federal judge ordered Sunday night, even as the administration said the ad campaign was coming to an end.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads and called them an illegal misuse of funds. She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.

“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements” during the two-week duration of her order, the judge said.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment Sunday night. In a court filing late Saturday, the Justice Department argued that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”

The Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million in taxpayer money for the ads. Legal experts have suggested that violated a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda” and potentially other laws.

“We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda,” the plaintiffs said in a statement issued by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that represents them. “There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda.”

In a court declaration Saturday, senior Homeland Security official Holly Mehringer wrote that the money came from funds appropriated by Congress that are “available for, among other things, ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security.’”

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements in that they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The ads, which began airing in late September, glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms. One features a clip of the president talking about the threat of communism and another is a replay of an ad from his last presidential campaign. The fifth ad in the campaign began airing Tuesday, focusing on his administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The use of public funds to pay for the ads drew heavy criticism — including from some in the GOP.

“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.

The Democratic National Committee has separately sued the Republican administration over the ads.

Amid the backlash, Trump said he would start paying for the ads with a campaign account. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP reporters Collin Binkley in Washington and Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

Source link

Abdul El-Sayed embraces role as GOP foil, while defending progressive agenda

Abdul El-Sayed, holding a microphone and wearing his signature V-neck black T-shirt, slowly shook his head as a woman at his town hall described how she burned through her savings after undergoing emergency brain surgery.

“I’m really sorry for your experience, and I hope that you’re on the mend,” said El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, after outlining proposals for guaranteed healthcare and paid leave.

Later that night, while talking to reporters in the basement below the theater, his tone was far different. El-Sayed called his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, a “coward” and said President Trump was “afraid” to visit the state, and he dismissed as “dumb” a question about whether Iran or Israel posed a greater threat to the United States.

The exchanges captured two sides of a candidate who is the central figure in one of the nation’s most consequential Senate races. El-Sayed would be the country’s first Muslim senator, and he’s crisscrossing the state to counter a Republican effort, fueled by tens of millions of dollars, to portray him as a dangerous radical. But he has also embraced his confrontational side by mocking and taunting Trump and Rogers.

“If they want to make me the main character in the midterms, I’m not shying away from it,” El-Sayed said in an interview. “Run against me. See how well that works out for you.”

El-Sayed’s resolute confidence rubbed some Democrats the wrong way during a divisive primary against Rep. Haley Stevens. The former public health official has shown little interest in toning it down, defending his progressive agenda and adversarial approach toward Republicans, emboldening supporters who believe he’s the right candidate for an angry electorate that has lost faith in the political establishment.

But his doubters fear he’ll cost Democrats control of the Senate by failing to unite his party’s disparate factions ahead of November.

“If you want their votes, you have to make nice with those people, and he’s not really doing that,” said Michigan political strategist Adrian Hemond, who supported Stevens. “Maybe he doesn’t have to. The entire theory of this candidacy has been he can remake what the electorate looks like.”

A Republican target

Even though Michigan backed Trump twice in his three presidential campaigns, no Republican has won a Senate race in the state since 1994.

The political landscape is no friendlier this year. Trump started an unpopular war with Iran, leading to higher gas prices and related inflation. Rogers has opted for a low-key campaign with fewer public events than El-Sayed as he tries to make the race all about his Democratic opponent.

As of Saturday, Republicans had outspent Democrats by $78 million to $63 million in the Michigan Senate race, according to AdImpact, which tracks political advertising. Around $40 million in Republican spending has gone toward negative advertisements, compared with around $20 million from Democrats.

The ads portray El-Sayed as “dangerously radical” and “too extreme,” highlighting his past calls to defund the police and relax immigration enforcement. Others tie him to Hasan Piker, a popular online streamer with whom El-Sayed has appeared and who has drawn criticism for past comments, including saying that “America deserved 9/11.”

On Friday, Rogers appeared alongside Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, who told reporters that El-Sayed “sleeps in a Bin Laden jersey.” Rogers laughed.

Vice President JD Vance has called El-Sayed “evil.” In one social media post, Trump shared a photo of himself with First Lady Melania Trump alongside a photo of El-Sayed and his wife, who wears a hijab, with the caption: “Two VERY DIFFERENT America’s.”

Late Wednesday, Trump referred to El-Sayed as “Mohammed” and said he “goes back to the days of the Jihad.”

El-Sayed has hardly backed down. At the campaign stop in Port Huron, he taunted Trump and invited him to visit Michigan, suggesting Rogers and other Republicans were afraid the president would hurt their chances.

“Donald, if you’re watching, don’t wuss out, man,” El-Sayed said.

And he responded to Kennedy’s attack by suggesting the Republican is in the Ku Klux Klan.

“That’s rich coming from someone who wears his bed sheets out at night,” El-Sayed posted on social media.

A personal touch with voters

Before the Port Huron town hall, El-Sayed worked his way down a line of people who couldn’t fit inside the theater, shaking hands, taking photos and stopping for conversations.

Jeff Petrucella and his wife, Alice, traveled from Macomb County to see El-Sayed. They described themselves as politically “middle of the road” and said they had voted Republican in the past.

“I’m pretty done with the Republicans right now,” Jeff said.

Alice said she was “looking for a change that is better for my granddaughters,” pointing to El-Sayed’s support for Medicare for All. Nor was she put off by his more confrontational appearances on Fox News.

“I think he expresses himself well. You can tell he’s a well-spoken, educated man,” she said.

Pat Kreiner was among those who waited nearly an hour to see El-Sayed. Her children had persuaded her to support him in the Democratic primary.

“My son said to me, ‘I have been living with this trickle-down economy since the day I was born,’” Kreiner said. “‘It doesn’t work for me.’”

Kreiner also expressed anger about Trump’s trade war with Canada, just across the river from Port Huron.

“We are heartsick about our neighbors,” she said. “They used to come over a lot. We don’t see them now.”

Visiting smaller towns such as Port Huron has become central to El-Sayed’s campaign, with his team recently saying he’s held more than 500 events in over 100 cities across the state.

“Go everywhere. Talk to everyone. That’s what we do,” El-Sayed said in an interview.

The personal approach has not erased all the skepticism surrounding El-Sayed, including within his party.

His criticism of Israel and association with Piker have raised concerns among some Jewish Democrats. El-Sayed has held a series of private gatherings with undecided Jewish voters as he works to win their support.

He has also sought to strengthen his standing with Black voters. In the Democratic primary, Stevens drew more support in Wayne County, home to Detroit and its large Black population.

Ahead of Thursday’s debate, El-Sayed attended two events with Black leaders before stopping at a Black barbershop, where he moved from chair to chair talking with customers. He stopped at one point to speak with a pregnant woman, congratulating her and asking when her baby was due.

“November 8th? Make sure you vote early, huh?” the candidate joked.

A race about more than just Michigan

While El-Sayed has spent much of his campaign trying to win over Michigan voters, his candidacy has taken on significance far beyond the state. Republicans have made him a symbol of what they say is an increasingly radical Democratic Party, while progressives see his campaign as a chance to prove their politics can win in a closely divided state.

At a New York City fundraiser on Oct. 5, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cast his campaign as a test for progressives nationwide.

“If Abdul can win in Michigan, anybody can win anywhere,” said the New York Democrat, a potential presidential candidate.

Ocasio-Cortez plans to campaign with El-Sayed in Michigan this week, followed by former President Obama on Oct. 24.

The national stakes have also drawn renewed opposition. United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the pro-Israel group AIPAC, disclosed an initial $94,000 expenditure against El-Sayed on Friday, after spending nearly $30 million to oppose him in the Democratic primary.

And El-Sayed, while maintaining that the election should focus on Michigan voters and their economic struggles, has also embraced the larger implications of his candidacy.

“I am grateful for your support,” he told the audience at the New York fundraiser, according to remarks obtained by the Associated Press. He said he had two goals: “pick up a U.S. Senate seat” and “change the nature of our politics for the better.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Bipartisan group of senators calls for Trump to reverse its Russian diesel plan

A bipartisan group of six senators — four of them Republicans — called Sunday for the Trump administration to “immediately reverse course” on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices.

President Trump shocked lawmakers when he announced on social media Friday that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. He said Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the American and global market, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Four Republican senators and two Democratic senators signed onto the statement released Sunday protesting the deal. They said the administration failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course,” they wrote.

The Republican senators who signed onto the statement are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Curtis of Utah. The Democratic senators are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan.

“We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied,” Tillis said.

Trump’s announcement came just a few weeks after Congress passed legislation that directed Trump to impose substantial tariffs on the top importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

The congressional effort was aimed at cutting the flow of money Russia receives from oil and gas sales to finance its war against Ukraine.

The lawmakers also noted that Congress explicitly banned Russia energy imports in 2022 — after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to prevent the United States from financing the war.

“Congress was clear: the U.S. should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against our NATO Allies,” the six lawmakers wrote in their statement. “President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked whether the president’s action would be in violation of U.S. law, said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy.

“The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions,” Barrasso said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He also encouraged Trump to enforce the sanctions law that Congress passed last month.

“This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world,” Barrasso said.

Trump has recently sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has elevated world energy prices.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

A reporter on why the L.A. City Hall audio leak scandal should still matter

Do you remember what you were doing when the infamous L.A. City Hall racist audio leak scandal broke four years ago?

I always will: I was naked.

You’re reading the Essential California newsletter

L.A. Times reporters guide you through the most important news, features and recommendations of the morning.

Sunday morning, Oct. 9, 2022, around 8 a.m., I was about to take a shower when I decided to check my cellphone one more time. Thank God I did: If I hadn’t, I would’ve been half an hour late on assisting in one of the most explosive stories ever to hit L.A. politics.

Via Slack, Times assistant managing editor Steve Clow asked if I could serve as a second set of ears on audio that my colleagues had unearthed involving four of the most powerful L.A. políticos at the time: City Council President Nury Martinez, Councilmembers Gil Cedillo and Kevin de León, and L.A. County Federation of Labor President Ron Herrera. I was still in my birthday suit (sorry for the visual, gentle readers, but I’m sworn to report the facts on this job) when I played the snippet Clow shared: Martinez describing the Black son of then-Councilmember Mike Bonin as “su negrito” — his darky.

I put on my shorts and told my wife I wouldn’t be helping at her restaurant that day.

Clow sent me more clips over the next hour, each crasser than the other — I remember gasping audibly at the part when the four were laughing as Martinez referred to Oaxacans as “ugly.” That morning, my colleagues Benjamin Oreskes, Dakota Smith, Julia Wick and David Zahniser published their first story on the fiasco, which turned out to be a secretly recorded conversation from a year earlier that someone had posted on Reddit just the day before.

The scandal quickly became a national sensation, with even then-President Joe Biden weighing in. L.A. wretched in collective disgust and demanded action, which definitely came: Martinez and Herrera quickly resigned, while Cedillo — who had already lost his reelection bid — would stay on until his bitter end, and De León wouldn’t leave until challenger Ysabel Jurado destroyed him in his 2024 reelection bid. The electoral repercussions of the audio leak can still be felt four years later in this election, as Nithya Raman stages a strong challenge against incumbent Karen Bass — a sentence no one would’ve believed in the fall of 2022, when Bass was on the cusp of winning her first term, and Raman was the lone democratic socialist on the council.

I would’ve figured the anniversary of something as titanic as all of the above would’ve sparked more commemorations than just my columna this week. Nope! L.A. has moved on to the point that Cedillo wasn’t booted from a group photo that included current District 9 council candidate Jose Ugarte, former Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and current Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez — because even Chicanosauruses can survive a political asteroid, I guess?

Having political leaders spew racist, homophobic nonsense now seems like the good ol’ days in an era where infernos destroy or stink up swaths of L.A., immigration agents terrorize immigrants from Westwood to the Eastside, and a spokesperson for a sitting American president denies that the commander in chief suggested Iran bomb the City of Angels, even though he said it during a campaign rally.

I shouldn’t really be surprised, I guess: L.A. infamously loves to forget its own history. But I would urge all you readers to read the great, Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage my colleagues did in the aftermath of the audio leak scandal, because it captured the city at its worst — but also its finest as residents fought back and demanded politicians do better.

Four years later, we can only hope this upcoming election shows more of the same.

The week’s biggest stories

A man looks back as a large wave crashes on the shoreline in Laguna Beach

Domenic Hix looks back as a large wave crashes on the shoreline in Laguna Beach on Friday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Tropical Storm Rachel in SoCal

California real estate

California crime

In memoriam

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

Photo of a person on a background of colorful illustrations like a book, dog, pizza, TV, shopping bag, and more

(Illustrations by Lindsey Made This; photograph by Charles Phoenix)

Today’s recipe

Apple Butter on a plate and inside a jar

(Rebecca Peloquin / For The Times)

This recipe makes apple butter that is less sweet than most; use more sugar if you like, but don’t use less or there won’t be enough to properly preserve the pureed apples.

Photo of the day

Meals Clothing co-founder Sam Salad stands amid his food-inspired, L.A.-made workwear in his Highland Park store

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Games

Mini Crossword Logo

Here’s today’s mini crossword, plus our other free, daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and jigsaw games.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

Source link

How the GOP weaponized trans issues and left Democrats searching for a strategy

At the Republican Party’s midterm convention, President Trump said he would make his crusade against transgender rights a major campaign issue ahead of the Nov. 3 election — calling the message that “men should not be playing in women’s sports” one of his party’s “great sound bites of all time.”

During a recent campaign trip, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a longtime LGBTQ+ advocate and likely Democratic contender for president in 2028, stood by his remark last year that allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports is “deeply unfair,” saying, “I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it fair from my perspective.”

For the second election cycle in a row, the rights of transgender people have taken center stage politically, despite their accounting for only about 1% of the U.S. population and many voters identifying other issues as far more important — splitting Republicans and Democrats, but also Democrats among themselves and putting the party on the defensive.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez, third from right, sits with other athletes

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez, third from right, sits with other athletes at the CIF State Track Championship finals in Clovis on May 30, 2026.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

The politics are part of a much broader, international battle playing out in education, sports and the law, from local California classrooms and high school sports to the Olympic stage and the U.S. Supreme Court. Polling for years has shown most Americans oppose discrimination against transgender people, but also that a majority — including a substantial portion of Democrats — oppose transgender athletes participating in girls’ sports and children receiving gender-affirming care such as surgery or puberty blockers.

Republicans are pushing a well-funded message that transgender rights should be dismantled across the board, in healthcare, education, sports, the military and public spaces such as restrooms. Conservative mega-donors such as Elon Musk have spent millions amplifying that message in competitive races from Alaska to Ohio to Texas.

And to some degree, those tactics have worked. While many Democrats have ardently defended transgender rights, particularly in California, others in the party have sided with Republicans or softened their support.

Senate candidate James Talarico spoke with survivors

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appears with Jeffrey Epstein abuse survivors in Dallas on Sept. 10.

(Anja Schlein / Dallas Morning News )

James Talarico, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, backpedaled from past votes by saying young transgender athletes shouldn’t be allowed to play “if it risks safety or fairness,” while others including Rob Sand, a candidate for Iowa governor, and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) have said they shouldn’t play.

Such messaging has dismayed transgender people and their families, as well as LGBTQ+ rights groups who have been trying to refine Democratic messaging on trans issues since Vice President Kamala Harris — another longtime LGBTQ+ advocate from California — responded to Trump’s anti-trans attacks in 2024 with a message some considered muddled.

Imara Jones, a transgender journalist and founder of TransLash Media, a platform built to spotlight trans people’s own experiences, said the party’s conflicting messaging “underscores the degree to which the Republicans have actually successfully weaponized trans issues.”

“You’re seeing a really sharp political calculus among Democrats,” Jones said, with those “in tight races, where they need to have Republican votes,” bending one way, and others who “want to make a statement about principle” and defending LGBTQ+ rights moving in the other.

Many Democrats in California say they believe the issue is a moral one and that Democrats only hurt themselves by ceding ground on human rights.

a woman is silhouetted holding a Pride flag

A volunteer for Toni Atkins, the former president pro tempore of the California State Senate, is silhouetted holding a Pride flag at the Harvey Milk Coachella Valley Diversity Breakfast, at the Palm Springs Convention Center in Palm Springs Thursday, May 8, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“The solution is not to be ambiguous, but to be firm that we support basic human rights and the basic humanity of trans people,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a leader on pro-LGBTQ+ legislation running to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). “Then go on to talk about the big issues facing our country, like this illegal war, like the fact that Congress has done nothing to regulate AI, like the explosive cost of energy and child care and housing.”

A national conversation

Trump has signed executive orders to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, prohibit federal funding for gender-affirming care for youth, oust transgender service members from the military and deny recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities on critical documents such as passports.

The Justice Department has sued California and other states over their trans-inclusive sports policies, and successfully threatened large hospitals into ending gender-affirming care programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services barred federal Medicaid spending on gender-affirming medication or surgeries for minors.

three men in suits during a news conference

Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks at Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington on Dec. 18, 2025.

(Stefani Reynolds / Bloomberg)

Trump campaigned on such policies, and he and other Republicans clearly see them as helpful in the midterms. In his convention speech, Trump said he’s been surprised more Democrats haven’t abandoned transgender rights given polling showing a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes in girls’ sports.

“They say it’s an 80/20 issue,” Trump said, in an apparent reference to a January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll that found 79% of respondents believed transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. More recent polls have shown a smaller majority opposed.

The debate has prompted new bans on transgender athletes in college sports and in the Olympics and divided some of the most well-known professional women athletes in the world. It has also put transgender kids in California and elsewhere under an intense microscope — and on the receiving end of harassment from protesters who show up with loudspeakers to local track meets.

Members and allies of Rainbow Families Action march in protest

Demonstrators at a Rainbow Families Action march in Emeryville, Calif., on Dec. 8, 2025.

(Jessica Christian / San Francisco Chronicle )

Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run the advocacy group Rainbow Families Action, said being targeted by Republicans is scary, but watching Democrats “find ways to be more flexible about the rights of human beings” has been profoundly disappointing.

But he said he’s also been encouraged by some more recent polling showing Americans moving back toward the middle on transgender rights, which he believes is in part due to people being deluged with anti-trans ads getting frustrated that the political conversation isn’t focused on issues they care more about, like affordability and healthcare.

Ramiro Sarmiento, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, which has tracked at least $50 million in anti-trans political ads this cycle, agreed, saying, “MAGA wants to talk about trans kids because they’re losing the conversation voters actually care about.”

Conservative groups reject that framing. Many deny tht transgender people exist, while others say they are working to protect cisgender children or defend religious beliefs. They have also scoffed at Democrats who have changed their positions in the lead-up to the election, with the conservative American Principles Project accusing Talarico of only pretending to shift away from his “gender radicalism” on sports in order to win votes.

Allison Schuster, a White House spokesperson, said the Biden administration “spent four years pushing a radical agenda” of gender-affirming care for children, while Trump “pledged to restore common sense” and has since “delivered by consistently taking strong action to protect children from these dangerous, life-altering medical practices.”

The fight in California

In California, transgender athletes competing in youth sports has been raised as an issue in the governor’s race, where Republican hopeful Steve Hilton has rallied against their inclusion, and featured prominently in the races for the next state attorney general and the next state superintendent of public schools.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez competes for Jurupa Valley High School at the 2025 CIF state track and field championships.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez competes for Jurupa Valley High School at the 2025 CIF state track and field championships.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

Several Democrats running for Congress in the state have been criticized for their records on transgender rights, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, who is seeking the redistricted congressional seat of departing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), as well as Reps. Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

Christian Martinez, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson, has accused Von Wilpert of having a “perverted agenda [that] pushes hormone treatments on kids,” and Gray of being “for they/them, not for Californians.”

a politician canvasses in a neighborhood

Marni von Wilpert, a Democratic candidate for California’s 48th Congressional District, canvasses in a neighborhood Friday, May 29, 2026, in San Marcos, Calif.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office is fighting on multiple fronts to protect gender-affirming care and successfully rebuffed a Justice Department lawsuit over the state’s transgender sports policies. But pressure is coming not only from the Trump administration.

The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school athletics, also revised its rules to ensure that transgender athletes in individual sports do not displace cisgender ones from rankings or medal podiums. And after local California teachers sued, the U.S. Supreme Court in March ruled against a controversial California student privacy law that precluded teachers from revealing a child’s interest in presenting in gender nonconforming ways in school to their parents if the child requested confidentiality, finding that the policy infringed on parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers just passed at least a dozen measures aimed at bolstering LGBTQ+ rights, including by restoring an LGBTQ+ youth suicide and crisis hotline; helping discharged LGBTQ+ service members find housing and jobs; requiring California gender-affirming healthcare providers who are subpoenaed to inform Bonta’s office if they intend to respond; improving access to HIV prevention care and enhancing LGBTQ+ data privacy.

Newsom signed all those measures into law — his office said California “will not stand” for Trump’s “all-out assault on the LGBTQ community” — but vetoed a bill that would have barred future governors from allowing the extradition of abortion or gender-affirming care providers in California to states where such care is illegal, citing concerns about reduced executive discretion.

The 2026-27 state budget appropriated $66 million for gender-affirming care, including up to $30 million for underinsured patients in the Uncompensated Care Program, $26 million to assist organizations that provide such care and $10 million to cover care for poor children who lost it under the new Medicaid rules. Wiener called the latter a “short-term solution” that will protect kids while the state figures out a more permanent billing pathway under Medi-Cal.

A.W., a Bay Area mother of a transgender teenager who requested anonymity because she fears being targeted by the Trump administration, said her child’s gender-affirming care — a lifeline for him in recent years — was disrupted by the Medicaid rule change, and the state’s temporary fix was too little, too late.

A.W. said families like hers “shouldn’t have to make medical decisions based on politicians in Washington,” particularly for care so critical to her son and other kids. “If he had not had access to gender-affirming care, I don’t know where we would be,” she said. “It scares me to think about it.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Source link

Backlash to Trump, RFK Jr. has scientists seeking office

As a California state lawmaker, Richard Pan authored some of the strongest vaccine laws in the country.

His reward — and part of the backlash, on top of death threats — was being physically assaulted outside the Capitol in Sacramento and spattered with blood thrown from the gallery.

Now, a few years removed from the state Senate and teaching health policy at UC Davis, Pan is running for Congress, in part to fight an old nemesis, the terminally misguided Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and to arrest the Trump administration’s sledgehammering of the nation’s public healthcare system.

“We need people in Congress who have the background, the training, the knowledge to basically hold this administration accountable,” Pan said last week on a baking 100-degree day in the Sacramento suburbs.

“I know what it’s like to be on the front lines,” said Pan, who spent a dozen years teaching and practicing pediatrics before being elected to the Assembly in 2010. “I’ve seen measles, right?”

In fact, his push to toughen vaccination requirements was spurred by a 2014-15 measles outbreak at Disneyland, which, at the time, was one of the largest and most significant epidemics to arise after the disease was supposedly eliminated from the U.S. in 2000.

Little did we know.

Every action has an equal and opposition reaction, a law of physics that’s equally applicable to the realm of politics.

Pan is part of a wave of doctors and scientists running for office this November — for school boards, city councils, state legislatures, the House and U.S. Senate — owing in good part to Kennedy’s quackery and the hollowing out of such vital health and research agencies as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

The political organization 3.14 Action — its name a decimal approximation of pi — has recruited and helped elect hundreds of candidates from STEM backgrounds (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and endorsed more than 500 of those running this year, including Pan in his race in Sacramento and in neighboring Placer and Yolo counties.

Dr. Richard Pan meets Dr. Teah Harris-Johnson and her daughter in Sacramento.

Dr. Richard Pan meets Dr. Teah Harris-Johnson and her daughter before participating in a roundtable discussion at Liberty Towers Church in Sacramento.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Shaughnessy Naughton, a chemist who worked on drug discovery and breast cancer research, founded 3.14 Action in 2016 after two unsuccessful tries for a congressional seat in the Philadelphia suburbs. When she started the organization, Naughton noted, there were more talk radio hosts on Capitol Hill than scientists and engineers. (Nearly two dozen doctors and nurses currently serve in Congress. More than 30 have run this election cycle.)

“There isn’t an issue that doesn’t benefit by having fact-based decision-makers, people that will go into office as problem-solvers,” Naughton said from Pennsylvania, which is in the throes of the nation’s worst measles outbreak in more than three decades. Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy has downplayed the severity, even as the incidence of other vaccine-preventable diseases is rising.

“That’s essentially what scientists and physicians are,” Naughton said. “They are problem-solvers. and clearly our country is facing a lot of problems.”

Among those she cited was “the arsonist in charge of HHS.”

Pan has a history with Kennedy, who has long reigned as one of the country’s preeminent anti-vaxxers.

In 2015, he helped summon hundreds of demonstrators to Sacramento to protest Pan’s legislation tightening vaccination requirements. (Kennedy later apologized for using the word “holocaust” to condemn the proposed law, though he revisited the Nazi analogy during the COVID-19 pandemic.)

In 2019, Kennedy returned to Sacramento to oppose another bill Pan authored, this one tightening the rules for vaccination exemptions. Again, he was joined by an army of protesters. Tensions peaked when a demonstrator threw a cup of blood from the spectators’ gallery onto the Senate floor, halting business for several hours before the bill passed.

Roundtable discussion on Black Maternal Health.

Dr. Richard Pan sits between Illinois Rep. Lauren Underwood and Sean Frame, a candidate for state Senate, at the maternal health roundtable.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Pan’s opponent in November is Rep. Kevin Kiley, a conservative Republican running as an independent.

Seeking election in a Democratic-tilting district drawn under Proposition 50, the voter-passed gerrymander, Kiley has sought to distance himself from Trump and the MAGA movement, saying he would not caucus with GOP lawmakers if he returned to Washington.

Like his jury-rigged political persona, Kiley seems to want it both ways on vaccines.

Before going to Congress, while serving in the Assembly, Kiley voted against Pan’s legislation cracking down on fraudulent vaccine exemptions. He’s described vaccines as a vital public health tool, but condemned government mandates and suggested vaccination should be a matter of parental choice. He claims Pan has eroded public trust by politicizing the issue.

As for Kennedy, Kiley told the San Francisco Chronicle a lot of things “that I don’t agree with,” though he’s never called out the secretary for his cuckoo-land theories — vaccines cause autism, the fluoride in public water supplies is making Americans “stupider,” and many more — or denounced his destructive policies.

That passivity, Pan said, amounts to complicity.

“It’s not just simply a talking point,” Pan said of public health policy. “It’s reality and we need to have policy based on what’s really happening, not on some ideological conspiracy theory.”

Dr. Richard Pan participates in a discussion during a Black maternal health roundtable at Liberty Towers Church.

Dr. Richard Pan participates in a discussion during a Black maternal health roundtable last week at Liberty Towers Church in Sacramento.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Pan’s campaign is focused on more than vaccines and RFK Jr.

Like most Democrats, he’s made affordability a key part of his candidacy, citing higher gas and grocery prices and, inevitably, the rising cost of healthcare and the roughly $1-trillion cut from Medicaid under last year’s Big Sop To Billionaires Bill.

The super-wealthy got tax cuts, Pan told a silver-haired audience at a 55-and-older community in Roseville, while the bill will make healthcare less accessible for millions and undermine both Medicare and Social Security. Kiley supported the legislation, the centerpiece of Trump’s second term. As a doctor and state lawmaker, Pan said, he worked to expand healthcare and address the needs of his community.

“We don’t pass laws to make lives harder,” Pan said. “That’s what he’s done.”

Later, at a forum on Black maternal health, Pan said Trump’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and the so-called war on woke ignores glaring disparities in the treatment of Black women versus other patients. “The data is there,” said Pan, speaking before a banner decorated with purple butterflies and the proclamation, “Black Mothers Matter.”

“The facts are there,” Pan went on. “It’s a very, very real problem and it needs to be addressed and it needs to be solved.”

He brought up, somewhat sheepishly, his campaign.

“That’s why I’m running,” Pan said, to “have another person in Congress … who’s going to tell the administration we are not going to bury DEI. We’re not going to bury disparities. These are real problems.”

As is the assault on science, the undermining of research and the promotion of nutty nostrums by those at the highest levels of the federal government.

Hopefully, the midterm election will begin the healing process.

Source link

With Senate majority up for grabs, candidates fight for ‘kingmaker’ voters

With the midterm elections just over three weeks away, the fight for control of the U.S. Senate is intensifying in battleground states, as Democrats push into red regions and Republicans pour money into key contests.

Campaigns are entering a crucial stretch for persuading the independent voters who will probably determine outcomes in swing races. Nearly all of the most competitive Senate races are in states with significant swaths of people unaffiliated with either major party — the “kingmakers” in these high-stakes midterms, said Jeremy Gruber, an independent-voting expert.

“Independent voters are going to be deciding this election in every respect,” said Gruber, senior vice president of Open Primaries, an organization that advocates for states to open primary elections to unaffiliated voters.

The urgency around courting nonaligned voters has been on display at recent debates, in ads flooding the airwaves and in the campaign money pouring into key states. For Republicans, it has become an effort to put distance between themselves and President Trump; for Democrats, it’s often a rhetorical shift toward the center and away from the far left.

In Iowa, Republican Ashley Hinson used a Wednesday night debate to emphasize her willingness to break with Trump. In Kansas, Democrat Adam Hamilton is circulating a video in which he describes himself as both liberal and conservative. In Alaska, a GOP-backed ad blitz launched last week aims to persuade voters that Democrat Mary Peltola isn’t independent-minded.

Mary Peltola, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat in Alaska, addresses supporters at an election watch party

Mary Peltola, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat in Alaska, addresses supporters at an election watch party on Aug. 18 in Anchorage.

(Mark Thiessen / Associated Press)

Though many unaffiliated voters have made up their minds, those who remain undecided will begin making decisions soon, as mail ballots go out and early voting begins in some states.

“For Republicans who are running behind and are looking at a potentially devastating midterm election performance, what they really need to do is target the independents who lean Republican,” said Karen Kedrowski, an Iowa State University political scientist. “For Democrats in some place like Iowa … what they need to do is make it seem safe [to independents] to vote for a Democratic candidate.”

Unaffiliated constituents have long been key to victory in swing states, particularly where races are traditionally decided by small margins. They have been viewed as particularly persuadable this year, as public dissatisfaction with Trump’s economic policies puts the votes of swing voters who backed him in 2024 up for grabs.

Forecasters predict that Democrats are on track for the House majority and could hold a majority of gubernatorial seats for the first time since 2010. Though Senate control remains a toss-up, Democrats’ chances are viewed by forecasters to have significantly improved since the summer.

A set of New York Times/Siena polls reported last week showed Democratic candidates for the Senate ahead in Texas, Michigan, Alaska and Ohio and neck-and-neck in Kansas and Iowa — all states Trump carried in 2024. Republicans, meanwhile, are feeling increasingly bullish about their chances in Maine, New Hampshire and Minnesota, all states that went blue in the last presidential election.

Republicans hold a significant fundraising advantage, however, and party donors are pouring money into key races, hoping the spending can cut into the Democrats’ edge. By September’s end, GOP advertisers had more than doubled their spending compared with August, outstripping Democrats, according to tracker AdImpact. Among the nine Senate races considered the tightest by forecasters, Republicans have outspent Democrats in all, AdImpact reported.

But on Friday, the Cook Political Report, a leading election forecaster, moved 18 House races in Democrats’ direction, saying that heavy ad spending by Republicans has not begun to move the needle in their favor.

Democrats view themselves as in their “strongest position yet” to win the majority, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement last week.

“In this final stretch of the election, Democrats will continue to vigorously campaign and fight for every vote across the expanded map,” Gillibrand said.

Republicans are confident about their ability to persuade voters in key states, said Bernadette Breslin, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“Republicans will defend the Senate majority across key battlegrounds that have trended reliably red,” Breslin said, “with candidates like Mike Rogers [in Michigan] and Roger Marshall [in Kansas] winning over independents by exposing their Democratic opponents’ radical, unaffordable agendas.”

Along with the decisions of independent and swing voters, the midterm outcomes could also hinge on the level of turnout within each party, analysts say. If a portion of the party faithful stay home in a given place — for instance, disillusioned conservatives in Kansas or frustrated Black Democrats in Michigan — that could swing individual races, analysts said.

The number of independent voters reached a record high this year, with 45% of American adults identifying as political independents in Gallup polling. Equal shares identified as Republicans and Democrats, 27% for each party. The trend is partly driven by majorities of millennial and Gen Z voters choosing to be unaffiliated with either party, according to Gallup research.

Such voters make up a majority in Alaska and between 30% and 40% of all registered voters in Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Ohio. They account for about 29% in Kansas and about 16% in Texas and Michigan, according to state data compiled by the Independent Voter Project.

Across recent polls, independent voters have favored Democrats and expressed dissatisfaction with Trump. In a late September poll from Emerson College Polling, 66% of independents said Trump has done worse than expected during his second term in office.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico listens at a food drive in Dallas

State Rep. James Talarico, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, listens at a food drive at the Frederick Douglass Human Services and Justice Center on Sept. 9 in Dallas.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In Texas, Democrat James Talarico led Republican Ken Paxton among independents by 32 points in a September poll by Texas Public Opinion Research. The Democratic candidate in Ohio, Sherrod Brown, led Republican Sen. Jon Husted by 27 points among independents in a CNN poll released Thursday.

In Kansas, where the Senate race has become unexpectedly close amid economic-driven anger with Trump, disapproval of the president’s performance among independents appears to be rubbing off on incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall, the Republican seeking reelection.

Fifty-two percent felt unfavorably toward Marshall and 62% disapproved of Trump’s performance, according to a recent Emerson College/Nexstar poll.

In those battleground red states, that creates a tough fight for both parties, analysts said. With control of the Senate hanging in the balance, candidates are duking it out in fundraising and on the campaign trail to win every last vote.

“Both campaigns are raking in ridiculous amounts of money … and they’re spending every penny because [they] have to,” said Wichita State University political science professor Alexandra Middlewood, referring to the Kansas Senate race. “We see that they’re really going to have to fight it out all the way to the end.”

Debates are another tool for candidates to reach independent voters, said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University.

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, left, and Republican Mike Rogers meet in a Michigan Senate debate Thursday night in Grand Rapids.

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, left, and Republican Mike Rogers meet in a Michigan Senate debate Thursday night in Grand Rapids.

(Paul Sancya / Pool Photo)

In Michigan, where the Senate candidates sparred in their first debate Thursday evening, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate nominee, has distanced himself from Trump twice in recent weeks, first calling for an end to the war in Iran and then releasing an ad last week denouncing the tariffs against Canada. Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, meanwhile, announced a rally with former President Obama, an appeal to mainstream voters.

“They’ve got to try to both win over people who have been paying attention, but also introduce themselves to the ones who haven’t been paying attention,” Smidt said.

Winning unaffiliated voters can require a tightrope walk for candidates who are faced with the dual tasks of appealing to their party base while persuading independent constituents.

In the final stretch of the campaign, candidates seeking independent votes should telegraph a willingness to admit their party’s flaws and an understanding that voters are turned off by partisan rhetoric, said Chad Peace, legal strategist at the Independent Voter Project, which advocates for open primaries.

“They have to communicate to those folks and try to meet them where they’re at,” Peace said. “[Independents] want the campaigns of persuasion, they don’t want to hear you tell me how bad the other candidate is.”

And, Gruber said, they want to be engaged with, not ignored.

“Independent voters,” he said, “are going to be responding to those candidates and parties that actually talk to them.”

Source link

From Depression to Enormous Wealth : War Turned Impoverished U.S. Into a Superpower

In September of 1939, just a week after World War II had erupted in Europe, The American Home advertised why a housewives magazine like itself mattered in a time of distant trouble. “Hitler threatens Europe,” the ad proclaimed, “but Betty Havens’ husband’s boss is coming to dinner–and that’s what really counts.”

The ad fixed an awful truth: World War II, the most fearsome and bloody cataclysm of world history, caught America napping and unawares. An enervated giant, the United States in 1939 was weak, poor, isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world. Eighteen other countries–even Turkey–had more soldiers than the United States. The American Army outnumbered the Bulgarian army, but only by 23,000.

Americans were so oblivious of events abroad that James McClure Clarke and his roommate left for a bicycle trip through Europe in the summer of 1939 just after their graduation from Princeton University.

“That was the sort of thing a lot of young men did,” Clarke, now a 72-year-old Democratic congressman from North Carolina, recalled in his Capitol Hill office recently.

Unaware that war was imminent, they cycled into Germany.

“On every train, at every station,” he said, “there were German soldiers. And if you greeted anybody, they would ‘Heil Hitler.’ And even when we climbed in the mountains, you would see young people, Boy Scout age, groups of them, and they would raise their hands, ‘Heil Hitler.’ When we were in the Black Forest, I remember seeing a big sign put up there by Hitler saying the Jew is our enemy and then talking about the Jew in North America, listing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau and so forth.”

That sign, of course, told a lie. Aside from its virulent anti-Semitism, it was wrong about Roosevelt, although correct about Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau’s Jewishness. But for Clarke, it hit home: Morgenthau’s son was a Princeton classmate.

War was declared before Clarke and his friend could return to the United States. They boarded the British liner Antonio during the first week of the war. The Antonio’s sister ship, the Athenia, leaving only a few days earlier, had been stalked by a German U-boat and torpedoed. More than a hundred people died when the ship sank in the Atlantic.

Did these experiences make Clarke and others like him more vitally concerned about events in Europe?

“Not much, I’m afraid,” Clarke replied. “I think it took a while for America to wake up. It took Pearl Harbor.”

Yet, once America woke up, it somehow transformed itself swiftly into an enormous, engulfing and astounding dynamo that would shake and cow the world. By the end of World War II, a nation once bereft of military strength had turned itself into the most awesome military power ever seen; a nation once contemptuous of entangling alliances had turned itself, however reluctantly, into a natural leader of grand alliances, and a nation still impoverished and reeling from the Great Depression had turned itself into an Olympus of wealth.

Moreover, mobilization for war altered society in quiet but profound ways that would not make themselves obvious for two decades or more. Rural blacks migrating to the cities or fighting in American armies would never go back easily to sharecropping and oppression.

“Rosie the Riveter,” the popular song heroine working in a war factory while her boyfriend fought in the Marines, would return to the kitchen after the war, but her legacy would lead to the women’s liberation movement.

400,000 Lost Lives

Compared to the carnage suffered elsewhere, U.S. casualties in World War II were, relatively speaking, light. More than 400,000 military personnel lost their lives–about 292,000 in combat–a tragic and bitter waste, but no more than a small statistic when measured against the 50 million Europeans and Asians slaughtered. There were more American civilian deaths from pneumonia and tuberculosis during the war than deaths on the battlefield. The wartime population of the United States, in fact, increased by a healthy 6%. The enemy inflicted negligible damage on the American mainland in a handful of incidents, and the United States was the only belligerent to end the war richer than before.

Americans owed the relative comfort and low cost of their victory to geographic distance, natural resources and a good deal of luck. But many preferred to believe that God-given American pluck and ingenuity had counted far more. While many Europeans agitated for radical changes in the political systems that had driven them to Fascism and war, Americans felt more pride in their own system than ever before. An era of great self-confidence came after the war.

“American experience,” wrote Henry R. Luce in a Life magazine editorial, “is the key to the future.”

Looking back, the year 1939 now seems like a last, lost age of innocence in America, undarkened by the clouds in Europe. The Hit Parade was led by a song that asked:

Jeepers Creepers, where’d you get those peepers?

Jeepers Creepers, where’d you get those eyes?

A 23-year-old vocalist named Frank Sinatra joined the Harry James band. Only 3% of Americans earned enough money to pay income tax. Almost 50 million people glimpsed the wondrous sleek highways and blight-free cities of the future in the General Motors Futurama pavilion at the New York World’s Fair. New Pontiacs sold for $862 and Florsheim shoes for $8.75.

Shirley Temple and Clark Gable were the biggest box office stars of the year. Hoping to do something about what it called “our national shame,” Standard Plumbing Fixtures reported in its advertisements that 15 out of 100 homes in 213 American cities still had no indoor toilets. Lou Gehrig retired from the Yankees, and Ted Williams joined the Red Sox.

The New York Telephone Co. explained that it did not hire Jewish women as operators because their arms were too short to operate phone equipment. Two new products–DDT and nylon stockings–were introduced. “Gone With The Wind” premiered in a banner movie year that included “Stagecoach,” “Wuthering Heights,” “Four Feathers,” “The Wizard of Oz” and “Ninotchka.” Pepsi-Cola challenged Coca-Cola with a catchy jingle:

Pepsi – Cola hits the spot, 12 full ounces that’s a lot ;

Twice as much for a nickel too, Pepsi – Cola is the drink for you.

The war probably left the United States with no more dramatic legacy than its transformation from unabashed isolationism to eventual guardian of the Free World. The day war erupted in Europe, Washington correspondent Phelps Adams asked President Roosevelt in his crowded White House office, “Mr. President, can we stay out of it?”

The President, who had been awakened at 2:50 a.m. with the news of the war, sat silently, his eyes cast downward, for several long moments, and then replied solemnly, “I not only sincerely hope so, but I believe we can, and every effort will be made to do so.”

Later, Roosevelt, sounding more firmly convinced that America could avoid war, warned on radio, “Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America sending its armies to European fields.”

As far as many Americans were concerned, Europe had botched the peace cemented for them by American intervention in World War I. They were in no mood to get involved again. Sen. Hiram Johnson of California admonished Americans against heeding the echoes of the First World War. “Beware the words ‘We cannot keep out,’ ‘Our entry into the war is inevitable,’ ‘We must fight to preserve democracy’ and all the Devil’s messages we heard 20 years ago,” he said.

Sen. Arthur Vandenburg boasted: “My passion is to keep America out of other people’s wars.”

Feted in Germany

Charles A. Lindbergh, who had touched the romantic fancy of both Europe and America with his solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927 and had been feted in Nazi Germany, told Americans at many isolationist rallies that a Nazi victory in Europe would not hurt the American way of life.

The isolationist mood was so strong that Roosevelt, accused by Republican candidate Wendell L. Wilkie of dragging America into war, pledged in a 1940 presidential election rally: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Many skeptics believed that he never intended to keep that pledge. But the attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, demolished the issue. With their infamous bombing of American territory and ships and citizens, the Japanese had turned World War II into an American war, not another people’s war, not a foreign war.

At the end of the war, no one could deny the United States the status of a superpower, bristling with more military and economic strength than any other country. It had led its allies to victory over Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militaristic Japan, and it now had the power and influence to lead much of the world in peace as well. It was reluctant to do so at first, but it finally faced the reality wrought by World War II: a world divided into two hostile camps led by superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, once allied against the Axis.

“In 1945,” recalled Don Cook, the 69-year-old retired foreign correspondent who wrote “Forging the Alliance,” a recent history of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “you could never have gotten a two-thirds majority in the Senate for entering an alliance with Europe. The rump element of isolationism in the United States was still extremely strong and still had electoral appeal.

“I knew most of the isolationist senators because I had covered the Senate in the prewar period. The extent of their conversion from isolationism was a reluctant readiness to get into the United Nations. They weren’t going to repeat the mistake after World War I of not joining the League of Nations. But the United States had no intention of using military force in its role in the world. The senators had not reached the point of committing our power.”

Yet, in five years, the United States learned to commit its power and entangle itself in Europe and elsewhere. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the NATO treaty and the Korean War followed swiftly. By 1950, isolationism was dead.

“This may have been the first real major sweeping change in foreign policy since the founding of America,” said Cook.

World War II also swept the United States into the terrors of the Nuclear Age, for much of America’s immense new power came from its monopoly of nuclear bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and brought the war to a close.

Refugee Scientists

That short-lived monopoly–the Soviet Union developed its own atomic bomb four years later–came out of the prescience of refugee scientists living in the United States in 1939. Unlike other Americans, they could not ignore the awful horror of Adolf Hitler, for they had fled from him. These scientists knew that scientific research had made an atomic weapon feasible and that, though Hitler had driven many scientists away in his obsession for ethnic purity, enough scientists remained in Germany to create a bomb that might ensure his infernal domination of this planet.

Three Hungarian refugee scientists–Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller–met with German-born Albert Einstein, probably the world’s best-known physicist, in Princeton in 1939 and urged him to write Roosevelt about the need for an American program to build an atomic bomb.

In a now famous letter, dated one month before the outbreak of the war in Europe, Einstein told Roosevelt that recent scientific research indicated “that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.”

“This new phenomenon,” Einstein went on, “would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable–though much less certain–that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed.”

It is unclear exactly what role Einstein’s letter played in the President’s decision, but Roosevelt finally ordered an all-out program known as the Manhattan Project in 1942 to develop an atomic bomb. American scientists, many of them refugees from Hitler, won the race with the German scientists but not in time to use the terrible weapon against Nazi Germany. The first and, thus far, only nuclear devastation in history, came in the American bombing of the two Japanese cities in August, 1945. The precarious reality of the Nuclear Age has governed American foreign policy ever since.

Most Americans now are too young to remember how poor their parents and grandparents were half a century ago. It was no accident that John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath,” a long novel about impoverished Oklahoma farmers trekking to California, selling for $2.75 a copy, led the best-seller list in 1939. The Great Depression of the 1930s had weakened the United States far more than any country in Europe.

Despite all Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, 10 million people were unemployed in 1939, more than 15% of the work force. The American share of world manufacturing was lower than it had been at any time since 1910. At least one-third of Americans lived in or near poverty.

But the United States had enormous productive potential. In 1938, for example, two-thirds of its steel plants were idle. In 1939, it was spending less than 2% of its gross national product on defense. If Americans had the will to harness the potential, they could create a colossus of fearful military might and of enormous wealth. Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans showed that will.

At the end of the war, the American economy overshadowed the economies of the rest of the world in a show of relative wealth never seen before. Americans had a higher standard of living than any other people in the world and produced more goods per capita than anyone else. Half of the world’s manufacturing now took place within the United States. Practically any American who wanted a job had one.

Some Americans feared that unemployment and depression would return after the demobilization of the armed forces. But, though the economy would experience ups and downs and though thick pockets of poverty would persist, especially for blacks, most Americans have lived for the last 50 years in an era of bounding prosperity.

World War II changed the United States in other, less obvious ways as well. In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution, citing the local customs of Washington, refused to allow the reknowned black opera singer Marian Anderson to sing in the DAR’s Constitution Hall in Washington. The blatant refusal struck many Americans as scandalous, and the federal government let Anderson sing instead, with Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt and other prominent white Americans in attendance, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Yet the shame of the DAR refusal did not change most American attitudes toward blacks. Benny Carter, the 82-year-old black jazz saxophonist and composer, recalls what it was like taking his big band around the United States during World War II.

‘No Black Hotels’

“We weren’t interested in getting into any serious incidents, but it was the same old thing,” Carter said recently. “My bands were mostly black. There might be two out of 17 who were not minority musicians. We had problems about where to stay in the South. We stayed mainly in the homes of people–what they would consider bed and breakfast places now. There were no black hotels, and we weren’t welcome in the others.”

As industries girded for war, they tried to hire as few blacks as possible. In 1941, for example, Douglas Aircraft had only 10 blacks among its 33,000 employees. Under the threat of black demonstrations, Roosevelt created a Fair Employment Practices Committee in 1941 to ensure some kind of fairness in hiring.

The committee had little power, but its creation was looked on later as a significant first step toward civil rights. As the war progressed, blacks were drafted into the army or lured to jobs in the North. That began the enormous migration of blacks out of rural America into the cities of both the South and the North, making the problems of this repressed minority national rather than regional. Rioting soon erupted in Detroit. By 1945, the status of American blacks had not improved very much, but the war had laid the seeds for the civil rights movement that followed.

For women, the war offered, but only briefly, an immense opportunity. The Great Depression had made it even more difficult for women to work. With millions of men unemployed, a working woman was looked on by many as a usurper–snatching a job out of the hands of some family’s breadwinner. Public opinion polls showed that most Americans in 1939 would support laws to prohibit the employment of women whose husbands earned more than $1,600 a year.

The war changed all that.

Factories needed women to replace the millions of men drafted into the armed services. The number of women in the labor force increased during the war to 19 million from 14 million. Nearly half of all American women worked at some time from 1941 to 1945. Many took jobs once typed as masculine: riveting, welding and operating cranes.

There was a good deal of male anxiety about this. Columnist Max Lerner complained that the war may have created “a new Amazon” who could “outdrink, out-swear and out-swagger the men.” Social workers and journalists began to blame an increase in juvenile delinquency on absent, working mothers.

When the war ended, millions of women left or lost their jobs to make room for the returning men. In Los Angeles, for example, the proportion of women working in the aircraft industry dropped from a high of 40% during the war to 18% in 1946. The sexual division of labor reasserted itself, and many women were forced back into lower paying “women’s work.”

Yet, as Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes predicted in a magazine article in 1943, the role of women would never be the same.

“I think this is as good a time as any . . . to warn men,” he wrote, “that when the war is over, the going will be a lot tougher, because they will have to compete with women whose eyes have been opened to their greatest economic potentialities.”

After the war, the numbers of working women never dropped to the levels of the Depression and, in a decade, started to increase to levels well beyond what had been reached during the war. There is little doubt that the ground for the women’s liberation movement was set during World War II.

When the war ended, a nation that had produced 71,000 naval craft, 300,000 aircraft and 2.5 million military trucks now hungered for more ordinary goods. Radio still dominated popular culture, but television, delayed by the war, would come swiftly. New products such as dishwashers, garbage disposal units and aerosol sprays reached the market. Teen-agers, whose families could hardly afford to buy them toys five years earlier, now had loose change in their pockets and wanted records. By 1945, the sales of records had increased tenfold in a decade.

No one expected the United States to return to 1939. No one wanted to.

“For those of us like myself who came out of high school in the Depression,” said Cook, “the war offered us a sense of adventure and change. . . . I think practically anybody of my generation would say that the war was decisive in framing one’s life and one’s future. And, in varying degrees, a considerable majority would say these were the best years of our lives. They gave us momentum. . . . It was tragic for a number of people . . . but there was an exhilaration to those times.”

“One of the best things you realized (serving in the wartime military) was the great diversity of the country. Gosh, here you are thrown in with guys from Georgia Tech, Louisiana State, Iowa–it just made you realize what a big country it was and how a relatively small percentage of the world the Ivy League was. . . . And it was also good for making some of us more confident in being able to stand on your own.” North Carolinians returning from the war “realized there was a world beyond the mountains. They went all over the place. They went to the Pacific, they went to Europe, they were prisoners of war. It was an eye opener to them.”

— Rep. James McClure Clarke (D-N.C.), 72, a Princeton graduate who served as a naval officer on Guadalcanal during the war.

“Our soldiers were not fighting to make the world safe for democracy like in World War I. This was much more of a crusade of our own. . . . The war took over everyone’s life whether you were drafted or not. It had this sense of adventure. I don’t like the word ‘purity,’ but the war had an uplift about it, because we were fighting Nazis and fighting for ideals. It had an idealism about it.”

— Don Cook, 69, author and journalist, who covered World War II in Europe and spent 43 years as a foreign correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune and Los Angeles Times.

U.S. ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

Army Navy Marines Total 1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473 1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365 1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101 1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 3,858,791 1943 6,994,472 1,741,750 308,523 9,044,745 1944 7,994,750 2,981,365 475,604 11,451,719 1945 8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 12,123,455

Source: World War II Almanac

Source link

California Proposition 2 election voter guide: ‘Rainy day’ fund and taxpayer rebates

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text”>

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.

Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.

The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.

California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.

For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.

Source link

DOJ investigating TV networks’ pool coverage in antitrust case

Alanna Durkin Richer and Amy Taxin

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether the decision of the White House television press pool to halt coverage of President Trump last month violated antitrust law, an agency spokesperson said Saturday.

Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the department, said group boycotts among business competitors might violate U.S. law. “The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws,” she said.

The announcement came after the television pool of five broadcasters last month ceased presidential coverage after the administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House because of coverage Trump disliked.

Messages were sent late Saturday to the five outlets seeking comment: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC.

The White House press pool, which is a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, has become a proxy for the wider fight over whether the president, or anyone, can control the content of news reports — a type of free speech, a pillar of American democracy.

Last month’s developments marked an extraordinary escalation in Trump’s efforts to restrict news reporters and outlets that he finds insufficiently supportive.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued over the days-long ban. It was lifted after a judge handed the three news organizations a reprieve, which is in place until Tuesday.

Television pool coverage of the White House has also resumed.

Jose Zamora, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ regional director of the Americas, on Saturday criticized the administration’s decision to investigate.

“The government should not use antitrust investigations to intimidate news outlets defending press access,” Zamora said on X. “The public’s right to know depends on that access.”

Durkin Richer and Taxin write for the Associated Press. Taxin reported from Santa Ana.

Source link

Public executions are the work of tyrants. Now, the U.S. is joining in

Iran. Afghanistan. North Korea. Somalia. And now, the United States.

If Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is to be believed, America will soon gain the dubious distinction of joining the only four countries on the globe that carry out executions in public.

Hegseth said Thursday that he wanted the execution of convicted F.t Hood shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to be available for public viewing.

“It was a radical Islamist attack … so he’s going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be,” Hegseth said in an interview with far-right political activist Jack Posobiec. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it. That it’s public. Because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

The execution is scheduled to be live streamed Dec. 3 from the same military base where Hasan opened fire in 2009, killing 13 and wounding 32.

The planned public display is, in a word, barbaric. It’s the archaic act of tyrannical monarchies, staged in the shadow of a looming tower or in the town square. The Taliban and ISIS were big on public executions. So was Nazi Germany. They were either fighting a war on their own soil or had just come out of one. It’s a poor excuse, but the U.S. military can’t even point to that as justification for the animalistic intention of broadcasting a state-sanctioned murder.

Should plans for the livestream of Hasan’s killing become a reality, our peers will be countries that the U.S. has long held up as the worst of the worst. Oppressive “shithole” countries, to use a Trump term, that wield intimidation and the threat of death to keep their people in line.

Iran carries out its hangings in public squares, typically using truck-mounted cranes as makeshift gallows. The Taliban exacts its death penalty in sports arenas. Amnesty International reports that North Korea forced local residents, students and workers to watch the 2008 execution of 13 women and two men as a deterrent. Their crime? Attempting to flee to China.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and a Muslim, opened fire on dozens of his fellow soldiers as they were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. He was reportedly angry about the U.S. involvement in the region and in Iraq. In court, prosecutors argued that he was radicalized online and motivated by an ideology that called for “jihad duty.”

His crimes were horrific, and he should be punished. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not (I do not), turning his execution into a morbid form of entertainment — or a warning to never do what he did — would mark a new low for this country.

And we are pretty low as it is. On Thursday, ICE agents in civilian clothing fired at least seven rounds, at 4 p.m. on a busy Manhattan street, into a car with a 5-year-old boy inside. They hit the driver, who survived, and by some act of god missed the child.

Federal immigration agents have shot at least 21 people, killing seven, since President Trump returned to office less than two years ago with the promise of cracking down on crime and making the country safer via mass deportations. The public execution of Hasan, who is a U.S. citizen, is being sold as part of that tough-on-crime initiative. Hegseth himself said the public killing is meant as a deterrent.

The idea that keeping a population safe requires removing the guardrails of civilized society is absurd, though despots throughout history would have us believe otherwise.

If Hasan’s death is televised, it will be the nation’s first government-sanctioned execution carried out in public since 1939. It will be the first U.S. military execution since 1961 and the first military death by firing squad, or “musketry,” since 1945, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

The Army had planned a very different type of execution for Hasan. ABC News reported that officials were preparing to use lethal injection if Trump authorized the execution of one of the four prisoners on the service’s death row.

Trump’s approval of Hasan’s execution last Friday came days after a botched lethal-injection execution in Tennessee. Christa Pike, who was sentenced to death for a 1995 murder she committed as a teenager, survived despite being injected with two supposedly lethal doses. She is now said to be lucid and even walking.

Hasan, who is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair after being shot by officers who were responding to the Ft. Hood attack, will be put to death in a more dramatic fashion — and for everyone to see.

“The public execution even of one who has done grave harm will only further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people,” Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley said in a statement Friday. “The word of God exhorts us: ‘do not repay anyone evil for evil’ (Romans 12:17).”

A few congressional Republicans even broke ranks with their party and criticized Hegseth’s plans for the livestream. Sen. John Curtis of Utah posted on X that “a civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment. Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite.”

There is no reason the U.S. should stoop to the barbarism of public executions. It’s ghoulish, inhumane and a marker of tyrannical rule. Do we really want to join Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia in the global hall of shame?

Source link

A final face-off in the L.A. mayoral race

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and challenger Nithya Raman will be on the same stage Tuesday night for their final debate before the Nov. 3 election, but the two mayoral candidates are expected to come in with starkly different game plans.

With recent polls showing Raman in the lead, the councilmember will likely try to avoid making any kind of flub during the in-studio debate hosted by NBC4 and Telemundo52 in Universal City.

“A successful debate for Raman is one in which not very much happens,” said Dan Schnur, a professor of politics at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

Raman floundered at the last NBC4/Telemundo debate during the mayoral primary, when Spencer Pratt was also on stage. She got better marks after a debate with Bass before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. in August.

Along with avoiding mistakes, Raman will need to paint a positive view of the city she hopes to lead, said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College.

“She needs to able to spell out a vision for the city of Los Angeles and inspire confidence that she would be able to deliver on such a vision,” she said.

For Bass, it’s a different task entirely. The mayor was the top vote-getter in the June 2 primary, but numerous several polls now show her trailing. The Berkeley IGS / L.A. Times poll, conducted Sept. 15-20, showed Raman with an 11-point lead over the incumbent.

To gain ground, Bass needs to go on the attack and convince voters that Raman isn’t fit to lead, Schnur said.

“Bass needs to explain to voters why voting for a relatively unproven candidate would be a dangerous risk to take,” he said. “I’m curious if it will go down the road of the nasty,” Sadhwani said.
The debate, being conducted in partnership with Loyola Marymount University, will run from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. and will be moderated by NBC4 news anchor Colleen Williams, NBC4 chief political reporter Conan Nolan and Telemundo 52 news anchor Alejandra Ortiz.

The Times will have live coverage.

You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter

Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.

An influencer digs in on Bass

Social media creator Ed Choi made headlines this week, posting and then removing an Instagram video showing him and Raman declaring in unison: “Only you can stop fascist liars.”

The pair used that phrase as an image of Bass appeared on the video. Raman, facing criticism for her words, said she was referring to Trump and Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, not the mayor or Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell, and had asked for the video to be taken down.

Choi defended his messaging, saying in a subsequent Instagram video that Bass is in fact a fascist, pointing to to Bass’ decision to appoint McDonnell, a former L.A. County sheriff. He also cited the Los Angeles Police Department’s treatment of anti-ICE demonstrators as evidence that the city is “descending into fascism.

Raman voted in 2024 to support Bass’ selection of McDonnell, even as her fellow Democratic Socialists of America colleagues on the council cast opposed his appointment. On the campaign trail, she has repeatedly criticized McDonnell, saying the LAPD should not have used tear gas on anti-ICE protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

Choi also claims in his video that Raman is committed to defunding the police. But Raman no longer supports that idea, saying in February that LAPD staffing should not get any smaller.

Banned word lawsuit

When the Los Angeles City Council considered banning the use of the N-word and C-word at its meetings last year, Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger was in attendance to give the politicians a piece of her mind.

“This is going to bring lawsuits,” said Segarra-Bohlinger, who often sings parody songs at council meetings and has been a member of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council.

Segarra-Bohlinger filed suit Tuesday, represented by lawyers with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The group contends that word bans — which can lead to people who use those words getting kicked out of meetings and potentially barred from future ones — violate First Amendment protections of free speech.

“The Council has weaponized the Word Ban and Meeting Ban to silence, remove, and prospectively exclude its critics,” asserts Segarra-Bohlinger’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Segarra-Bohlinger filed the suit after her repeated use of the C-word at two council meetings last year, once while singing a parody song of the Ghostbusters theme song in which she repeated the line “Council is afraid of the word c—” four times.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is standing by the ban.

“In a moment of very serious attacks on our basic rights in this country, it’s especially absurd that some individuals would waste the court’s time defending the right of racists and misogynists to hurl invectives at the public simply to hear their own profanity,” he said in a statement to The Times.

State of play

—MONEY, MONEY, MONEY: Hedge fund manager Aaron Sosnick dropped another $3 million into Estamos Con Nithya, the pro-Raman independent expenditure committee sponsored by Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. Sosnick, who has been pushing for an expansion of the city’s bike lane network, has now put $6 million into the committee.

— UNION KERFUFFLE: The LAPD’s officer union said Tuesday it will oppose Measure FD, the half-cent sales tax measure on the Nov. 3 ballot pushed by the city firefighters’ union — setting up a bitter and expensive clash between two of the city’s most powerful unions.

— LEFT UNREAD: Citing lingering concerns about the potential misuse of police license plate readers, the Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to delay an agreement that would enable the deployment of hundreds of the controversial devices until officials are satisfied that the technology will be wielded responsibly.

— LAUSD WOES: The state’s school Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team concluded that the Los Angeles Unified School District is at “high risk” of insolvency — and needs to move quickly to avoid losing control over budget decisions.

— HIT THE SKIDS: Federal authorities along with local partners like LAPD made more than a dozen arrests on Skid Row during a massive drug trafficking crackdown in the troubled Downtown neighborhood.

— LAPD’S LEGAL BILLS: The city of Los Angeles has shelled out nearly $480 million over the last five and a half years to end legal disputes involving the Police Department, including claims of excessive force, litigation over traffic accidents and cases filed by employees who allegedly faced retaliation after reporting misconduct.

— POLLING UPDATE: New polling from the pro-Nithya Raman independent expenditure group that was conducted between Oct. 2 and Oct. 7 found that Raman is leading the mayor 43% to 33% with 23% undecided. The poll’s margin of error is 3.5%.

— A separate poll sponsored by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, Local 112 and conducted between Sept. 25 and Oct. 5 found a tighter race, within the margin of error, with Raman leading 35% to 33% with 19% undecided. That poll’s margin of error was 4%.

— A third poll conducted for the Bass independent expenditure group Unidos con Bass of 602 likely Latino voters found the incumbent ahead by 12 points, 40% to 28% for Raman. The poll, conducted between Oct. 1 and Oct. 8, has a margin of error was 4%. That’s a 36-point swing from a UC Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll from September that found Raman ahead with Latinos by 24 points, 45% to 21%.

QUICK HITS

  • Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program went to Councilmember Ysabel Jurado‘s district on Santa Fe Avenue and 23rd Street and moved 35 people indoors.
  • On the docket next week: Bass and Raman will square off in a debate Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. on NBC4/KNBC and Telemundo 52/KVEA.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.



Source link

Is the Spanish Transition a Model for Venezuela?

King Juan Carlos I summons party leaders after the failed 1981 coup. From left to right: Santiago Carrillo (Communist Party), Agustín Rodríguez Sahagún (Defence Minister), Adolfo Suárez (Prime Minister), Juan Carlos I, Felipe González (PSOE) and Manuel Fraga (People’s Alliance, later PP).

(“Gosh, no! Not another hyper-comparative article about two distant political conflicts…” Apologies. We’ll try to make it a fun read).

More often than not, our intellectual circles have felt tempted to look at alien historical episodes in a never-ending search for resolute answers that shed light on our present. In 2023, when Maduro flirted with attacking US-supported Guyana, some revisited the Falklands War as a sign that a serious military incursion would be a fatal mistake that would lead to the dictatorship’s downfall. Then came the road to the 2024 presidential election; many feared (rightfully, in the end) that the country would plunge into the “Nicaragua scenario” if the dictator refused to recognize his defeat. Others momentarily wondered if enough external pressure could give way to a Guatemala-style transfer of power and a weak transition government.

The days of terror seem to be behind us, yet there’s no progressive reformer like Raúl Alfonsín steering the wheel of justice. Instead, Donald Trump gave us the Pizza Hut scenario. Here, Delcy Rodríguez has become the poster girl of the MAGA international franchise. Here, too, US geopolitical ambitions and business interests at times seem to be competing with the need for free elections and a democratic regime.

Is Rodríguez our Mikhail Gorbachev, trying to open the economy and political system just enough while attempting to save the chavista State from outright collapse? What if chavismo is already dead and she’s the Yeltsin of the Caribbean, the feeble leader who will give away the country’s riches to oligarchs in an arbitrary fashion, laying the ground for a new form of autocracy?

Or might Delcy be the chavista version of Adolfo Suárez, the not-so-brilliant and obscure but highly charismatic Francoist insider? Suárez finished the job after a remarkable run, surviving a period of meagre political support, declining approval rates and a coup d’etat that could have killed him. The comparison now sounds like an insult to the Spaniard. Like Gorbachev in today’s Russia, Suárez has become a sort of mythical statesman abroad while Spanish right- and left-wing critics dispute his legacy.

Suárez and Santiago Carrillo developed a close working relationship during the transition.

There are genuine similarities between the process currently unfolding in Caracas and the outset of Spain’s democracy, as well as room for gross contrasts. While 2026 has been insane for Venezuelans, Spain exactly fifty years ago was astonishing due to the speed at which Suárez acted in unilaterally dismantling the regime from within the regime. The dictator was finally gone, and as soon as he had the chance, the new King ordered a politician without strong ideological convictions to establish a full parliamentary democracy.

Suárez took office in June 1976. The Law for Political Reform, meant to pave the way for a new democratic legislature (with the King acting as a key enforcer), was through six months later. Spain held general elections within a year. That was just the start. What followed was a sequence full of the raw materials that tend to feed these history-making episodes: secret meetings and grand bargains between rivals and strange bedfellows, journalists acting like hinges, political violence, and leaders who soon become overwhelmed by their own decisions and actions.

How the transition worked out

When scholars praise the atmosphere of consensus that defined Spain in the 1970s, they generally speak of the close cooperation between regime reformers and opposition moderates in devising broad agreements that fastened democracy, fundamental rights and regional autonomy with the recognition of the monarchy. In doing so, these figures refused to address legal and moral responsibilities for the violence left by the Civil War and four decades of military rule (more on this later).

The spirit of the Transición is best encapsulated by the political partnership between Suárez and Santiago Carrillo, leader of the Communist Party (PCE) and the most prominent figure in a scattered opposition. Much like María Corina Machado this year, Carrillo was a key veto player in the transition’s inception. Suárez had the power; democracy just couldn’t be without the legitimacy carried by Francoism’s utmost rival. The government legalized the PCE only after it abandoned Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Republican (“anti-Spain”) symbols. As Javier Cercas recounts in the brilliant Anatomy of a Moment, the duo protected each other’s backs amid hardline pressures, in a climate of growing economic hardship and political violence where ETA and Far Right violence threatened to destabilize their project.

In Spain’s first elections since 1936, Suárez won and the renewed PSOE of a young Felipe González managed to eclipse the old-looking communists. Once the new democratic parliament was settled, Suárez and representatives from major parties signed the Moncloa Pacts, then framed as a national agreement to save the economy. Parallels with Venezuela’s Puntofijo Pact are there: the political class came together on monetary policy and wage regulation; welfare and public spending; and fundamental freedoms for citizens, workers and members of the press. An amnesty for political prisoners followed. In 1978, Spanish voters overwhelmingly voted to approve a new consensus constitution.

Suárez and Felipe González share a smoke during the Moncloa Pacts negotiations. By Gustavo Catalán Deus.

As is only natural during these processes, the position of Suárez before Francoist remnants in the State became untenable. Time exposed the true nature of his goals: he eventually crossed all the red lines of the inmovilistas, wiping out Franco’s ultra-conservative and nationalist institutions. Far Right groups, elites, the military and even newspapers plotted to jeopardize the transition and restrain its main characters. However, much of the groundwork for political action and breakthroughs was laid by domestic and outside backers who had an unequivocal pro-democracy stance.

In the Francois legislature, King Juan Carlos appointed his personal tutor and advisor, Torcuato Fernández-Miranda, as president. In the diplomatic arena, regional leaders and international actors favored Spain’s democratization and European integration. Willy Brandt, Francois Mitterrand and even Carlos Andrés Pérez encouraged PSOE’s social-democratic turn and the rise of González. Meanwhile, Carrillo had the endorsement of fellow Eurocommunists that had broken with the Soviet Union.

However, royal and international support were neither constant nor salient enough in the Spanish case. Domestic variables and the consequences of political opening made Suárez grow weaker in 1979, and his government could have fallen apart. In Venezuela, where the level of tutelage in place is more decisive than in Spain back then, the approach of the United States remains gradual and its supervision restrictive for opposition actors. The speed of reforms also seems to be contingent on the diverse interests of the Trump administration. Unlike in Spain at this stage, elections don’t appear to be around the corner, and new policies and initiatives are either limited in scope or yet to show results.

The transition’s key omissions

When comparing the Spanish transition with the Venezuelan process, significant details reveal mistakes whose lessons should serve to prevent their repetition. The transitional justice model, the control of the security forces, and the polarization that affects public opinion after decades, are some of the aspects that can be adjusted to learn from what Spain did well. However, we must keep our eyes open regarding the issues left unresolved.

Six years after Franco’s death and following many important reforms, the Spanish government did not have control of its security apparatus. As a result, a group of Guardias Civiles led by Antonio Tejero, stormed the Congress of Deputies on February 23, 1981, taking Suárez, Carrillo and the entire government hostage while tanks occupied the city of Valencia. The coup failed, but it became clear that the nascent democracy was fragile and that military, police and political elements were able to undermine it. Just like Venezuela in the early sixties.

A change in government, even one negotiated and backed by the US, does not guarantee control over the Venezuelan armed forces. During the transition process, the loyalty of the military must be built and put to the test. There is no guarantee that Venezuela will not experience an episode like Spain’s 23-F; the only way to ensure otherwise is to include representatives of the military high command at the negotiating table from the very beginning.

During the 23-F coup attempt, Suárez, Carrillo, and Deputy Prime Minister Manuel Gutiérrez Mellado were the only ones to refuse Tejero’s orders to throw themselves to the floor. In the picture, Gutiérrez Mellado confronts the rebel Civil Guards.

Then we have the famous Pact of Forgetting. As the opposition basically got everything it wanted, la Transición did not establish any special justice mechanisms. Reconciliation was built on a pacto del olvido, an implicit agreement between regime reformers and a large part of the opposition that consisted of not judging the past, not establishing truth commissions, and adhering to a logic of equivalency between the Two Spains: the Republican Left and the Nationalist Right, the losers and the winners of the Civil War.

The “pact of forgetting” is far from what we Venezuelans aspire to. The victims of Francoism were unable to access mechanisms for reparations during the first 25 years of democracy. Later, the Ley de Memoria Histórica (Historical Memory Law, LMH) and the Ley de Memoria Democrática (Democratic Memory Law, LMD) were enacted to fill that void. The reality is that justice came too late, was biased, and failed to meet international standards on truth, memory, and non-repetition.

One only needs to take a close look at the 1977 Amnesty Law. It passed almost unanimously; its original intent was a genuine desire to bring closure. However, the same law granted amnesty to those who were politically persecuted as well as to “authorities, civil servants, and law enforcement officers” for violations against the rights of Spanish citizens. To an extent, these are the same flaws that have been criticized in the Venezuelan amnesty law enacted in January 2026.

In January 1977, in the space of three days, far-right gunmen killed three students and four labor lawyers linked to the Communist Party. The events became known as Madrid’s Semana Negra and remain a symbol of the injustices that marred the transition.

Forgetting and silence created wounds in Spain that were not fully healed and vulnerable to political manipulation throughout this century. A 2008 study found that 55.7% of those surveyed stated that the victims of the dictatorship had not received the recognition they deserved. That sense of injustice has fueled the narrative promoted by the Spanish Left that the transition was a “deal” between elites rather than a pacted rupture with the regime.

Venezuela’s amnesty law bears the same risk and exacerbates it by ordering the destruction of records and criminal histories. Erasing the evidence that will one day be needed to reconstruct the patterns of repression is the opposite of reconciliation. The construction of memory is the only thing that can guarantee that in 2050, Venezuelans will not be having the same disputes that Spain continues to have about Franco. For our process to move toward transformation, we must establish special justice mechanisms that include both reparations and forgiveness. Without this, at best, the next generations will be prone to forgetting.

Coming to terms with post-chavismo

It’s important to make a clarification regarding our case. Today, chavismo is not a force that polarizes the country, capable of winning elections like Suárez did, but a political elite that faces widespread rejection. That does not mean it will disappear from the political landscape. On the contrary, the mere fact that chavismo continues to rule may hint that it will remain part of public life. Eventually, the heirs of chavismo could try to reframe the legacy of Chávez, “saving” him from the discredit brought on by Maduro-era atrocities. The Maduro-Flores faction and a few other figures will likely be erased from chavismo’s new narratives. They will be portrayed as a deviation from chavismo’s original ideas. They will try to bring in new faces, and perhaps Diosdado Cabello will hand over the PSUV to some new figure, such as Héctor Rodríguez and a crop of young, “converted democrats.”

Yet the suffering caused by the chavista project cannot be so easily erased from the memories of millions of Venezuelans who endured hunger, exile, repression and imprisonment.

The wounds that remain fresh among Venezuelans can be as deep as those borne by the older generations in Spain, who faced the destruction and trauma of armed conflict. Like Franco, Chávez and Maduro spent two decades trying to build a “new man” through the military and partisan occupation of public life. However, the nature of the crimes and mismanagement in 21st-century Venezuela is different from that in Francoist Spain, where thousands of dissidents were systematically persecuted and killed. Like in Cuba and the USSR, economic and social devastation has been so severe that it led to mass starvation and exodus. Our remaining task and the lesson learned from what was lacking in the Spanish transition, is to build a historical memory focused on ensuring that anything resembling that does not happen again, and that whoever wants to enter the political arena can do so according to the rules of democracy.

Bonus: Delcy vs. Suárez

Adolfo Suárez became prime minister in 1976, having emerged from the very structures of Francoism and State-owned media. He was certainly not a reformer, much less a democrat until Juan Carlos appointed him to lead the transition. Suárez eventually acted on his own volition, seeing the process through to the end. Delcy, as Maduro’s “Super Minister” and his last vice president, has been a far more prominent figure in the chavista State, and also more deeply involved with the repressive apparatus than Suárez was, as UN reports can attest). In the case of Delcy, US military intervention has pushed her to change certain policies, cool down repression and engage with a sector of the opposition, part of a strategy for political survival where her regime needs to balance Washington’s demands with avoiding chavismo’s downfall. That has nothing to do with a “democratic” conversion.

The comparison is still vague, but Venezuelan historians can re-assess if this process leads to its much-needed destination.

Timeline (optional read)

1973: A decrepit Franco steps down as PM, separating the headship of state and the presidency of government for the first time. He names his loyal right-hand man, Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco, as Prime Minister, with jurist Torcuato Fernández-Miranda as Deputy PM and conservative Carlos Arias Navarro at Interior. The global oil shock strikes Spain, ending fifteen years of economic boom (the Spanish Miracle) and unleashing severe inflation. In December, ETA assassinates Carrero Blanco in Madrid. Arias Navarro succeeds him with the backing of Franco’s family.

1974: Knowing that Franco’s death was imminent, the regime starts to split between moderates and hardliners while ETA consolidates as a lethal enemy of Madrid. Arias Navarro promises freedom of association, but under pressure from hardliners, the proposal ends up being a sham. The opposition favours gradual reform away from Francoism. European leaders encourage PSOE’s social-democratic turn, appointing a young Felipe González as Secretary General. Communist Party (PCE) leader Santiago Carrillo and other exiled figures call for a peaceful, democratic rupture with the regime.

1975: Franco dies in November. King Juan Carlos I is crowned head of state and reinstates Arias Navarro as PM, maintaining an impossible cabinet of both regime hardliners and moderate reformers like Manuel Fraga. ETA and left-wing terror groups step up attacks, while public strikes and protests demand amnesty and democracy. González enters Spain; Carrillo remains abroad.

1976: Arias Navarro’s sluggish reforms cause political deadlock and social unrest. Pressured by the King, he resigns in July. Juan Carlos appoints Fernández-Miranda as President of the Cortes and Torcuato’s former pupil, Adolfo Suárez, as PM. Suárez promises elections for 1977 and skilfully passes the Law for Political Reform through the Francoist parliament, dismantling the regime from within. Suárez tries to build democratic credibility by engaging with González. The more prominent Carrillo remains sidelined, leading the Communists from clandestinity, until he forces the regime to briefly arrest and release him.

1977: Carrillo and Suárez negotiate a pact in person. Suárez legalizes trade unions and, in a risky move during Holy Week, legalizes Carrillo’s PCE. The Communists abandon its Marxist-Leninist doctrine and traditional Republican symbols. In June, Spain holds its first free general election since 1936: Suárez’s UCD wins, closely followed by the renewed PSOE of González. Major parties sign the Moncloa Pacts to stabilize the economy. An Amnesty Law releases political prisoners.

1978: Parliamentary committees draft a consensus constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights, regional autonomy, and a constitutional monarchy. In December, Spanish voters overwhelmingly approve the new Constitution in a national referendum, formally ending the Francoist State and establishing Spain as a modern parliamentary democracy. The government discovers that some security officials are plotting a coup against Suárez, including Guardia Civil Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Tejero, but the main conspirators receive minor penalties.

1979: Spain holds its first elections under the new Constitution: UCD wins again but fails to secure an absolute majority. Regional autonomy statutes pass in Catalonia and the Basque Country. Economic trouble, internal UCD infighting, and rising ETA violence create growing political instability and unrest within the military.

1980: Suárez faces worsening economic crises, mounting regional tensions, and a vote of no confidence tabled by the PSOE. Suárez survives the vote, but his authority inside the UCD collapses as cabinet ministers and faction leaders publicly break ranks, making his government increasingly untenable.

1981: Exhausted by political crisis and plots, Suárez resigns in January. During the parliamentary vote to appoint Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo as his successor on February 23, Lt. Col. Antonio Tejero leads an attempted military coup (23-F). King Juan Carlos rejects the coup on national television, securing army loyalty and saving the young democracy.

1982: Calvo-Sotelo navigates Spain into NATO despite widespread public opposition. Disintegrating from internal factionalism, the ruling UCD collapses. In the October general elections, Felipe González leads the PSOE to a historic landslide victory, marking the first peaceful transfer of power to a left-wing government and consolidating Spanish democracy.

1983: The newly inaugurated PSOE government launches major economic restructuring and industrial modernization plans to prepare Spain for European integration. Simultaneously, the State initiates decentralisation by establishing the final Autonomous Communities, completing Spain’s territorial map under the 1978 Constitution.

Source link

Gov. Jerry Brown appoints Superior Court judges

Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday appointed 13 judges to Superior Court seats, including four posts in Los Angeles County. All but one of the appointees are Democrats.

Brown filled the Los Angeles County Superior Court vacancies with Julie Fox Blackshaw, deputy counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; H. Jay Ford, currently a commissioner in the county court; Gregorio Roman, a deputy public defender; and private-practice lawyer Douglas Stern of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Blackshaw was a federal court special master from 2002 to 2010, and before that served as legal counsel for a Los Angeles police review commission. She takes the seat being vacated by the retirement of Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani.

In a 1992 story in The Times, Blackshaw was credited with winning the then-largest criminal fine ever levied in a defense contracting fraud case, while working part-time as an assistant U.S. attorney and taking care of her infant daughter.

Brown also named Tracie L. Brown, Harry M. Dorfman and Rochelle C. East to judgeships in the San Francisco County Superior Court, and Erin Alexander and Lisa Rogan to judgeships in the San Bernardino County Superior Court.

He appointed Patricia Guerrero and Michael Popkins to the San Diego County Superior Court.

ALSO:

California fires contractor on tech project

Overhaul of state payroll system at risk of collapse

Half-finished $208-million DMV technology overhaul canceled

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Source link

Voters OK Limits on Mobile-Home Rents

Santa Paula voters approved Measure P, an initiative that bars rent increases when a mobile home is sold and was opposed by owners of the city’s six mobile-home parks.

In supporting Measure P’s vacancy controls, voters Tuesday rejected a well-funded campaign by opponents, who said the city would raise taxes to defend the measure in court.

Measure P’s well-organized backers from the city’s 1,500 park residents were forced to scramble late in the campaign after opponents raised more than $47,000 in their attempt to defeat the measure.

In a newspaper-like mailer sent to voters, Measure P’s critics contended that the ballot initiative would also result in shabby parks because of restrictions on the type of repairs that could be charged to park residents.

But supporters increased their efforts after the opposition’s critical mailer and telephone campaigning raised doubts among voters, said Helen Currier, who headed the ballot measure drive.

Rather than rely on the person-to-person campaign that they had planned, supporters placed ads in the local newspaper and on Spanish-language radio stations to combat the high-profile opposition, Currier said.

Others said the park owners had miscalculated by hiring a campaign manager from outside the area.

“They used Los Angeles tactics in a Midwestern-type town,” City Administrator Arnold Dowdy said.

Source link