Politics Desk

Jane Kim, a progressive former San Francisco supervisor with no insurance experience, appears to have won the race to be California’s industry commissioner, topping veteran legislator Ben Allen, who represents the Pacific Palisades community devastated by the January 2025 wildfires.

Kim, 49, declared victory Friday in the contest to replace outgoing Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, ahead of a final vote count. However, a narrow gap between the two Democratic candidates has widened since election day. She also topped June’s primary field.

“We pay into the system so that when the worst happens, we’re protected. Californians have kept our end of that bargain, but insurance companies have broken their side of the promise by denying, delaying and underpaying valid claims and dropping coverage. Voters made clear in this election that they want — and deserve — that promise restored,” she said in a statement that called the vote a “rejection of the status quo.”

Allen, 48, issued a statement noting that he had congratulated Kim earlier in the day and wished her well.

“Jane ran a strong race, and it appears that she has won,” he said. “Assuming that is the case, I desperately want her to succeed, because if she succeeds, the state succeeds, especially the families in need that we’ve been fighting for across the state.”

“I ran for this office because of what I saw after fires devastated my community and region. Families in the Palisades and Altadena who had paid their premiums for decades and did everything right and who are now struggling to get the help they need,” Allen added.

Election officials continue to tally the votes in the race, and no winner had been declared by the Associated Press as of Friday afternoon.

The downballot contest didn’t draw attention like the race for governor or Los Angeles mayor, even as Kim will take office amid a state home insurance crisis in which private carriers have raised rates and dropped hundreds of thousands of residential policyholders amid rising wildfire risks.

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Altadena, Pacific Palisades and nearby communities exacerbated the problems, with widespread complaints that some insurers were illegally delaying, underpaying or denying claims — including from smoke-damaged homes . The situation prompted investigations by the department and Los Angeles County.

The commissioner oversees an office with 1,400 employees that regulates more than 1,700 home, auto, workers’ compensation and other insurers, as well as more than 510,000 agents, brokers, adjusters, bail agents and other business entities.

Kim, the daughter of Korean immigrants who attended Stanford and has a UC Berkeley law degree, entered the race with little statewide recognition but serious progressive bona fides.

During her time on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from 2011 to 2019, she led campaigns to sharply raise the minimum wage and make the local community college tuition free. She also served as California political director for the 2020 presidential run of Bernie Sanders, the progressive independent senator from Vermont who stumped for her commissioner’s bid.

She was endorsed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO that represents more than 1,300 state labor unions, while Allen got the Democratic Party nod.

Kim built her campaign around a novel proposal to establish a state-run insurance pool largely funded by homeowners that would cover wildfire claims and invest in programs to reduce fire risks for homeowners and communities. Insurers would continue to cover other claims.

The plan responds to the growing number of homeowners who can’t find insurance and are forced into the California FAIR Plan, the state’s privately operated insurer of last resort, which typically offers more expensive and less broad coverage than the open market. Though the plan’s growth has slowed, as of Sept. 30 it insured 677,000 residential policyholders, up from 271,000 four years earlier.

Kim was criticized during the campaign by Allen and others for failing to provide details on how her so-called “single payer” system would work. In late October, she released a policy brief with more details, including how coverage would be capped at a replacement cost to fully rebuild the typical California home, with more expensive homes needing additional private wildfire insurance.

The novel plan would require buy-in from Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, the Legislature and the industry.

Allen, who called the plan unworkable and too expensive, campaigned on a platform that called attention to his three Senate terms in the Legislature, where he authored bills that cracked down on insurers and offered consumers more protection. They included higher up-front payouts in fire losses without requiring itemization by policyholders during states of emergency, and requiring insurers to fix any deficiencies uncovered by department examinations.

Kim was outspent by Allen, who raised $3.7 million compared to Kim’s $1.5 million. He also was the recipient of $2.3 million of spending by independent political action committees on his behalf.

Although Allen said he would not take insurance industry money for the race, Kim sought to tie him to the industry through past donations to his prior campaigns for office.

In her victory speech, she said insurers “lined up” behind Allen, a characterization he rejected.

The attempt to tie Allen to the industry followed controversies surrounding Lara, who The Times reported last year took at least 32 international trips but consistently failed to disclose who paid for luxury hotels, airfare and fine dining, while soliciting charity donations from those with business before the agency.

Lara has denied any wrongdoing and has pointed to his Sustainable Insurance Strategy as the reason for the slowing of the FAIR Plan’s growth. The strategy provided insurers with concessions such as the right to charge policyholders for the reinsurance carriers must buy to protect themselves from catastrophes, such as the January 2025 wildfires.

Kim’s victory brought congratulations across the business and political spectrum.

Denni Ritter, vice president of state government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a leading trade association for home, auto and business insurers, said the group was “looking forward” to working with Kim, Becerra and lawmakers to resolve the state’s insurance issues.

“While recent reforms are beginning to stabilize the market, the insurance crisis is far from over, and a full recovery will take time. Protecting this progress is critical. Costly new mandates or regulatory actions that drive up costs or limit coverage options risk reversing this progress and worsening the crisis,” Ritter said in a statement.

The California Working Families Party, a grassroots progressive political organization that Kim served as founding director, said the “cozy relationship between the California Insurance Commissioner and the insurance industry is over. Jane’s bold proposals and plans for real accountability for insurers overcame a tsunami of special interest spending against her.”

President Trump and his Department of Justice are taking a combative stance toward Democrats after their election victories in the midterms, signaling intense conflict to come as lawmakers prepare aggressive investigations into the executive branch next year over alleged corruption and other issues.

Trump declared on social media that investigative requests already made by Democrats are “extortion at the highest level, and they should be held accountable.” Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche echoed the Republican president and said criminal investigations of Democrats are possible.

“They are not allowed to just go around threatening existing members of the administration, to go around threatening companies, and that’s what President Trump is extremely worried about and he should be,” Blanche said as he and congressional Democrats appeared on the Sunday news shows to discuss the repercussions from last week’s elections.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is poised to chair the powerful House Oversight Committee in the next Congress, is preparing investigations into what he calls the “Trump crime family.” He said Democrats are not going to be intimidated.

“The days of us not fighting back are over,” Garcia said.

The early rhetoric sets up a showdown ahead that is likely to define Trump’s remaining two years in office and test the power of Congress to put a check on the White House.

About 7 in 10 voters nationally say Congress is not doing enough to provide checks and balances on the presidency, according to the AP Voter Poll, a survey of more than 100,000 midterm voters. Voters in several polls during the campaign identified corruption among their top issues.

Democrats have made clear that impeachment is an option.

If there are people who have been “shortchanging the American people, screwing over the American people, or stealing from the American people, then they need to be held accountable in a manner consistent with Congress’ role, constitutionally,” said Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

Some Democrats worried about overreach

But the investigative onslaught is also a source of tension for Democrats, with many warning that delivering on their central promise to voters — actions to lower the cost of living — must take precedence.

Some are concerned that their resounding wins Tuesday that have given them healthy majorities in the House and Senate will prove fleeting if conflict with Trump defines the agenda.

Sen.-elect Adam Hamilton, the first Democrat elected to the chamber from Kansas in 94 years, expressed skepticism about impeachment, saying his campaign was about trying to bring people together. He said he does not want the next two years to be spent “dividing our country further.”

“I’m not as interested in impeachment as setting up guardrails,” Hamilton said. Still, he said he understands that some investigations are necessary, and Democrats “have to look at what’s happened in Washington.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he wants to hold Trump accountable, but warned that there was only so much time.

“We cannot spend all of our time investigating Trump,” Sanders said. “We’ve got to stand up for working-class families, make a real difference in their lives.”

Jeffries casts doubt on working with Stephen Miller

Jeffries, who is on the cusp of becoming the nation’s first Black House speaker, was asked on election night about the prospects of working with Trump. He said he would be ready to work with Republicans “whenever and wherever possible to deliver real results.”

Jeffries on Sunday criticized Trump’s choice of longtime advisor Stephen Miller to succeed Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, calling him an “awful choice” and casting doubt on the prospect of working with him.

“There’s not going to be an opportunity, certainly, to work with Stephen Miller and what he represents. And we’re committed to forcefully pushing back against the extremism that they may try to continue to unleash on the American people,” he said.

Democrats across the ideological spectrum have been critical of the appointment of Miller, a primary force behind Trump’s mass deportation machine that became an issue in the midterm elections. Nationally, about 6 in 10 voters said the administration’s actions on immigration enforcement had “gone too far,” according to the AP Voter Poll.

Jeffries also said he supports a pending resolution from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Jeffries said Democrats would be discussing it when they return to the Capitol this week. “Hegseth has got to go,” he said.

“I’m a hard yes on the Hegseth resolution,” Jeffries said.

Hegseth in a video dismissed the impeachment push as “all about the politics of personal destruction.” He said it “won’t work with me.”

New senators express skepticism about Schumer

At least two new incoming Democratic senators expressed some reservations Sunday about Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who’s expected to be reelected to his post after leading his party back to the majority.

Hamilton said he’s told Schumer, who is currently running unopposed, that he means no disrespect but that the New Yorker is a polarizing figure in Kansas and Hamilton is aiming for someone less divisive.

“What I’d be looking for is a leader who can lead from the center, somebody who can bring Republicans and Democrats together,” Hamilton said. “It feels like it is a time for fresh and new ideas and somebody who can unite us instead of dividing us.”

Hamilton said he wants to get to know the other Democratic senators better before he makes any recommendations.

Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, whom Schumer did not back in the Democratic primary, said he had been committed to Sen. Chris Van Hollen, but acknowledged that the Maryland Democrat does not appear to be running for the post.

El-Sayed said he and Schumer, who put $67 million into El-Sayed’s general election campaign, “figured out how to work together” after the primary.

“The question to me is, who wants to be the leader who’s going to make sure that we deliver on the mandate that we just got?” El-Sayed said.

Blanche was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Garcia also was on CNN, Jeffries spoke on ABC’s “This Week,” Hamilton and Sanders were on CNN and NBC, and El-Sayed appeared on ABC.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are placing an early emphasis on healthcare as they discuss their immediate priorities upon the swearing-in of the new Congress on Jan. 3.

Early votes in the House next year are expected to focus on boosting Medicaid and restoring an enhanced tax subsidy that is designed to lower the cost of Affordable Care Act health plans for millions of enrollees.

Democrats are also promising swift action on legislation to stop the war with Iran and to reverse some of President Trump’s tariffs.

“We’re going to get out of the gate fast,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader who is in line to become the next House speaker.

The legislative flurry carries enormous stakes for Democrats as they seek to translate their sweeping victories in the midterms — their numbers will exceed 250 in the 435-member House — into achievements that deliver on their promises to lower the cost of living.

Obstacles for the Democratic agenda

Passing those bills should not be a problem with such a large Democratic House majority. Getting them signed into law most certainly could be.

A 60-vote threshold in the Senate looms for the legislation, as does a potential presidential veto. Trump on election night posted a photo on his social media site of a red hat with a simple message on it: “Veto.”

Following those early votes, Jeffries said five working groups are developing plans to put forward bills that would lower costs in areas such as housing, energy, groceries and caregiving.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said Democrats will at some point take up legislation dealing with artificial intelligence and data centers. He is part of a group of lawmakers working on a document that will lay out some of the priorities for Jeffries to consider.

“House Republicans last year made a conscious decision to let the AI industry run wild, and that was a bad decision politically and a bad decision on policy,” Lieu said. “Two things will change next term. We will hold public hearings on AI. We will pass legislation, reasonable guardrails on AI, and specifically data centers.”

A return to past political fights

Democrats are trying to reverse Medicaid changes that are expected to cut more than $900 billion from the program over a decade. The Republican-approved cuts helped offset some of the costs of Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill that was signed into law last year. The Medicaid changes in the bill imposed new administrative requirements and added conditions for eligibility, including work requirements.

Some of the most substantial changes have yet to take effect. Still, enrollment in Medicaid has dropped by about 5 million, or about 7%, since July 2025, when the bill was signed into law, according to KFF, a health policy research and news organization.

Reversing those cuts would probably require Trump and the Republicans to abandon the hard-fought changes they made to cut entitlement spending in their signature tax bill. It’s an unlikely proposition.

The effort to extend enhanced tax subsidies for certain enrollees in ACA plans has also been debated and voted on in the current Congress. The measure passed the House with some Republican support but stalled in the Senate.

There also have been numerous war powers votes regarding Iran — 14 in the Senate and six in the House.

Gridlock may be on the horizon

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said going into the election that a Democratic majority in the next Congress would amount to “two years of paralysis.”

“I don’t think that’s good for anybody,” Thune said.

But Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York is insisting that his party will push its agenda with or without the Republican president’s help.

“If he vetoes it, it will show the divisions. As much as we didn’t want to shut down, when we shut down the government for a month over healthcare, people knew we were on their side,” Schumer said in an interview with the New York Times’ podcast “The Daily.”

Schumer said he believes Democrats can gain some Republican votes on restoring the enhanced subsidies for ACA plans. When asked if he was hearing from Republicans expressing a willingness to work with him on legislation, he replied: “They’re never so definitive but, yes, I am getting initial signs that way on certain issues, not on every issue.”

While the prospects for getting any of the early priority bills over the finish line are uncertain, the votes in Congress will help frame the choices voters will face during a presidential election in 2028.

Tensions within the new majority

Progressive groups call the agenda outlined by Jeffries a good early start, but they have much greater expectations for Democrats this Congress.

“It’s perfectly fine if the Senate and the House are unified and Donald Trump is standing in the way because that sets up another tidal wave election in 2028,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a Democratic-aligned group that backs progressive candidates and policies.

At the same time, he said Schumer cannot be content to let bills die in the Senate because of the 60-vote threshold.

“It will require the Democrats to get rid of the filibuster,” Green said. “There’s no doubt about it.”

He said there’s a disparity because Republicans’ top priorities — tax cuts and Supreme Court justices — can get through with simple majorities. But the Democratic Party’s top priorities require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

“The only question is will the American public trust Democrats enough to keep giving us more power or will this week’s gains whittle away because we do nothing? That’s why the filibuster is a threshold question,” Green said last week.

Schumer, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, would not say whether he would try to eliminate the filibuster.

“The focus has got to be on getting things done,” Schumer said. “That’s all I am saying.”

In a memo to fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Democrats also need to target what he called “powerful forces outside of government.” Examples he cited were corporations using Americans’ private data to adjust their pricing based on a consumer’s personal data and AI companies that he says are putting jobs and lives at risk.

“By focusing not just on the Trump administration but also on big corporations and billionaires, we will show the American people we are not just anti-Trump but also pro-worker and pro-consumer,” Casar said.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Nov. 3, 2026 10:51 AM PT

We are tracking which party will have the majority of senators, members of Congress and governors.

All 435 House of Representatives seats are up for election, with 37 considered competitive and 21 of them toss-ups by the Cook Political Report, a respected polling analysis site. To control the House, Democrats need a net gain of four seats.

Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the Senate and can lose no more than two seats to retain their majority. Thirty-five seats are on the November ballot.

It may be several days until the result of every race is known. Some states such as California take weeks to certify their results. Even in states where the vote may be tallied faster, the Trump administration has plans to challenge the results.

Races on this page are called by the Associated Press, which surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and projects the winner using vote returns and other data.

U.S. Senate

U.S. House

Governors

Check back for updates in the senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial races as polls close and ballots are counted across the country. You can see results for California’s congressional races here.

Back to top

America’s obsession with the Latino vote has become a ritual as slippery and messy as a grunion run.

But who could be blamed for caring too much about how we crushed it in the midterms?

Latinos helped Democrats take back the House and Senate by casting our ballots in record numbers.

We flipped red districts blue, including those in the Rio Grande Valley that the Texas GOP gerrymandered last year to take out Latino Democrats. Speaking of Texas, the state elected a Latino as governor for the first time with Gina Hinajosa’s victory, while Xavier Becerra will be California’s first Latino governor in 151 years.

Latino voters helped elect a record number of their own kind to Congress, from Republicans who have denounced President Trump to moderate Democrats to Latin Grammy winner Bobby Pulido to democratic socialists. Three of the six DSA members elected to the House for the first time are Latinas, including Angela Gonzales-Torres here in Los Angeles.

The narrative this time is that Latinos helped pull American democracy back from the jaws of MAGA, which I guess is better than the charges of self-defeating treason thrown at us two years ago. That’s when 48% of Latinos voted for Trump — a record for a Republican presidential candidate — and the GOP gained in even the bluest of Latino-heavy precincts, a shift that conservatives predicted would become larger, and permanent.

Well, New York Times data showed a 29-point shift to the Dems for Latino voters nationwide in the midterms, compared with two years ago — by far the largest of any ethnic group.

The stereotype for decades was that Latinos were a “sleeping giant”: We could be powerful one day, if only our supposed self-sabotaging mañana approach to life wasn’t holding us down. Now that we’re actually exercising our franchise, we don’t seem to be making anyone happy. Even as progressive friends of mine are celebrating the blue tsunami, they’re criticizing Latino men for not having voted more decisively for Democrats, as Latinas did.

It’s the eternal conundrum: We’re always too much or too little, and never just enough. Because we don’t fit anyone’s expectations but our own, we’re seen as an eternal threat and never reliable.

To that, I say: good.

Texas Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa speaks to supporters at an election night event in Austin, Texas.

(Ashley Landis/Associated Press)

We’re the largest minority group in this country, increasing in voters and political power in places far from traditional strongholds. Why, Jess Rivera beat a five-term GOP incumbent to become the first Latina in the North Carolina state Senate. With our growing influence, politicians should be courting us and never assuming we’re automatically with them.

There’s also something more fascinating at work. Forget Ohio as a bellwether of American politics — look to Latinos.

Ronald Reagan’s popularity with Latinos, especially after he signed the immigration amnesty, reflected a thirst for a leader who believed in the fundamental goodness of this nation. After the GOP’s swath of xenophobic laws in the 1990s, the Latino blue wave that helped put Bill Clinton in the White House showed that we would only suffer scapegoating for so long.

Our slight shift to the right for George W. Bush showed a working class unease with a Democratic Party that signed off on NAFTA, which decimated the heartland as much as it did Mexico’s rural economy. Our embrace of Barack Obama highlighted an America mature enough to elect a Black man twice. And our lukewarm support for Hillary Clinton in 2016 compared to Obama was the signature on the death certificate of her doomed campaign.

Trump, the most anti-Latino president since James K. Polk, increased his Latino support with each presidential run because the Democratic Party couldn’t break the spell he cast over too many Americans. Tuesday’s repudiation of Trump shows that we have mostly snapped out of it — sick of his pathetic economy, his horrible immigration raids, his pointless wars and jejune insults.

If Latinos can exorcise themselves of MAGA, anyone can.

Except white people, it seems. New York Times number crunchers found that 51% of white voters nationwide chose Republican candidates. They still stood with a party that allowed Trump to lavish attention on vanity projects that even the pharaohs would consider gauche, instead of what Americans need.

Wokoso academics have long claimed that Latinos turn conservative in a desire to become white. I’ve always found that argument facile. Most of the Latino Trumpers I know are proud rancho libertarians who love to blast their corridos and apply for dual citizenship and who think gringos are weak, whiny ingrates. The one thing those Latinos did pick up from white Trump supporters was a strain of grievance politics that hasn’t historically been a part of who we are.

That may have been a natural byproduct of assimilation, which isn’t just about the language you speak or owning a home or cultural traditions. It’s also about picking up the political vibes of the powerful, which for the past decade have leaned toward MAGA’s nihilism.

But if that’s what being an American means, many Latinos said on Tuesday, then screw assimilation.

Oh, we’ll still learn English and strive for the middle class and root for the Raiders or Cowboys or Broncos or some other underachieving NFL squad. But Latinos expect more from this country than just kvetching and corruption, blind loyalty and excuses. Polls have long shown we’re among the most optimistic of Americans. And if we can still believe in this crazy democracy, then others should follow.

That’s why Americans should obsess over how Latinos vote. Because we’re not beholden to any side just yet, we’re ultimately more objective. We’ll back Democrats or Republicans if they’re doing a better job than the other party — and if they’re not, we’ll toss them out like a bad batch of enchiladas. Isn’t that the American experiment at its best?

The first volunteers gathered in the back house of Nithya Raman’s Silver Lake home with little besides a whiteboard counting down the number of days until the June 2 primary election.

Raman had jumped into the Los Angeles mayor’s race the day before, right at the Feb. 7 filing deadline. Her campaign didn’t have an office, a bank account, a campaign treasurer, or even a proper website.

It lacked, put simply, “the most basic things,” said Ian Manheimer, Raman’s campaign manager, who joined the team after a 10 p.m. call from Raman the night before the filing deadline. There would be a meeting the next day in Raman’s backyard accessory dwelling unit to get things rolling.

“For anyone who suspected Nithya had designs on this for a long time, you could just come to the ADU and that would dispel those notions,” Manheimer said.

Those unassuming beginnings in Raman’s backyard, with her parents and her husband’s parents taking turns cooking vegetarian Indian lunches for the small staff, evolved into a disciplined campaign that overcame initial struggles to unseat incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, a veteran politician who had racked up endorsements from most of L.A.’s traditional power brokers.

Nithya Raman speaks at a campaign phone bank event at UCLA on May 31.

(Jonathan Alcorn/For The Times)

Raman did it on a hyper-abbreviated timeline by turning out and expanding her base of younger renters, pitching herself successfully to Latino voters, securing late but key endorsements from groups and officials that gave massive support to her campaign’s ground game and by running on a hopeful message about restoring city services against a deeply unpopular mayor.

From the moment she got into the race, there was an evident, yet narrow lane for the progressive, second-term council member to rise to the city’s highest office, but it was far from clear that she would be able to make it through.

For much of the primary, Raman and her campaign were all alone. She had few endorsements, and almost none from elected officials.

Because of her late entry into the race and some past disagreements, she failed to secure the backing of the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America for the June 2 primary, even though the left-wing organization endorsed her in both of her council campaigns. Raman got almost no supportive outside spending in the primary, while millions of dollars were spent opposing her.

But Raman had made a name for herself on the City Council as an advocate for tenant rights, and her campaign focused on turning out L.A.’s legions of renters to secure enough of the vote to make the runoff.

She was still a largely unknown entity early on in the race, with 51% of likely voters in a March poll saying they didn’t know enough about Raman to form an opinion of her.

On top of that, Raman was quickly upstaged by Spencer Pratt, the Republican former reality television personality, whose slash-and-burn campaign on social media attacking L.A.’s liberal political establishment dominated news coverage.

While Raman’s camp hadn’t initially worried too much about Pratt, thinking he and entrepreneur Adam Miller would split the more conservative vote in the city, it became clear as the primary went on that Pratt could emerge over Raman as the second candidate in the runoff.

Spencer Pratt, from left, Karen Bass and Nithya Raman take part in a televised debate at the Skirball Cultural Center May 6 during the primary race.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

To dent Pratt’s appeal, the Raman campaign worked to brand him as the MAGA Republican in the nonpartisan race, knowing it would hurt his chances in a deep-blue city like Los Angeles. They chose to try out the line at the only televised mayoral debate.

Raman didn’t miss her chance.

“This is a MAGA Republican’s idea of what Los Angeles looks like,” she said during the NBC4 debate on May 6, referring to Pratt’s sometimes dystopian depiction of L.A. “This is really not the city that I love so much.”

Though Raman’s debate performance was widely panned — and Pratt’s was praised — her team felt she had gotten the point across to Angelenos: With the unpopular Bass almost certain not to win the primary outright, the runoff could either be a contest between two progressive Democrats, or Bass versus a candidate whose views echoed those of President Trump.

That debate was a learning moment for Raman and her campaign.

“She’s up against an extremely seasoned politician and a television star. She’s just a normal person who hasn’t been on stage like that,” Manheimer said.

But defining Pratt as MAGA, the campaign believed, would pull some voters to Raman from lower-performing candidates on the left and in the middle with the hopes of keeping Pratt out of the runoff.

Raman was able to eke out a win against Pratt in the primary, getting 29% of the vote compared to his 26%, with Bass taking first place at 34%.

The sole goal of the primary for Raman’s campaign was, self-evidently, to make it out of the primary.

If her team could move on to the runoff, it would be able to reset — fundraising would restart, it could build a bigger team and it would have a longer runway to increase Raman’s name recognition and build out her base.

While Bass dominated labor and elected official endorsements throughout the race, Raman began to pick up key supporters in the runoff.

In August, the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters endorsed her, sponsoring an independent expenditure group for her called Estamos con Nithya for Mayor 2026.

That was followed by the endorsement from the union Unite Here Local 11, a major player in city politics, which represents hospitality workers at airports and in hotels.

Raman also got major endorsements in the runoff from City Controller Kenneth Mejia and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.

Mejia especially became a pit bull for Raman at events and on social media.

“Kenneth would call every day and say, ‘Let me know what myths I can bust today,’ ” said Tessa Wick, the communications director for Raman’s campaign.

“We didn’t have time to feel particularly lonely in the primary, but once we saw what it felt like to have all these groups and people behind us, each press conference we would do was injecting more force into this movement we were building,” Wick said.

Raman’s bid also got a serious infusion of cash from Aaron Sosnick, a hedge fund manager and bike lane advocate who poured $8 million into two independent expenditure groups to support Raman, making him the single biggest spender in the mayoral campaign.

“He is a cyclist. He just wants to not die riding the streets in L.A.,” said Michael Schneider, who runs Streets for All, a transportation advocacy group that ran one of the independent expenditure groups that Sosnick funded.

Raman also capitalized on a difficult summer for Bass, during which the mayor faced turnover on both her campaign and administration teams, unsheltered homelessness rose citywide (but crucially, went down sharply in Raman’s city council district) and a massive fire burned at a cold-storage food warehouse in Boyle Heights, sending noxious fumes into the heavily Latino, working-class neighborhood.

Nithya Raman, right, reviews notes in Spanish with Lauren Perez-Rangel before an interview at Univision on Oct. 22.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

“Many Latinos saw themselves in the Boyle Heights residents,” said Lauren Perez-Rangel, senior director of Latino outreach for the Raman campaign.

Bass had prevailed in more Latino neighborhoods than any other candidate in the primary. The Raman campaign worked to change that in the runoff, Perez-Rangel said, focusing especially on Latino voters. Raman brushed up on her Spanish and used it frequently at events.

The campaign also teamed up with Latino and Spanish-language content creators to spread Raman’s message of affordability, building more housing and solving the homeless crisis. The result: Raman led Bass among Latino likely voters throughout the runoff campaign, according to polls by UC Berkeley IGS and the L.A. Times.

Despite that growing support, Bass and her allies’ negative portrayal of Raman in attack ads had an effect, as Raman’s unfavorable ratings rose month by month. They framed the council member as too far left, allowing homeless encampments in front of schools and failing to show up for thousands of City Council votes.

“It was a race to define Nithya,” said Jeff Millman, an advisor and spokesperson for Raman’s campaign. “Their strategy was to tear down Nithya. Our job was to make sure that people knew Nithya’s strengths and record of success as a council member.”

As the campaign drew to a climax, Raman improved as a candidate and came off as more confident during the two runoff debates. Her team said she spent many hours improving her debate skills.

“There was no secret weapon, just a person really committed to practicing,” said Wick.

Still, she opened herself up to attacks from Bass’ side during the final debate Oct. 13, after she said the city used to be the “gold standard” of noncooperation with immigration authorities under controversial former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates. Bass hammered Raman over the remark, accusing the council member of romanticizing Gates’ tenure.

Despite that and other missteps during the closing days of the campaign, her team said it was Raman’s insistence on running a largely positive campaign about an optimistic vision of L.A.’s future that pushed her over the finish line.

“She was really dogged that it was a campaign that was hopeful, not nasty and cynical. She wanted the campaign to be a love letter to L.A.,” said Wick.

Nithya Raman embraces her husband, TV writer Vali Chandrasekaran, left, on election night at the Greek Theatre plaza.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

In her election night speech, still trailing Bass by a few percentage points that she would quickly make up, Raman spoke to that vision.

She called it a vision where the people who made L.A. extraordinary could afford to live in the city and where government is responsive and takes responsibility.

“We believed that Angelenos were hungry for that city,” she said. “And it turns out that we were right.”

WASHINGTON — Republicans aren’t holding back.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis described last week’s elections as an “extinction-level event” for the GOP. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas likened it to a “Watergate-level repudiation.” Former Vice President Mike Pence called it a “reckoning.”

For all the apocalyptic talk emerging from a midterm that relegated Republicans to their thinnest ranks on Capitol Hill in decades, there’s little agreement on how the party should move forward.

A return to the bedrock fiscal and national security conservatism that defined Republicans under President Reagan risks alienating the more hard-line conservatives welcomed into the party under President Trump under the “Make America Great Again” banner.

But leaning even further into Trump’s coarse brand of politics could lead to more voter rejection.

“We have soul-searching to do,” Alex Latcham, the executive director of the Senate Leadership Fund, which spent $810 million to support Republicans, said in an interview. “We need to first understand and honestly admit why we just endured a wipeout of this magnitude. And then we have to regroup and agree to a path forward.”

Questions about Trump’s future role

As has been the case for the last decade, the central question is the role Trump will play in shaping the party’s future. His insistence on loyalty reached a zenith this year as he intervened in GOP primaries and pressed voters to make the elections a referendum on his second term. He held dozens of rallies in the final weeks of the campaign for candidates, most of whom lost their races.

Since Tuesday’s election, he’s refused to acknowledge any responsibility, placing blame on the candidates. His public events have focused on his pet projects in Washington, which have proved unpopular with voters. On Friday, he elevated Stephen Miller, the advisor behind some of his most contentious policies, to White House chief of staff.

In an interview, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, said that the election results were “shocking” but that Trump could still steer the conversation around issues such as immigration. The governor described the GOP’s current dynamic as a natural process for a party whose leader is deep into his second term.

“It just tells you that the American people, after 10 years, they’re pretty much tired of whoever’s in office,” Stitt said. “I think people want a little more stability. They want people to be nice to people, to say, ‘Hey, we’re all Americans.’”

Others were more blunt.

Longtime conservative commentator Tucker Carlson — for many years a Trump acolyte — said the midterms marked “the end of the Trump era.” John Sununu, a Republican who lost his bid for a Senate seat in New Hampshire, blamed Trump.

“It seems like he or his family is in on every transaction and deal that goes on in Washington,” Sununu told John Kasich, a Republican former governor of Ohio and onetime presidential candidate, on SiriusXM. “Those two things, I think, caused people to say, ‘You know, I just can’t vote for a Republican while he’s still in office.’”

Republican infighting likely to intensify

The GOP infighting is poised to intensify quickly.

When Republicans return to Capitol Hill this week, they’ll have to choose between Reps. Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio to lead the new minority in the House. They may weigh whether to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. There could also be tough votes on defense spending and keeping the federal government open after Dec. 11.

Already a leadership fight is brewing at the Republican National Committee, where there are early conversations about limiting Trump’s influence in picking the next chair. KC Crosbie, the co-chair, circulated a letter last week calling the midterms a “serious setback” and announcing plans to run for chair at the committee’s January meeting in Arizona.

Trump announced his support Friday for the party’s current chair, Joe Gruters.

That’s to say nothing of the emerging contest for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination. Vice President JD Vance, seen as a leading contender, will probably face a broad range of opponents if he enters the race. Stitt is among the Republicans calling for a “big open primary.”

“I don’t think we should crown anybody,” he said.

There will be pressure to revive the coalition of voters, particularly Latinos, who have lifted the party to success in previous elections but swung to Democrats on Tuesday. Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) said he thought Secretary of State Marco Rubio is best positioned to win back Latinos.

“The two main constituencies that Republicans have to quickly regain are white suburban voters and Hispanic voters,” Curbelo said in an interview. “Vance was out on the campaign trail this year, and it doesn’t appear that he was able to move the needle in terms of Hispanic voters.”

A representative for Vance didn’t comment on that characterization.

Broad election fallout

Still, the fallout for the GOP is broad, according to the AP Voter Poll, an expansive survey of about 80,000 voters in all 50 states.

Younger Republican voters who supported the Republican candidate in their House race were less likely to approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, and more likely to say he worsened the economy with his policies.

About two-thirds of Republican voters under 30 said they approved of how Trump was handling the presidency, compared with about 9 in 10 Republican voters age 65 and older. About one-third of younger GOP voters said Trump had worsened the country’s economic conditions, compared with about 2 in 10 older Republican voters.

The war with Iran also appeared to divide Republican voters, with about 6 in 10 Republican voters under 45 saying the U.S. made the right decision in taking military action against Iran. That rose to about 8 in 10 among Republican voters who were 45 and older.

Young Republican voters were more likely to say U.S. support for Israel was “too strong.” Roughly half of Republican voters under 30 said the country’s backing of Israel was “too strong,” compared with about 1 in 10 voters 65 and older.

Despite rosy outlooks from top Republicans including Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in the final weeks of the campaign, Republican strategists had long seen the country’s confidence in the party unraveling.

In late August, the Senate Leadership Fund convened a donor retreat in Laguna Beach, where Latcham told the group that Republicans had lost the confidence of voters on handling the cost of living and the economy, according to two Republican Senate campaign sources who attended the event. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting.

In defeat, Republicans are trying to take a broader view, knowing that it may take several election cycles before they one day return to power.

Rep. Christopher Smith was reelected to his 24th term last week and will soon be New Jersey’s only Republican in Congress. He took a long view on the party’s current struggles.

“The pendulum swings back and forth,” he told reporters. “These are cycles.”

Sloan and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Steve Peoples, Kevin Freking and Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

It wasn’t that long ago that campaign strategist Estevan Montemayor was an enthusiastic booster for Karen Bass.

During her first run for mayor in 2022, Montemayor was working with Communities United for Bass, a campaign committee that spent $6 million on television ads, text messages and other voter outreach efforts.

The 35-year-old political consultant took on another expensive outside campaign this year — this one to support Councilmember Nithya Raman and oppose Bass. Asked about the change in allegiances, he said he became disenchanted with the mayor over her handling of homelessness, the city budget and finally, the Palisades fire.

“That’s when I came to realize on a personal level that she was not capable of serving in an executive role,” Montemayor said.

Bass, a 22-year political veteran, spent much of her failed reelection campaign touting her ability to work with others. She locked down support from labor unions, business groups and immigration advocates. She frequently pointed out 14 members of the City Council lined up behind her and not for Raman, who won Tuesday’s election and will be sworn in next month.

Yet some of Bass’ political relationships disintegrated during her four-year term, at times in dramatic ways. Those key colleagues and supporters turned against her, then went on to help orchestrate her political demise.

Early on in Bass’ term, Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath supported the mayor’s work on homelessness and even introduced her at her State of the City address. But she eventually became one of Bass’ fiercest critics and, behind the scenes, encouraged Raman to run. Horvath publicly endorsed Raman two weeks before the election.

The Western States Regional Council of Carpenters put nearly $2.3 million into efforts to elect Bass four years ago, producing TV ads and campaign signs promoting her. This time around, the group sponsored a committee that spent five times that amount in support of Raman, posting content on the website “Burned by Bass.”

Then there’s Raman herself. The councilmember supported many of the mayor’s initiatives and campaigned with her while running for reelection in 2024. Even though she had endorsed Bass for mayor, she later launched her own last-minute mayoral bid, saying the city “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

Bass said she was blindsided.

“I didn’t have any reason to see it coming,” Bass replied when The Times asked about Raman’s decision to challenge her. “Why would I see it coming if somebody has publicly endorsed me?”

Supporters of Bass say that in some ways, she actually broadened her coalition this time around, drawing support from individuals and organizations who opposed her in 2022, including real estate developer Rick Caruso, her onetime opponent, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), who endorsed Bass and campaigned with her, said it’s unfair to say that “because she lost a few friends, that that’s why she lost the race.”

“Losing the trust of her voters, that was the bigger loss,” Gonzalez said. “Voters basically did not feel that they were better off than they could have been or should have been.”

The opposition from Montemayor, the carpenters and other former supporters was just part of the struggle facing Bass as she waged her campaign. She had consistently high disapproval numbers that stemmed from key events during her administration.

The mayor faced voter outrage over the Palisades fire, which broke out in January 2025, destroying thousands of homes and leaving 12 people dead. Residents in Pacific Palisades voiced special fury that Bass left the country days earlier, as weather forecasts predicted dangerous winds and elevated fire conditions. But she also drew the ire of Boyle Heights residents exasperated over the noxious smells that lingered in the wake of a massive fire at a cold-storage warehouse.

Bass also attracted criticism over her handling of city spending — giving a series of raises to the workforce and then encountering a $1-billion shortfall, which led to the elimination of more than 1,500 vacant city jobs. One of those pay packages gave thousands of civilian city workers raises of about 24% over five years.

Then there was the mayor’s fight against homelessness. Bass made it a top priority from the outset, launching an expensive program to bring people indoors. By August, 42% of the program’s participants had returned to the street.

Bass declared a citywide emergency on homelessness on the day she took office, promising she would lock arms with the region’s political leaders, including the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.

Two years later, over Bass’ protest, the supervisors voted to pull nearly all of their money out of a joint city-county agency created to address the crisis.

Bass told The Times she was initially caught off guard by the supervisors’ proposal to remove the money and funnel it into a new county homelessness department.

Leading the charge was Horvath, who had served alongside Bass on regional homelessness boards. Horvath, appearing with Raman last month, dismissed the mayor’s messaging about relationship building, saying she “promised to lock arms but only demanded loyalty.”

On election night, Horvath said there wasn’t one specific moment when she turned against the mayor.

“I did put forward my best effort to build a relationship with the mayor. It wasn’t one issue,” she told The Times. “I mean, the truth is, this mayor has made clear she doesn’t respect the voices and perspectives of young people.”

Stuart Waldman, who heads the Los Angeles County Business Federation, offered a different take. He said Bass was good at cultivating relationships, meeting with business leaders and taking their calls. But in many instances, Bass would embrace a proposal only to have it languish in her office, he said.

“Bass would say she wanted to do something, and then it would end up in her staff’s hands and never see the light of day,” said Waldman, whose group supported Bass on Tuesday.

Last year, business leaders reached out to the mayor’s team to express their fears that the City Council’s plan to raise the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour would wreak financial havoc on the city’s hospitality industry.

After the council approved the increases, those business leaders responded with a ballot proposal that sought to repeal the city’s business tax, which generates more than $800 million per year for city services. They used the measure as leverage to persuade the mayor and council to roll back the wage hike.

When Bass learned about the business tax repeal, she was “genuinely shocked at the depth of our frustration,” said Areen Ibranossian, a political strategist who represented hotels and airlines during the talks.

“It didn’t seem like she was aware of continued pleas from the business community on that issue,” he said.

Worried about losing the business tax and having to make huge cuts to city services, Bass and the council struck a deal to postpone the $30 wage hike by 18 months. Although business groups were pleased with the compromise, leaders of Unite Here Local 11, the hotel workers union, were furious.

The union, which supported Bass in 2022, endorsed Raman in August.

Kurt Petersen, co-president of Unite Here Local 11, cited the minimum wage rollback as one of the reasons his union abandoned Bass.

“She signed the law that took money out of people’s paychecks,” he said.

Petersen said his union knocked on 20,000 doors as part of Estamos Con Nithya, a pro-Raman campaign committee set up by the carpenters union. That group was also frustrated with Bass, saying she failed to require certain labor standards for construction workers in Executive Directive 1, her initiative to fast-track the construction of affordable housing.

“There were no labor standard requirements or worker protections in Karen Bass’s ED1, resulting in worker exploitation, including unpaid wages, cash pay, the use of unlicensed contractors, labor brokers and nonpayment of the LA city minimum wage,” said Pete Rodriguez, second general vice president with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, in a statement.

Alex Stack, a Bass spokesperson, said the requests being made by the carpenters would have driven up the cost of affordable housing production, while also slowing down approval at City Hall. A mayor’s job, he said, is to “do what’s right for all of Los Angeles, not just what group backs her.”

“She sat down with the Carpenters and Unite Here, listened, and made decisions that benefited L.A. — not just one particular group,” Stack said. “Nobody got everything they wanted. That’s what governing looks like.”

Montemayor, who had worked on the pro-Bass committee in 2022, supervised the carpenters’ campaign, spending nearly $12 million on efforts to promote Raman and tear down Bass. Prior to that, he had been Horvath’s chief of staff, overseeing the supervisor’s office during and after the Palisades fire.

In the wake of the disaster, tensions erupted between Horvath’s office and the mayor’s team. In a series of text messages, Horvath and Montemayor expressed frustration with Bass’ office over what they viewed as a lack of coordination and communication on the wildfire recovery efforts from City Hall.

At one point, Montemayor voiced irritation after the mayor’s team announced the removal of security checkpoints on Pacific Coast Highway, then reversed course amid an outcry. “What you have done is create more chaos not less,” Montemayor wrote.

Earlier this year, hours after Raman announced her surprise campaign to unseat Bass, Montemayor posted an image from “Game of Thrones” on Instagram, one that serves as a shorthand for icy revenge: “Tell Cersei .. I want her to know it was me.”

On election night, when Bass was starting to trail Raman in the vote count, Montemayor posted the meme again.

For a time, Chad Bianco was one of the front-runners in the race for California governor — or at least as front-runnery as a Republican can get in this cobalt-blue state.

Polling in the primary showed the Riverside County sheriff drawing support in roughly the mid-teens, which — while nothing to shout about — was still enough in a jumbo-sized field to place Bianco among the top contenders.

His main rival among Republicans was Fox talk-show host Steve Hilton. The question was which of the two GOP hopefuls would President Trump bless, ensuring their advancement to certain defeat in November. That made their competition a bit like jousting for the last berth on the sinking Titanic, or elbowing for the opportunity to go before a firing squad.

But whatever.

Bianco, being a sheriff outfitted with a badge and gun and all, played his Trump card, mindful of the president’s monomaniacal obsession with nonexistent voter fraud. Acting on flimsy pretenses, Bianco arranged in February for the seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots, questioning the integrity of the election months after the fact.

Never mind that Riverside County voters approved the Democratic gerrymandering measure by a comfortable margin. Hitching himself to the president’s favorite hobbyhorse, Bianco’s performative policing was an obvious attempt to curry favor with the nation’s election denier in chief.

Alas for Bianco, the ploy didn’t work. Trump endorsed Hilton, who finished second in the June primary and was predictably crushed Tuesday by California’s governor-elect, Xavier Becerra.

Now the bill has come due.

Not surprisingly, Bianco’s unlawful actions resulted in litigation. Lawsuits brought by California’s attorney general and UCLA’s Voting Rights Project went all the way to the state Supreme Court, which scorched the sheriff in a September decision calling his actions illegal, perplexing and “a substantial risk to election integrity.”

Naturally, that legal skirmishing cost money, so Bianco asked the county Board of Supervisors to pony up and pay the bills arising from all his sheriffy swaggering, ballot confiscating and Trump pandering. The board said no, in a 4-1 vote in April. So last month, Bianco filed a claim seeking damages.

“If the County rejects the claim, Sheriff Bianco will have the right to sue the County … which he intends to do,” Bradley Hertz, Bianco’s attorney, wrote in an email to Times reporter Iris Kwok. Bianco’s actions, Hertz said, “arose out of his official actions.”

Which they most certainly did, if one defines “official actions” as going before a judge who touted Bianco’s endorsement when he ran and securing a warrant based on the claims of nutty political activists, all so Bianco could promote his political interests and advance his long-shot run for governor.

Does Bianco have a leg to stand on?

“In California, officers are entitled both to the cost of representation and to settlements and judgments against them for conduct in the course and scope of their employment,” said Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA Law School and an expert on indemnification and qualified immunity, to use the legal terms. “How that gets sorted out in individual cases depends.”

Which suggests the case of Bianco vs. the County of Riverside will very likely wind up before a judge. (And result in more needless, court-clogging litigation.)

One of the most insidious aspects of Trump’s ruinous rule is the use of public office, taxpayer dollars and the color of authority to advance the president’s personal and political self-interests.

His thoroughly corrupted Justice Department blatantly acted to subvert Tuesday’s balloting. His Interior Department installed new signage in national parks to present Trump’s whitewashed version of history. His Federal Communications Commission has persecuted TV networks and sought to muzzle late-night comedians who bruise the president’s ever-so-fragile feelings.

And on it goes.

Judges around the country, that thin, black-robed line of defense, have repeatedly pushed back on Trump’s false election claims. And they’ve sanctioned some who’ve used their office or breached the rules of professional conduct to aid and abet the president’s reckless attempts to despoil our democracy.

Tina Peters, the former Colorado elections clerk who allowed tampering with her county’s election machinery in a harebrained scheme to show the 2020 election was “rigged,” received a stiff prison term and served 20 months before Gov. Jared Polis commuted her sentence and freed Peters to cause more mischief.

Attorneys have been fined and sanctioned for peddling Trump’s stolen election claptrap and presidential factotums Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman were disbarred for their efforts to overturn the 2020 result. Giuliani was also slapped with a $148-million libel verdict for smearing two election workers in Georgia.

Despite those sanctions, the administration continues pressing phony claims of rampant voter fraud. Although Tuesday’s vote went smoothly and Trump accepted the results — as well he should — more of his enablers need to be held to account, as a means of deterrence. That’s a concept that Bianco, a law enforcement professional, surely understands.

There’s a saying in the retail industry, dealing with those who damage the merchandise: You break it, you buy it.

Grasping to advance his political ambitions, Bianco recklessly used and abused his authority as county sheriff to vandalize California’s election system and betray the public trust.

He broke it, he owns it.

Now Bianco needs to pay up.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Nathan “Nate” Ballard, a former aide sentenced in connection with a domestic violence case, to the State Historical Resources Commission.

Ballard, 57, of Mill Valley, will serve alongside eight other commissioners tasked with designating state historical landmarks and preserving the state’s cultural heritage, following the appointment made Friday evening.

In 2020, Ballard was arrested after an incident at an upscale resort where the Napa County district attorney’s office said he pushed his then-wife into a glass door and held a pillow over his four-year-old daughter’s head. The following year, he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor corporal injury against his spouse and child endangerment, according to court records.

He was sentenced to four years’ probation and initially ordered to stay away from his ex-wife and two children for six years, which was later reduced to two years, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Ballard was Newsom’s communications director from 2007 to 2010, when the outgoing governor was mayor of San Francisco. He previously worked in similar roles for the Democratic National Committee and the California Democratic Party, and as John Kerry’s California press secretary during his 2004 presidential run. He now works as an attorney in private practice and runs a public relations firm.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Newsom said the governor “considers the experience, qualifications and suitability for each post in making appointments.”

“He believes that abuse of any individual is unacceptable, and that those who commit such conduct should face accountability,” the statement continued. “He also believes in second chances.”

Ballard, who grew up in Davis, told The Times he applied for the position and looks forward to returning to public service. He described the need “to preserve the things that we love so much about California, and also to alleviate some of the pressures that we’re feeling on housing costs.”

Ballard added that he and the governor have known each other for decades and worked together through “tough times.”

“It’s no surprise that my appointment is a little controversial and I’m grateful to have his support,” he said.

Some have criticized the governor’s move.

Ivy Lee, the head of the San Francisco Mayor’s Office for Victims’ Rights, told Mission Local, which broke the story, “Why elevate perpetrators of abuse?”

“When people in power do that, it shows us what they really think about survivors. And it’s not much,” she said. “Survivors deserve better.”

Nadia Rahman, former president of the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, told the outlet that the appointment was “egregious.”

“He should not be appointed to a body,” she said. “This sets him off on a road of normalizing his behavior and reintroducing him to powerful political circles in California.”

During a long career in politics, “I didn’t think twice about exploiting my opponent’s biggest weakness when I was in the middle of a policy battle,” Ballard said when asked about the pushback. “So when I hear somebody speaking up with conviction about an issue like this, I understand where they’re coming from.”

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump said Saturday that he has offered the job of White House press secretary to his friend and UFC boss Dana White, an announcement unconventional even for the norm-busting president and one that nobody in the White House immediately confirmed.

Trump, while he was at his golf club in Florida, posted on social media that he made the offer to “the Great Dana White, a violent Fighter and Warrior” to become the Republican president’s chief spokesperson.

Trump said he requested that White bring along several UFC fighters as “assistants,” adding, “We need these people to defend us against the Lunatic Left. Dana will be a Press Secretary like none other. Dana, please take the job!”

The White House did not respond Saturday to messages inquiring about the president’s social media post.

White was in London on Saturday for a boxing event. A spokesperson for UFC did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The UFC head shared an image of Trump’s post on Instagram, along with an image of White standing behind the lectern in the White House press briefing room with the words “On to the next chapter.”

Trump’s post came as his White House is in a period of major transition and struggling with his party’s deep losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The historic wins by Democratic candidates, including in areas that Republicans had held for decades, led to the GOP losing control of both chambers of Congress.

Trump on Friday announced he was replacing his longtime advisor Susie Wiles, seen as something of a tempering force on the president’s impulses, as White House chief of staff. He replaced her with Stephen Miller, the chief advisor behind the administration’s hard-line immigration policies and among the most pugilistic of Trump’s inner circle.

The shake-up at the heart of his administration follows the brief but tumultuous week when Trump tried out a new press secretary in Katie Zacharia, who seemed uncomfortable in her sole appearance before reporters left the job after five days amid revelations she had called herself an attorney despite lacking legal credentials.

The post had been vacant since Karoline Leavitt left at the end of August. Trump remains without a chief spokesperson.

Trump is close friends with White and has attended several UFC events with him since returning to the White House in January 2025.

He brought White and the sport to the White House’s South Lawn in June for a celebration of America’s 250th anniversary and the president’s 80th birthday. A wire-mesh octagon was constructed near the executive mansion under “The Claw,” a spaceship-like metal arch fitted with lights, sound equipment and large screens.

“It was an amazing experience. This was a one of one,” said White afterward.

White also spoke at the Republican National Conventions in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Daniel Gelston in Philadelphia and Jesse Bedayn in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s new White House chief of staff, Stephen Miller, is behind many of the administration’s signature domestic policy initiatives, especially its sweeping crackdown on immigration.

An outspoken defender of Trump’s most far-reaching goals to remake government going back to his 2016 run for president, Miller is known for his harsh language and unrelenting bombast, attracting outsize attention from supporters and critics alike. His record is likely to be scrutinized by Democrats in his powerful new role as he leads Trump’s White House through a lame-duck period after the Republican Party lost both houses of Congress in overwhelming fashion.

Here are some memorable things Miller has said through the years:

On immigration

During a surge in illegal border crossings during the Biden administration, Miller described migrants as invaders, even though many were escaping poverty and violence in their home countries.

“We are being conquered,” he told Fox News in December 2023. “We have millions of people coming in from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems.”

Miller also warned that “a generation from now,” people “will not know the country that they are living in. These consequences are permanent. Unless there’s massive large-scale deportations by the millions, it will be irrevocable.”

On federal agents’ killing of Alex Pretti

After federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti during protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in January, Miller posted on social media that the 37-year-old Minneapolis resident was a “domestic terrorist” and an “assassin” who had “tried to murder federal agents.”

Later, Miller said in a statement that the federal officers in Minneapolis “may not have been following” protocol.

On Venezuela and Greenland

In January, after a U.S. military invasion captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Miller used a lengthy post on X to decry “reverse colonization” in which he suggested that Western nations were sacrificing too much for the developing world and that such a practice “has been a long self-punishment of the places and peoples that built the modern world.”

In another post, he defended the right of the U.S. to take over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, writing: “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property. These pillaged assets were then used to fund terrorism and flood our streets with killers, mercenaries and drugs.”

He defended Trump’s assertion that the U.S. was now running Venezuela, by telling CNN’s Jake Tapper: “You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”

In the same interview, Miller also argued that the U.S. could seize Greenland by military force from NATO ally Denmark. “Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States,” he said.

“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

On deportations

In May of 2025, Miller suggested that the Trump administration was looking for ways to expand its power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. To achieve that, he said, officials were “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus — the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

“The Constitution is clear — and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land — that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller said. “So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

In the nearly 18 months since, the idea has not been publicly pursued by the Trump administration.

On family separation

During Trump’s first term, Miller championed a strict immigration deterrence policy that previous administrations had been hesitant to adopt: family separation. It called for routinely having federal agents separate children from their parents if families were apprehended illegally crossing the border.

Miller defended the policy to the New York Times in 2018, saying it “was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry, period.”

“The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law,” he added.

The tactic sparked widespread outcry, and the Trump administration did not revive it in its second term. Still, Miller has helped promote mass deportation of people already living illegally in the U.S. that has divided families according to legal status.

On the Statue of Liberty

During Trump’s first term in 2017, Miller appeared in the White House briefing room to detail for reporters plans to cut back on the number of green cards issued, while prioritizing English speakers and skilled workers.

Asked if doing so might violate the spirit of the poem on the Statue of Liberty, that reads in part, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” Miller responded, “I don’t want to get off into a whole thing about history here.” He then did just that.

“The poem that you’re referring to, that was added later, is not actually a part of the original Statue of Liberty,” Miller said.

On birthright citizenship

When the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to throw out birthright citizenship — which grants citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil — Miller said immigrants and their children pose an existential threat to the nation.

“This is absolutely a deep knife wound in the heart of the American republic,” he told Fox News in June. “If your ruling requires you to suicide your civilization, your reading of the Constitution is wrong.”

On vaccines

Miller is one of many members of the administration who has expressed skepticism about childhood vaccines. In August, he praised the president for signing an executive order aimed at curtailing the vaccine schedule for children.

“Millions and millions of parents feel they’ve been pressured when their children are just weeks out of the hospital to take five shots, six shots, seven shots all at once,” said Miller, a father of four, including an infant born in June. “Nobody has studied it. Nobody’s looked at it. Nobody’s thought about it.”

His comments contradict what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said, which is that research shows getting several vaccines simultaneously “does not cause any chronic health problems.”

On the Democratic Party

In August 2025, Miller appeared on Fox News to respond to criticism from Democrats over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington and other U.S. cities — brushing aside concerns that the presence of troops was frightening residents, while having only a questionable impact on crime.

Miller used the occasion to take aim at Democrats more broadly.

“The Democrat Party does not fight for, care about or represent American citizens,” he said. “It is an entity devoted exclusively to the defense of hardened criminals, gang bangers and illegal alien killers and terrorists.”

Miller added: “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.”

Weissert and Balingit write for the Associated Press.

JACKSON, Miss. — Democrat Scott Colom hasn’t won Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race, but the local prosecutor was welcomed as a historic figure Friday as he strolled through the Farish Street business district where civil rights leaders once organized.

“It’s so wonderful! It’s so wonderful to have Scott Colom as our representative,” said Maati Jone Primm, who owns Marshall’s Music and Book Store in Jackson.

The state is still tallying ballots that could make Colom the first Black senator from this Deep South state since Reconstruction. The possibility of Colom defeating Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith puts many Black voters somewhere between cautious optimism and outright celebration in a state where nearly 40% of the population is Black but the top representation for generations has been white.

“I’m so glad we are at the point where we are,” said Sorie Tarawally, a 76-year-old attorney who has long known Colom’s father. He called the 43-year-old candidate “the man, our messiah, our savior.”

The contest remains too early for the Associated Press to call, and Colom’s historic bid will hinge on a tedious process playing out in elections offices across Mississippi’s 82 counties. Local officials are receiving and examining absentee and provisional ballots, called affidavit ballots, before deadlines next week. Volunteers and lawyers representing each campaign look on in anticipation of potential litigation.

“We’re going to make sure everything is followed according to the law, and I have confidence in those local officials,” Colom said. “They’re doing their jobs. Got to be patient with them.”

Hyde-Smith has not appeared publicly since election night, when she essentially declared victory despite her razor-thin lead at the time with ballots still uncounted. Ballots tallied since have leaned in Colom’s favor.

Colom chided Hyde-Smith for not explaining her strategy going forward.

“She’s still our senator. Where is she? Why is she not doing any interviews?” he asked. “Why can’t she explain what her pathway to success is?”

In a social media post on Friday, Hyde-Smith wrote, “We are not backing down. This election is not over. Our team is working across Mississippi to monitor the remaining ballots and protect the integrity of the process. We will see this through to the very end!”

Uncertain number of outstanding ballots

The pool of outstanding ballots includes absentee ballots, which can be counted in Mississippi as long as they are received by Tuesday, five business days after the election. The rest are affidavit ballots, which are cast at the polls when there’s a glitch: Perhaps the person’s name was not on the rolls or the person did not have proper identification, or a poll worker determined the person’s identification did not precisely match the name on the list.

Citizens who had identification issues have until Tuesday to address those matters in person at their local elections office. For people who were not on a precinct’s rolls, local officials can verify a person’s status using previous records and information on the affidavit that person filed when filling out a ballot. That person typically has no responsibility to come to a local elections office; ballot status can be found on the Mississippi secretary of state’s office website.

Counties have until Friday to certify complete results to the secretary of state.

Mississippi law has no provision for a statewide recount. Campaigns could seek court orders, usually county by county, seeking to examine ballots.

A potentially seismic effect in state

Democrats already have won control of the Senate, so the result in Mississippi would not change the balance of power in Washington.

But it would mark a seismic shift in the state, where white conservatives have dominated the Statehouse and congressional delegation for nearly 150 years. Through Jim Crow segregation and the civil rights era, those leaders were nearly all Democrats. In the decades since, as the Democratic Party rid itself of white nationalists, Republicans have taken over the leadership. For Black Mississippians, the result was the same: a lack of proportional representation at the top levels of state government and in Washington.

Colom was initially viewed as a long shot, and it wasn’t until late October that Senate Democrats’ top campaign group started spending on advertising to support him. But the midterms revealed a broad backlash against redistricting efforts in the South that were aimed at boosting Republicans and, by extension, reducing Black representation.

Primm’s bookstore, where Colom visited Friday, opened in the 1930s and is recognized as the oldest Black-owned bookstore in the U.S.

She said the Farish Street neighborhood still represents Black Mississippians’ “first migration, from the plantation to the city.” Having Colom there as a potential senator “makes us so proud, and it gives us someone to aspire to. Our youth need to see the possibilities for their lives, and we do when we see our next senator from Mississippi.”

As he campaigned, Colom emphasized that he can represent all Mississippians, and he said President Trump’s policies — the war with Iran and tariffs, especially — cut across all demographic lines. He celebrated the extended ballot counting process as a benefit to the state’s 2.95 million residents.

“I’m so glad the national press is getting to see the beauty of our state,” he said.

But Colom and his Black supporters also have never ignored the significance of his candidacy.

“We are motivated by the gross inequalities we have seen in society and how only one side seems to benefit,” said Tarawally, who was born in Sierra Leone and arrived in the Deep South to attend law school at the University of Mississippi. “So, we want a person who speaks to our benefit.”

Colom ended his campaign with an ad set at the Jackson home of Medgar Evers, the civil rights leader who was gunned down in 1963 in his own driveway, dying in front of his wife and children.

“It’s a powerful reminder of the sacrifice to gain the ballot, and nobody sacrificed more than Medgar Evers and his family,” Colom said Friday.

“What was important to me about that ad is we didn’t ask people to vote for me. We just talked about the sacrifice, talked about the story,” he continued. “We just wanted that to be the closing ad because I wanted that to be the last message that the people of Mississippi heard.”

Barrow and Bates write for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s appointment of Stephen Miller — the architect of the administration’s extreme crackdown on immigration — to White House chief of staff is sparking alarm among immigrant advocates and politicians across California.

But this week’s sweeping Democratic victories are giving immigrant communities hope that control of Congress will give them more tools to fight Miller’s policies.

Miller grew up in Santa Monica but has become a relentless critic of California, specifically its immigration policies, protections and, in many ways, identity. Southern California was the first city targeted by widespread immigration raids last year, upending the region in ways that continue to reverberate, particularly for immigrant communities.

Miller’s promotion, announced Friday, is seen by many as an indication that the president has no intention of backing away from some of his most polarizing policies during his last two years in office, despite devastating midterm losses for Republicans across the country. Many viewed the nationwide Democratic swing — in South Carolina, Texas, California’s Central Valley and across the Midwest — as a rebuke of the administration’s first two years, particularly the major immigration crackdown that went far beyond Trump’s promise to focus on the “worst of the worst,” instead arresting thousands without criminal convictions, many of whom had lived in the country for decades.

“We’re concerned that this means the president may be doubling down on his domestic agenda of ICE crackdowns and on deportations if Stephen Miller is at the helm,” said Jamal Abdi, the president of the National Iranian American Council. “He thinks that every problem starts with the immigrant community — and that getting rid of them is the solution.”

Abdi worries that Miller’s latest promotion will further anti-immigrant policies, which have long painted Iranians and other immigrant communities as threats. He is hopeful Miller will help end the military’s war in Iran but fears that may mean more focus domestically on immigrants, especially Iranians, who have been demonized amid hostilities. The diaspora is highly concentrated in Los Angeles, which is home to the largest group of people of Iranian descent outside of Iran.

“We are definitely not out of the woods, and it seems like maybe the president might do less damage abroad but will really focus energy domestically,” Abdi said.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, said seeing more power in the hands of Miller — who she said was behind the Trump administration’s strategies that included “warrantless arrest, racial profiling, excessive use of force, medical neglect in detention centers, people deported illegally” — is threatening.

“Now he’s the chief of staff, and so that means that he has access to every single Cabinet secretary to unleash his reign of terror on our people,” Salas said. During the midterm elections, she said her team was aware of an influx of Department of Homeland Security sightings and activity in the Southland.

“We saw people arrested the day after the election in a massive way and it almost feels very vengeful,” she said. “Almost [like saying], ‘You know you can’t stop us.’”

Now, she and other immigration advocates are preparing themselves for “even more abuse from this administration,” Salas said.

But Ahilan Arulanantham, faculty co-director of UCLA’s Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy, said Miller’s promotion doesn’t change anything for him.

“He’s been adopting the most extreme authoritarian and racist views and espousing it publicly … for the entire two years of this administration,” Arulanantham said. “Whether he does it as the deputy chief of staff or chief of staff … I don’t have a view of the difference.”

Despite widespread backlash to the immigration raids last year, particularly after federal agents killed two civilians in Minnesota, the administration did pull back some of its most aggressive tactics. But Miller has remained intensely focused on his goal to limit immigration dramatically and deport undocumented migrants.

Miller’s new role will come as the administration prepares to face a Democratic-led House of Representatives and Senate, which could provide the strongest check yet on the executive branch since Trump began his second term.

“Congress has tremendous opportunity to constrain what the federal government can do in the form of abusive immigration practices,” Arulanantham said. “Congress has a huge amount of leverage that it could choose to use to force the administration to change its conduct — in the way that voters have clearly demanded.”

He hopes Congress will pass laws that limit how the Department of Homeland Security enforces immigration laws, including how agents use warrants — or don’t, what they wear while on duty and what factors they can consider when stopping someone.

Members of Congress appeared to agree with that approach.

“Stephen Miller should lawyer up,” U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is set to lead the House Oversight Committee once the next Congress is sworn in, wrote in a statement Friday. He and his colleagues are committed to fighting “against his hateful policies in Congress and the courts.”

“Just days after the American people rejected his corrupt and lawless presidency, Donald Trump is doubling down,” Garcia said. “Stephen Miller is the architect of the unconstitutional ICE raids that have terrorized our communities and kidnapped and killed American citizens and immigrant families.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) characterized Miller as the man most responsible for “the cruelest immigration policies this country has seen in modern times: family separations, detainment of babies and children, militarized raids, arbitrary arrest quotas, and the horror unleashed in communities across the country,” Padilla said.

“We will use every tool at our disposal — oversight, investigations, subpoenas, and our leverage over federal funding — to expose this Administration’s abuse of power and hold those responsible accountable.”

Standing up to the administration was a similar response for lawmakers in Los Angeles. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, whose district was targeted by some of the most extreme immigration sweeps last year, called Miller’s appointment an act of desperation by Trump.

The councilmember said it won’t deter her office or the community from resisting harsh immigration policies and continued activity in L.A.

“We’re going to fight back,” Hernandez said. “Even when we were on the losing side, when we didn’t have the majority in the Senate or the House, many of us were still fighting against those raids, fighting for our communities, fighting to make sure people are fed and housed.”

As a Los Angeles City Council candidate six years ago, Nithya Raman gave a firm “No” when asked if she supported the Olympics coming to Los Angeles.

Responding to a questionnaire from the Democratic Socialists of America, Raman added: “There was no vetting of this process, extremely rushed budgeting outreach, and the residents of our city had no say in any of it.”

Once in office, she joined just one other council member in voting against the prime city contract outlining the city’s partnership with the LA28, the private nonprofit hosting the event. And in August she voted against a deal outlining how LA28 would reimburse the city for the extra trash collection, policing and other services that will be expanded during the 2028 Summer Olympics.

My, how time, fortune and politics can change things.

With her election this week as mayor of Los Angeles, Raman won herself a ticket to sit among the dignitaries for the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics on July 14, 2028. And she will be asked to take center stage at the closing ceremony — handing the Olympic flag to the mayor of Brisbane, Australia, host city for the 2032 Summer Games.

In the little more than 600 days before the Games begin, Raman will oversee the city’s preparations.

Those looking for signs of friction might note that the mayor-elect has closely allied herself with City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who has been locked in a battle with LA28 over its failure to publicly report some of the details of its finances.

It’s unclear what position Raman will stake out in that conflict and another one dear to several members of the City Council — getting LA28 to agree to set aside a certain percentage of as much as $4 billion in contracts to businesses based in the city of L.A.

During her run for mayor, Raman did what she has done on many other issues — project a more moderate, conciliatory stance on the Olympics.

“Nithya supports a successful Olympics that showcases the best of Los Angeles and delivers the economic boost Angelenos deserve: more customers for local businesses, opportunities for workers, and lasting improvements in our neighborhoods,” a spokesperson for the mayor-elect said in a recent statement. “She wants residents to share in the excitement and the benefits long after the closing ceremony, but not left to cover the bill unfairly.”

Raman’s rep said she also will “enforce the city’s agreements with Olympic organizers, put strict financial safeguards in place, and make taxpayer obligations public before commitments are made.”

She also pledged that the security around the Olympics will “respect every Angeleno’s dignity and rights, especially immigrants and our most vulnerable neighbors.”

Raman also signaled over the summer that she is ready to be a fan. In an Instagram video, she touted the opening of a new cricket grounds in Pomona, practiced her bowling (like pitching in baseball) and enthused: “The second most popular sport in the world coming back to the Olympics, and coming back, right here in L.A., is really exciting.”

LA28 Chairman Casey Wasserman congratulated the new mayor.

“We look forward to working closely with the mayor-elect, her team, and leaders at every level of government to deliver a safe, secure and fiscally responsible Olympic Games,” Wasserman said in a statement. “With less than two years until the LA28 Opening Ceremony, there is much work to be done. We’re confident that, together, we’ll be ready to welcome the world to Los Angeles and showcase the magic of our city.”

Harris-Dawson is running

It’s still a month away, but the City Council is going to have to cast a pivotal vote: Who should serve as its president under a Raman administration.

City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, in a quick interview Friday, said he will seek the council’s top leadership job for another two years. Harris-Dawson, who supported Mayor Karen Bass in Tuesday’s election, said he was unaware of anyone else angling for the job.

“I intend to be president,” said Harris-Dawson, who faces term limits in 2028.

Meanwhile, council members are still processing the Raman victory and what that will mean for the city. Harris-Dawson said the election revealed a divided city, with newer arrivals to L.A. backing Raman and “people who have been here for generations” lining up behind Bass.

“This race, I think, exacerbated the divisions of the city,” he said. “That showed up a lot more than I was expecting, and the divisions were a lot deeper than I expected.”

Raman’s young progressives

Gen Zers crisscrossed the dance floor, Modelos and seltzers in hand, as the DJ bumped her head to the beat.

But this was no Friday night at Zebulon. This was election night in L.A., and Nithya Raman’s campaign had taken over the plaza outside the Greek Theatre in Griffith Park for the occasion.

“We’ve had a mayor that’s failed young people,” Rutik Shinglot, a 26-year-old working in public affairs, shouted over the noise. “I think L.A. is ready for a change.”

Many of the young progressives at Raman’s election night party at the Greek Theatre had knocked on doors or made phone calls for the now mayor-elect. Unionized UCLA and USC student workers sported bright-pink United Auto Workers shirts. Others wore a red pin brandishing the Democratic Socialists of America’s logo.

Their excitement seems to have made it to the ballot box: Partial returns showed young people ages 18-34 had increased their share of the vote compared with the same early returns in 2022.

The Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll sponsored by the L.A. Times days before the election found Raman led Bass 74% to 16% among voters in their thirties.

Raman struck a chord with young people, many said, by hitting hard on the major issues affecting them: affordability, housing and transit.

The council member took her message directly to them. She frequently campaigned at bars and released ads spoofing popular movies and shows.

She garnered the support of niche progressive celebrities young folks trust, including comedians Brennan Lee Mulligan and Rekha Shankar of Dropout (formerly known as CollegeHumor) who emceed Raman’s election night party.

By clinching the endorsements of both DSA-LA and the regional UAW, she unlocked two major pools of young L.A. progressives — eager to build on national momentum — to campaign on her behalf. Rafael Jaime, president of UAW 4811, said the region’s members had contacted 116,000 voters in support of Raman. DSA-LA knocked on more than 110,000 doors with the help of more than 1,600 volunteers.

At DSA-LA, the endorsement created “a mechanism to build up our canvassing infrastructure citywide,” said Keshav Kundassery, 27, a member of both DSA-LA and UAW 4811. “We need to exercise those muscles right now to be ready for the fight that’s waiting for us in 2028.”

State of play

— THE ROAD TO RAMAN: Bass started election night ahead of Raman but the tide quickly changed. By Thursday, the mayor had conceded and Raman was giving her first press briefing at the Original Farmers Market.

— THE NEW AGENDA: What initiatives will Raman pursue once she’s in office? Bike lanes, housing voucher, new apartments, a new police chief and lots of data crunching. “L.A. has been flying blind when it comes to measuring the impacts of the dollars spent. That is going to change,” said former deputy mayor Rick Cole, a Raman advisor.

— WHERE WERE THE VOTES? We’ve got a preliminary map showing how different parts of the city voted in the mayoral election.

— ROY REIGNS: Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy romped to victory in her race against Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney. Council aide Jose Ugarte had a lead that’s been steadily shrinking over community organizer Estuardo Mazariegos in a South L.A. council race. Meanwhile, political aide Barri Worth Girvan was leading business owner Tim Gaspar in the west San Fernando Valley.

— SIGNS OF THE TIMES: On election day, Ugarte’s camp released video that appeared to show Mazariegos supporters stealing an Ugarte lawn sign and replacing it with one for Mazariegos.

— CH-CH-CH-CHANGES: L.A. voters approved all eight of the ballot measures that were on their ballot, hiking taxes to pay for the fire department, sending more city money to public parks and giving the council the power to cut the number of weekly meetings from three down to one.

— SECOND TIME AROUND: In a case of ballot deja vu, Los Angeles County voters reelected Sheriff Robert Luna, rejecting former Sheriff Alex Villanueva by a wide margin once again.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to Venice, a neighborhood represented by Councilmember Traci Park, and to Sylmar, which is represented by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.
• On the docket next week: The L.A. County Board of Supervisors will take up a motion Tuesday to lay out steps to fix the county’s restraining order system, in response to reporting by The Times on ways the system fails survivors.

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.

From the time I met a guy playing a violin near Pershing Square in 2005, and followed him to the Skid Row slab of pavement where he spent his nights, I’ve listened closely to what mayors promised to do about homelessness in Los Angeles.

All of them were going to fix the problem.

Antonio Villaraigosa.

Eric Garcetti.

Karen Bass.

None of them came close.

Each of those mayors invested vast sums of money and manpower and each of them made inroads. To be fair, they collectively helped thousands of people turn their lives around. But the problem is not finite, the waves keep coming, and more than 40,000 people are currently homeless in the city.

That’s one of the primary reasons Mayor-elect Nithya Raman will get a chance to do what her predecessors could not. In the most recent year of accounting, homelessness increased slightly in the city but declined significantly in Raman’s council district.

So Bass is out, and Raman is in after a contentious campaign in which Raman attacked the Bass strategy (which she helped implement) as too costly and ineffective.

“Here’s my promise,” Raman said in a video on her campaign website. “When I’m mayor, we’ll cut tents and encampments in half by the Olympics, and bring everyone in tents and encampments indoors by the end of my first term.”

Really?

Bear with me, because I’m about to explain why I have some hope that Raman might do a better job on homelessness than her predecessors. But I cringe when I hear such grandiose proclamations.

Why?

In 2006, I attended a Skid Row news conference where a gaggle of politicians including Villaraigosa touted a 10-year plan to end homelessness in L.A. County.

In 2013, Garcetti vowed to end chronic homeless, and in 2018, he said: “We can cut this problem in half in five years. And in 10 years … we can end life on the street.”

In 2023, Bass told a CNN audience that by the end of her term as mayor: “My goal would be, really, to end street homelessness. … There’ll still be people in shelters and interim housing, but to at least not have people dying on our streets.”

Have you noticed how these kinds of amped-up promises have played out?

I don’t mean to discourage lofty goals, but we’ve been let down time after time, feeding cynicism. We’re just looking for significant progress, not a miracle.

The hard truth is that homelessness is the result of a raft of problems beyond any mayor’s full control. It begins with an economy built for stark disparity, with the crippling cost of housing, and with untreated mental illness and drug addiction. A mayor can’t magically clear the decks without help from federal, state and county allies, and from strong partnerships on the City Council.

But none of that excuses the paltry returns on big investments. Mayor Bass’ Inside Safe program moved about 6,000 people into motels and other forms of interim housing as of this past spring at a cost of $300 million, and 41% of them had returned to homelessness by the end of May.

Raman wants to mothball that program and use short-term rental vouchers she claims will be far less expensive and more effective. She wants to open doors for City Controller Kenneth Mejia to audit every dollar spent on homelessness. She says she’ll demand a full accounting of county services, use Medi-Cal funds for more street medicine teams, invest in shared housing and case management.

“City Hall has put together a patchwork of programs, agencies, and dollars that were never required to prove they work together, or work at all,” Raman says on her homelessness strategy page. “No agency or program has been required to demonstrate results. No department or office has been put in charge of monitoring the spending.”

Putting a plan on paper is one thing. Pushing it through the teeth of the City Hall grinder without the wholesale shredding of good intentions is a tougher trick. And it remains to be seen whether Raman can wrangle the support of council members who shunned her and unanimously endorsed Bass.

But Raman has a few things going for her, including a penchant for defying expectations. She blitzed two incumbents, first to win a council seat and then to bounce Bass. Then there’s her urban planning education and her work as one of the co-founders of the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition. That gave her a street-level study of the challenge as well as the disjointed government response, and she then led the City Council’s homelessness committee.

“I think that situational awareness” will serve her well, said Louis Abramson, a Hollywood resident and Rand researcher who serves as chair of the SELAH board. “She’ll be able to argue from a perspective of expertise.”

Abramson is also hoping Raman will be able to deliver more affordable housing.

“She’s … proven to be uniquely tolerant of the political risks of being a YIMBY, of making Los Angeles a place that can fit everybody who wants to live here,” Abramson said.

At SELAH, and in Raman’s council district, building meaningful relationships with clients has been a central mission. That’s not always fast or easy. Some people are ready to reach for a helping hand; others are severely damaged in multiple ways, and it takes time.

I learned long ago that recovery is not linear. Sometimes it’s one step forward and two steps back. And as one social worker suggested to me, we’re so preoccupied with getting people in the front door, we barely notice when they slip out the back door.

Reversing homelessness does not end with a temporary address. Long-term case management is critical, and so is a sense of purpose and belonging. The formerly homeless people I recently met at Chrysalis, all of them working now, and all of them housed, were a testament to this idea.

I’d love to see Raman find more ways to turn able-bodied homeless people into a workforce that can help address the city’s many needs. I’d love to see her encourage more people to contribute by volunteering for organizations like SELAH, or for faith-based groups and non-profits.

Nathaniel Ayers works on music in his nursing home quarters, inspired by fellow Cleveland native Halle Berry.

(Steve Lopez / Los Angeles Times)

In the case of my friend Nathaniel, the musician, it took me, his friends in the L.A. Phil and various outreach workers a year to convince him to move indoors 21 years ago. He is in a nursing home now, where he listens to music for hours every day and has kept a gallery of photos on his wall, including Beethoven, Bach, and another person with a “B” last name.

Actress Halle Berry.

“She’s beautiful,” Nathaniel said one day when we were going over a list of famous people from Cleveland, his hometown, and he decided that Berry deserved a prominent place on his wall of fame.

My relationship with Nathaniel, Abramson said, “is not an ancillary thing. It is THEE thing. I have come to believe that the human relationship is the necessary pre-condition to this working out.”

True enough, we are too predisposed to think of the ongoing human catastrophe in purely statistical terms. But there’s more truth in people’s stories than in their status, and more community buy-in when we recognize ourselves in each other.

For the 40,000 Nathaniels of Los Angeles, and nearly 4 million of their neighbors, here’s hoping the next mayor of Los Angeles can make a difference.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — Just days ago, a resumption of war with Iran appeared inevitable, regardless of the outcome of the midterm elections. U.S. diplomats urged their Arab counterparts to prepare for an intense period of fighting. Nonessential foreign service and intelligence personnel across the Middle East were ordered home, while senior officials at the Pentagon debated the strategic objectives renewed hostilities could realistically achieve, two U.S. officials told The Times.

Now, the sharpest electoral rebuke in half a century is forcing a reckoning for President Trump, who insisted the day after the vote that his war against Tehran was worth the political cost. Renewed strikes on Iran remain a distinct possibility, the officials said.

But a sudden bipartisan push to oust Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his handling of the conflict, coupled with a statement of brazen defiance from his own vice president, JD Vance, opposing the war, could constrain Trump’s ability to resume the fight before Democrats take control of Congress next year.

A Republican lawmaker from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, plans to present impeachment articles against Hegseth next week over his role overseeing the war effort — a measure expected to gain enough support from Republicans to pass.

While maintaining public support for the Defense secretary, Trump has begun surveying advisors and confidants over Hegseth’s performance, according to multiple reports, a frequent tactic of the president before he proceeds with a firing.

Hegseth faces intense scrutiny for allegedly misleading Trump about the war’s risks, specifically regarding the safety of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. And he orchestrated a highly controversial wartime purge of top military brass, including the Army secretary and chief of staff, when combat was at its fiercest.

U.S. supplies of critical munitions also remain a top Pentagon concern after eight months of conflict, and renewed fighting would further strain stockpiles. Defense officials told The Times that the campaign has already consumed multiple munitions per target to ensure successful strikes, raising internal questions over the conduct of the war under Hegseth’s leadership.

Vice President JD Vance approaches members of the media outside Air Force Two on Nov. 2, 2026, at Joint Base Andrews, Md.

(Tom Brenner / Getty Images)

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on social media the day after the election. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest.

“But everyone knows why we lost,” he added, “and any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Responding to the vice president’s remarks, Trump said he agreed with him on the merits but stood by his initial decision to go to war — and would continue the fight if necessary.

“I think it’s largely true,” Trump said, “because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term. But at the same time, if I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again. Because long term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.

“The Iran thing, we had to do,” Trump continued, “and we continue to do it.”

If Trump chooses to proceed with renewed strikes, he will have roughly two months to do so before the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3.

Once Democrats take the gavels of the House and Senate, the new majority will be able to withhold defense funding unless the Trump administration ends the conflict. And a split Republican Party will give them a substantial boost in votes to demand a new direction in the war effort.

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed greets supporters during a midterm election night watch party in Detroit. El-Sayed ended up winning his race.

(Salwan Georges / Getty Images)

“Certainly, the funding of the war is going to be a huge issue,” said Howard Wolfson, a Democratic political strategist and advisor to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “I imagine the Democrats will be willing to shut the government down over it, rather than hand the president money for the continuation of the war.”

In recent months, the conflict with Iran has settled into a war of attrition. The two sides continue to exchange sporadic strikes, while the United States maintains its naval blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran restricts access to the Strait of Hormuz. No ceasefire or peace agreement is in place, and negotiations remain stalled.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland poised to become chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters Thursday that he expected a robust debate over war funding when the new Congress is seated.

“When we get back together, we are going to be able to discuss precisely that question,” Raskin said. “But I can tell you that there is tremendous sentiment within the majority caucus, just like there’s tremendous sentiment in the country, that this war has been an absolute folly and a disaster, and we have to try to reverse Donald Trump’s mistake the best we can.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gives a State of the Force address at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2026, in Virginia.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Hegseth has pushed back against the coming impeachment effort as a “sham,” likening himself to Trump, who was impeached twice by the House in his first term.

“Their obsession with political theater, disguised as power, drives them to try to destroy their opponent. It’s all about the politics of personal destruction,” Hegseth said in a video on the steps of the Defense Department, which he and Trump have attempted to rebrand as the Department of War. “It didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me. You can rest assured of that.”

The midterm elections results were also watched closely in Tehran, where Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, issued a warning Wednesday.

“Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message,” Qalibaf wrote on social media.

Pete Hegseth speaks during a National POW/MIA Recognition Day Ceremony on the Pentagon River Terrace Parade Field on Sept. 18, 2026, in Arlington, Va.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

If the U.S. government “betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers,” he added, “it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare.”

Times staff writer Justine McDaniel contributed to this report.

Barri Worth Girvan, a veteran government employee who ran on a platform of leveraging her experience to advocate for residents, declared victory in the race for Los Angeles City Council’s Third District seat late Friday.

Worth Girvan’s announcement came after the latest vote tally Friday evening showed her widening her lead over rival Tim Gaspar, with 51% of the vote to Gaspar’s 49%.

“I will bring competence, transparency, follow-through, and ethical leadership to City Hall, which Angelenos deserve and too often do not get,” she said in a statement, which also thanked Gaspar for stepping up to run as well.

“I know how City Hall works, and I know how to make it work for you,” Worth Girvan said. “I am ready to hit the ground running on Day One, delivering the services our neighborhoods deserve, and leading with the integrity you have every right to expect.

Earlier Friday, Gaspar’s campaign said he wasn’t yet ready to concede. The campaign couldn’t immediately be reached for comment following Worth Girvan’s announcement.

The current Third District councilmember, Bob Blumenfield, is leaving office because of term limits. The 3rd District seat includes Woodland Hills, Reseda and Canoga Park.

Worth Girvan and Gaspar were virtually tied on election night Tuesday, but on Thursday Worth Girvan began pulling ahead as more mail-in ballots were counted.

Before entering the race, Worth Girvan was L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s district director for three years, handling constituent services on the Westside and in the Valley.

A former insurance company owner, Gaspar is running on a pro-business platform and has been endorsed by the Valley Industry & Commerce Assn. and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a union representing LAPD officers. He’s also been endorsed by Blumenfield, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, real estate developer Rick Caruso and former Democratic state Assemblymember Bob Hertzberg, Worth Girvan’s former boss.

Worth Girvan was endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party and labor unions including the local chapters of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Service Employees International Union. She’s also been endorsed by Horvath and former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

In the race for District 9, both Jose Ugarte and Estuardo Mazariegos remain locked in a tight contest. Councilmember Curren Price is also termed out.

District 9 encompasses South L.A. neighborhoods, the Convention Center and USC. But no matter who wins, District 9 will undergo a shift in representation after decades of being represented by a Black council member.

Price is currently facing charges of embezzlement and conflict of interest and he has denied wrongdoing. Price has endorsed Ugarte, his former deputy chief of staff, whose platform includes protecting city residents from federal immigration enforcement and the Trump administration.

Mazariegos is backed by the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. He’s worked as a community organizer for decades and said he’s running to improve quality of life in the city, including by making housing more affordable and spending money on basic services other than policing.

Ugarte’s campaign received outside support from special interest groups including Airbnb, Uber, the California Apartment Assn. and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, which represents workers at the Department of Water and Power.

Mazariegos was supported by groups including United Teachers Los Angeles and the Progressive Era PAC. Special interest groups have spent more than $250,000 supporting his campaign.

While running for California governor in 2018, Gavin Newsom declared that he would rather be bold and fail than retreat to the safety of mediocrity.

The two-term governor known for taking big political risks once again made good on that vow Thursday when he moved to offer clemency to every inmate sentenced to death in California.

Amid a hum of speculation about how the mass commutation could help or hurt his presidential prospects in 2028, the Democratic politician sent a clear, defining message to Americans about where he stands and the type of leader they could expect.

“If my job is just to read the polls, you can have an AI chatbot as governor,” Newsom said in an interview Friday. “I was hired for my judgment, and like it or hate it, that was why I think I was given this privilege, and that’s the responsibility of a leader. My job’s leadership, not stewardship. It’s not management. It’s to lead.

“I’m here to change polls, change minds.”

The sweeping decision comes more than 20 years after Newsom emerged in the national consciousness when, as mayor of San Francisco, he defied federal law and allowed same-sex marriages in the City by the Bay.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at the “Stop the Power Grab rally” at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2026.

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

Bold moves that test the limits of his power, such as a controversial, first-in-the-nation stay-at-home order during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and spearheading Proposition 50 last year to redraw California’s congressional districts to offset Republican attempts to gerrymander red states, have defined his leadership, for good or bad.

The Democratic governor said those kinds of decisions are “sort of embedded in my DNA.” About a decade ago he said he was pushed to describe his core motivation. Though he admits it sounds trite, the governor said: “It’s to stand up for ideals and strike out against injustice.”

The death penalty, he said, is not handed out equally. He quoted Bryan Stevenson, the founder of Equal Justice Initiative, who said you’re better off being rich and guilty than poor and innocent.

“I couldn’t not have done this,” Newsom said. “There was an easy out, but … I would the rest of my life felt, you know, ashamed of myself.”

Commuting the death sentences of all 548 state prisoners awaiting execution pushes the bounds of his authority once again. California voters have twice rejected ballot measures to abolish the death penalty, first in 2012 and again in 2016, and Newsom’s decision overrides the will of the courts and state laws that permit capital punishment.

Under the state Constitution, Newsom has the power to commute about 40% of the death sentences on his own. The rest of the cases, which involve prisoners who had a felony conviction on their record prior to receiving a death sentence, or racked up additional crimes while awaiting execution, require approval from the California Supreme Court — a constitutional check to ensure the governor’s actions are not an abuse of power.

The court rejected 10 commutations handed out by Gov. Jerry Brown in his last full month in office — all of which involved people convicted of multiple felonies — and did not provide an explanation for the action.

Despite Newsom’s push to commute all death sentences, capital punishment remains legal in California and prosecutors can continue seeking that punishment.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman speaks during a news conference at the Hall of Justice last month.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said until the law is changed, his office “will continue to evaluate every death penalty-eligible case with the rigor, care and restraint these decisions demand.”

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper urged Newsom to reconsider the commutations.

He said he remembers watching Luis Bracamontes, who was sentenced to death for killing Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Danny Oliver and Placer County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Davis Jr. in 2014, “laugh in court while their families, including Danny’s two young daughters, had to sit and watch.

“Deputy Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis Jr. should be alive today, enjoying long and healthy lives with their families,” Cooper said in a statement. “Instead, the man who murdered them has now escaped his sentence.”

Others accused the governor of reducing the death penalty sentences to seek an advantage in the 2028 presidential election.

“The people of California deserve leaders who put politics and personal ambition aside and pursue truth, accountability, and justice with courage, integrity, and transparency,” said Michael Hestrin, Riverside County district attorney, in a statement. “Instead they have been presented with a decision that demonstrates a profound disregard for the victims, their families, and the prosecutors who dedicated themselves to seeking justice on their behalf.”

Luis Bracamontes looks up in Sacramento Superior Court in 2018 as the verdict is read in the killing of two law enforcement officers. Bracamontes was found guilty.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

A poll conducted in August by the Pew Research Center found that about two-thirds of voters nationally favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

Political analysts suggest that reducing the sentences adds to Newsom’s credentials as a progressive leader and aligns him with Democratic primary voters on the issue if he runs for president. Republicans, however, could take advantage of Newsom’s action and cast him as a soft-on-crime liberal who is out of touch with most Americans, which risks turning away moderate voters.

But others cautioned that national political elections are hard to predict.

Gar Culbert, chair of the political science department at Cal State Los Angeles, said it would be politically advantageous for Newsom to try to appeal to the Democratic Party’s base as he considers a run for president. Culbert said he doesn’t believe the death penalty will be a substantial issue in a general election when, if Newsom becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, his Republican challenger would attack his record as California governor regardless.

“It’s possible he’s not being strategic,” Culbert said. “Maybe he doesn’t have to be strategic because he just might think it’s the right thing to do.”

The governor first issued a moratorium on executions about two months after he took office in 2019, saying capital punishment is discriminatory and unjust. Without the moratorium, 45 people would be subject to execution now, according to his office.

Daniel Zingale worked for Newsom as a senior advisor in the governor’s office at the start of his first term. Part of Zingale’s job at the time was to consider how the governor’s actions would be received by the public.

“The only piece of data he was not interested in in that process were the polls,” Zingale said. “His view, and I agree with this, is this is not an issue that you can leverage politically.”

Newsom’s decision to commute the sentences won’t have much practical effect in a state that has not executed a prisoner since 2006. At Newsom’s command, the death chamber was dismantled at San Quentin State Prison, now San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, after he issued his moratorium.

His successor, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, has also said he will continue the pause on executions.

There was no immediate need to offer commutations to save the lives of the inmates.

Taking no action would have been the safe bet, Newsom said in an interview about his decision a day after he made the announcement. Many people around him, he said, advised him to do nothing.

He also understands that commuting the sentences could make him vulnerable if he runs for president.

“I’m not an idiot. The ads write themselves,” Newsom said. “But I just also would be fake. I wouldn’t be myself and if I’m going to be up there and not be myself, I couldn’t do that.”

With the clock ticking on his time in office, the governor said he also doesn’t want to leave with regrets.

“I don’t want to be one of the elders on some panel talking about what I would have, could have, should have done,” Newsom said. “I’ve spent my life trying not to be that person. I’ve been willing to take risks. I’ve been willing to go first on so many issues.

“If others aren’t willing to do it, you know what? I’ll raise my hand, and I’m happy, honestly, to take the hits.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said on Friday that he has been discharged from the hospital after suffering a stroke last weekend and will miss “several weeks” of votes in the Senate as he recovers in a rehabilitation facility.

Murphy, 53, said in a statement that doctors are “very encouraged by the progress I’ve made so far” and that the stay at the rehabilitation center will get him back to work on the quickest timeline possible.

Murphy said doctors diagnosed him with a small hemorrhagic stroke, which is a bleed in the brain. He said he called 911 on Oct. 31 out of an abundance of caution after feeling that “something was not right” with his body.

“This has been a scary experience for me and my family, and I appreciate the continued respect for our privacy,” he said.

The press release updating Murphy’s condition included a statement from Dr. Jose Suarez, chief of neurosciences critical care at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Suarez said the senator has shown tremendous progress and “we expect that he will make a full recovery following rehabilitation.”

In the Senate, Murphy serves on the Appropriations Committee and is a leading voice on immigration and gun policy. He is considered a contender for more senior leadership positions in the Senate and among the many Democrats seen as potential 2028 candidates for the White House.

Murphy said he has been staying engaged with his team and colleagues remotely and that his staff ensures the work of his office continues uninterrupted.

“I want to extend my deepest thanks to the excellent doctors and staff at Johns Hopkins who have treated me and cared for my family,” Murphy said.

Murphy had been traveling the country in support of House and Senate candidates as his party raced for majority control, which it secured in Tuesday’s midterm elections. A day before the stroke, he posted that he had been campaigning in his home state for Gov. Ned Lamont. The week before, he posted from Minnesota campaigning with Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, the Democratic nominee for the Senate.

Lamont won reelection Tuesday, and Flanagan won her race, becoming the first Native American female U.S. senator.

The final sprint before election day capped Murphy’s whirlwind trip to the Middle East at the start of October for meetings with several leaders, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In early September, Murphy completed his annual “walk across Connecticut,” covering about 70 miles over four days, talking with residents about their concerns along the way.

Three other Senate Democrats had strokes in recent years. Sens. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland had strokes in 2022 and have recovered. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman had a stroke while campaigning for his seat that year and now uses adaptive technology in the Senate, including live captioning on a phone or tablet that transcribes words as people speak to him and helps him process the conversation.

Fetterman said on social media the day after Murphy’s stroke that his family was “rooting for Chris and his family for a full and speedy recovery.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Justice Department moved Friday to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit challenging the counting of 20,000 ballots in California, arguing the relief it sought is now impossible given Tuesday’s midterm election has concluded.

The Justice Department had sought a court order requiring state and Los Angeles County election officials to set aside the ballots, which it alleged could be from noncitizen voters. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had both rejected that request, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Trump administration appeal to those lower court rulings — with no noted dissents.

Carter had ruled that the government’s request was probably unconstitutional, given the Constitution gives states and Congress power over elections, not the executive, and probably ran afoul of federal law barring sweeping vetting of voter rolls in the immediate run-up to an election.

However, he had set a schedule moving forward for additional fact-finding in the case — including by appointing a special master to dig into the data the federal government was relying on to assert the 20,000 voters were potentially noncitizens.

In a filing before Carter on Friday, Assistant U.S. Atty. Julie Hamill in Los Angeles wrote that that court process was no longer necessary, as it would not provide the relief that the federal government was seeking by filing its lawsuit.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s denial, the United States is evaluating how to best ensure that American votes are protected, including by preventing vote dilution by noncitizens. In addition, by the time of this Court’s hearing on Nov. 13 in this matter, California will have already commingled the challenged ballots with lawful ones,” Hamill wrote. “There is then no way to get the challenged ballots segregated. As a result, the relief the United States sought and needed is no longer available — rendering voluntary dismissal necessary.”

Hamill wrote that the Trump administration had sought to “protect American voters and to prevent the irreparable harm of state and local election officials including illegally cast votes in the final vote tabulation,” but had “exhausted its appeals to obtain timely relief” by going to — and being denied by — the Supreme Court.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli’s office in Los Angeles — where Hamill works — referred questions about the filing to the Justice Department.

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the litigation at issue was “moot” but that the Trump administration “is not backing down” in its targeting of alleged noncitizen voters, including in a separate case in which it is still demanding that California “conduct proper list maintenance, including removing noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls — which will be crucial to ensure fair elections in the future.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a defendant in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, another defendant, said he was “pleased that the administration has accepted the clarity of the court findings” against it and ended its lawsuit.

“At each stage of this election, and in response to the Department of Justice, we have been clear that state and federal law sets well-defined standards for verifying and challenging voter eligibility,” Logan said. “Our commitment and focus remain on the fair, secure, accurate, and legal processes we are engaged in to complete and certify the election.”

California Atty. Gen Rob Bonta, in a statement, said that after losing in every court it tried, including the Supreme Court, “the Trump Administration has given up its latest unlawful effort to interfere with California’s elections and disenfranchise eligible voters.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured: California has and always will defend your fundamental right to vote.”

Tricia Webber, president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials, said state election officials “are very pleased” with the voluntary dismissal of the case — which she said “affirms that our elections are administered with the utmost integrity and care.”

“At the same time, we are under no illusions. We recognize that this issue is unlikely to go away permanently, and we remain fully prepared to continue defending California’s election administration against future challenges,” she said. “We will always stand ready to protect every eligible voter’s right to participate in a fair and secure election process.”

The administration’s filing — three days after President Trump’s party took a drubbing in the midterms — marks a sudden and unremarkable conclusion to an unprecedented court battle in the days leading up to the election, when the federal government sought permission from the courts to force state and local elections officials to set aside votes during an ongoing election.

Carter had rejected the administration’s request for immediate intervention in a blistering Oct. 28 ruling, calling its allegations about the ineligible voters “not credible” and warning that the proposed action could disenfranchise eligible voters and sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

While Justice Department officials characterized the relief it had requested from the court as “targeted and modest,” Carter had reached a sharply different conclusion — writing that the administration’s demands would “wreak havoc” on an ongoing election and “create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”

The reliability of the government’s list became a central issue in the litigation. Logan’s office said its review of about 200 flagged voters found that a substantial portion appeared to have been born in the United States, a finding Homeland Security officials disputed.

Election officials elsewhere in California also reported problems with the lists, including names of people who did not appear to live in their counties or to be registered voters. Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials across the state, demanding that they sequester flagged ballots and warning of potential criminal penalties if they failed to comply.

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that heard the federal government’s appeal to Carter’s ruling — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — came to some of the same conclusions Carter did in a 2-1 ruling. One of the Trump appointees dissented, writing that he would have ruled for the administration.

Carter ordered an expedited hearing on the state’s and county’s motions to dismiss the case and the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ordered all parties by Nov. 6 to submit witness lists, including experts, regarding the reliability of the list of voters and the methodology behind it. He ordered both sides to appear at the Nov. 13 hearing, with submitted witnesses prepared to take the stand.

Ending the litigation now will forestall that process to detail the origins of the administration’s list — which is still being used by federal prosecutors in California to target individual voters for criminal prosecution.

Days after the midterm elections, Proposition 40 has yet to be decided. The ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires to help fund healthcare, is failing by more than 8 percentage points.

Statewide, more than 4 million votes remain to be counted in this race, according to the Associated Press, which calculates the expected vote using returns and other data. That includes more than half a million from Los Angeles County, where the “yes” vote leads by more than 7 percentage points.

The proposition has so far found support in nine counties: Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Yolo. In Southern California, Los Angeles is the only county leaning toward “yes.”

Propositions 41 and 42

While Proposition 40 focuses narrowly on taxing billionaires, competing Propositions 41 and 42 would have broader impacts on the state’s ability to enact new taxes. And the measures could undercut Proposition 40 if it passes.

As of Friday, the latest vote tallies showed “yes” on Proposition 41 trailing by more than 7 points, while “yes” on Proposition 42 was ahead by more than 6 points.

Proposition 41 would would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. If Proposition 40 passes and either of these measures passes with more “yes” votes than Proposition 40, it would prevent the billionaire tax from becoming law.

A late October poll showed voter opposition to Propositions 41 and 42 had grown even as support for the billionaire tax declined.

The money behind the measures

Support for Proposition 40 has totaled to nearly $35 million, mostly from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the healthcare workers union that proposed the tax.

Backers of Propositions 41 and 42 also opposed Proposition 40. Combined, they raised more than $300 million. Most of that money came from the billionaires who would be subject to the tax.