Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — Latino voters, whose swing to the right aided President Trump’s election in 2024, helped Democrats reclaim both chambers of Congress on Tuesday in a stunning reversal of support for Republicans.

The shift, which transpired nationwide but was especially pronounced in Texas, is seen as a rebuke of the president and his party by a group of Americans who have watched as their families and neighbors were detained by immigration agents while their cost of living shot up.

“President Trump asked voters to pretend like he was on the ballot, and our observation is that Latino voters did just by that, resoundingly rejecting his extreme policies and actions and anyone who rubber-stamped them,” said Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS, a Washington-based Latino civil rights and advocacy group.

“While the numbers are still coming in, what we know so far indicates that this will undoubtedly be the largest turnout of Latino voters ever in a midterm election,” she added.

UnidosUS on Wednesday released findings from a poll, conducted by the Los Angeles-based analytics firm BSP Research, of more than 3,000 Latinos who voted in the midterm elections. The findings showed many Latinos are independent, swing voters — 17% of 2024 Trump voters supported Democratic House candidates in this election.

Gary Segura, president of BSP Research, said on a call Wednesday with Murguía and reporters that Latino voters returned this election to historic patterns, with about two-thirds voting for Democrats and one-third voting Republican.

In 2024, Trump won more than 40% of Latino votes, many motivated by his promises to reduce prices.

This year, cost of living and inflation are by far Latino voters’ top concerns, the poll found, with more than half citing food and grocery costs as particular burdens and saying they have no money left over each month or struggle to pay bills.

Immigration was also a factor, with 90% of Latino voters supporting a balanced immigration system and a quarter of them naming ICE and immigration reform as among their top three issues, following cost of living.

“The Republican candidates on the ballot yesterday were really struggling to swim upstream against an administration with this kind of disapproval across issues,” Segura said.

GOP strategist Giancarlo Sopo said right-wing echo chambers didn’t understand that when Latinos hear “criminal illegals” they picture gang members or people who evaded Border Patrol.

“But the vast majority of immigrants without legal status did not swim the Rio Grande,” he wrote in a post on social media. “Conflating people who sneak in with asylum applicants and visa overstayers working through a labyrinthine system is turning off Hispanics.”

In Texas, voters in majority-Latino districts near San Antonio and along the border helped Democrats break Republicans’ longstanding grip on the state to win the races for governor, lieutenant governor and senator. James Talarico’s victory against Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton marks the first time a Democrat has won a Senate seat in Texas since 1988.

NBC exit polling shows that 61% of Latino men, with whom Trump had made particular inroads, voted for Talarico.

Among those casting his ballot was Ronaldo Salgado, the son of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who was killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Houston. He told MSNOW on Monday that he had placed his “I Voted” sticker on a memorial dedicated to his father.

“I always vote with my parents in mind, with my family in mind, but this year’s vote is definitely with much heavier weight on it,” he said. “I cried as I was casting my vote because I was doing it in honor of my dad.”

Bobby Pulido, a South Texas Tejano singer whose campaign strategy included performing at quinceañeras, beat Republican incumbent Rep. Monica De La Cruz by more than 20 percentage points. De La Cruz was among the battleground Republicans to warn the White House that ICE should focus on criminals and not law-abiding people.

Latino voters told the BSP Research pollsters that both parties, but especially Democrats, reached out to them more in this election cycle than in the past.

Even in districts where Democrats did not prevail, Latino votes made some races tight. In Florida, where Republican Sen. Ashley Moody narrowly won reelection and Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar holds a slim lead, Latinos also shifted left.

Doral, a municipality near Miami with the highest concentration of Venezuelans in the country, favored Trump in 2024 by 23 percentage points over Vice President Kamala Harris. On Tuesday, Doral voters chose Moody’s competitor, Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, by 3 percentage points.

Nationally, about 6 in 10 Latino voters opted for the Democratic candidate in their local House race, according to an Associated Press exit poll.

The midterm was also pivotal for Latino representation among elected officials.

In the two states with the most Latino residents, Gina Hinojosa became the first Latina elected governor in Texas, and Xavier Becerra is California’s first Latino governor in more than 150 years.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus announced that it will have at least 55 members in the new Congress, making it the largest membership in the caucus’s 50-year history.

“Our representation is growing, our voices are stronger, and no one can afford to take Latino voters for granted,” caucus leaders wrote in a statement.

But representation alone won’t cut it, said Julián Castro, chief executive of the Latino Community Foundation. Latinos will look to how their votes translate into policy changes that benefit those who trusted the leaders they helped elect.

“What are they going to do about affordability?” he said on the call with UnidosUS. “What are they going to do about corruption and rooting that out? What are they going to do about ending ICE abuse and cruelty and pursuing a more balanced approach on immigration?”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is likely to become the next chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, acknowledged the responsibility that Democrats have.

“One of the big stories coming out of tonight is the enormous swing that Latino voters are now re-entrusting Democrats on,” he told MeidasTouch News. “…We have to deliver on taking on ICE. We have to deliver on passing real immigration solutions and reform.”

The fate of multiple high-stakes California ballot propositions remained undecided Wednesday, as poll workers continued to tally votes from across the state.

Other measures have generated decisive action from voters on such issues as public funding for housing and voter identification.

Six races have been called by the Associated Press, according to The Times tracker. They include four propositions — 1, 2, 3 and 37 — and two failed measures — 39 and 44. Eight remained undecided.

So far, there have been no big surprises, said Mark Baldassare, statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The verdicts are “consistent with what we were seeing in the preelection polling.”

Undecided

Among the undecided items is Proposition 4, which would allow state and local governments to use public money to help finance political campaigns — something California largely has prohibited since 1988. The measure would lift that prohibition, subject to restrictions on how the money could be used and who could receive it. As of Wednesday, votes were leaning slightly against the proposition.

Another undecided item, Proposition 5, would change the process for recalling an elected official. It would separate the decision to recall the official from the choice of who replaces them, creating a second election or appointment process to determine the successor. The race was very tight Wednesday, with votes in favor holding a narrow edge.

Proposition 38 is leaning toward a passing vote by a solid margin. The measure would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research that aims to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Half the money would go to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute, with the other half distributed through research grants.

One closely watched item, Proposition 40 — the so-called “billionaire tax” — also is leaning toward a likely rejection from voters. The proposition would create a one-time 5% tax on individuals and trusts with wealth of more than $1 billion, with the revenue going toward healthcare, food assistance and education. State officials estimated it would generate tens of billions of dollars for the state, but others, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, warned that it would lead wealthy residents to leave California and lead to future budget problems.

Two separate ballot measures, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and still remain too close to call.

Proposition 43, meanwhile, would require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, to approve certain local government taxes. It was leaning toward rejection.

Another big-ticket item, Proposition 45, was opposed by a small margin of voters but still too close to call. It would change the state’s landmark environmental review process, the California Environmental Quality Act, by shortening deadlines and permitting rules for public and private development projects. Supporters say it would cut costly delays and expedite essential housing, transportation, water, health and education projects. But opponents say it would clear the path for more artificial intelligence data centers.

Prop. 45 “has been interesting all along because it fits in with concerns about housing affordability,” Baldassare said. However, it also raised questions about “unintended consequences” for the environment.

“CEQA reform is complicated, let’s face it,” he said. “That has made the voters more split.”

Passed

The passing propositions each won with what were considerable margins Wednesday.

They included Proposition 1, which authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds to finance affordable housing programs, with $1.25 billion set aside for housing for veterans.

Another passing item, Proposition 2, gives lawmakers the ability to put more money into California’s “rainy day fund,” doubling the reserve from 10% to 20% of the state’s general fund revenues. It also would require the state to save more in years when tax revenues are high, helping to weather economic ups and downs. It passed with a clear majority, according to The Times tracker.

Voters also approved Proposition 3, which permanently extends a high-income tax increase on California’s highest earners. The increase was approved by voters in 2012 and was scheduled to expire in 2031. The money generated by Proposition 3 would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. It is separate from Proposition 40 — the more controversial tax on California’s wealthiest citizens, which remains undecided.

“We saw a majority of Californians in our poll saying that the wealthy should be taxed,” Baldassare said. And while voters were warned that Proposition 40 could push billionaires out of the state, Proposition 3 seemed a more palatable way to do that.

Proposition 37 passed with a clear majority of the vote. It authorizes up to $25 billion in state-issued bonds to create a loan program to help middle-income Californians buy newly constructed homes. Qualified buyers can borrow up to 17% of the price of the home while contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

“There’s been strong support for the idea of spending more money on housing affordability through bonds, not taxes, and that explains the support that we saw all along for Proposition 1 and Proposition 37, despite the fact that it’s a lot of bond money,” Baldassare said.

Rejected

Californians rejected Proposition 39, which would have required voters to provide government-issued identification when voting in person or provide identifying information on mail-in ballots. It would have changed California’s signature-based voter identification system and was a resounding rejection of the broader fight playing out over onerous voter ID measures at the national level.

This was another measure where voters received a clear message, including from governor-elect Xavier Becerra, who urged Californians to vote no, Baldassare said.

“We saw in our polling before the election that most Californians don’t think that there’s a problem with the way that we go about our elections and casting ballots and counting votes … so that sort of didn’t align with thinking,” he said.

California voters also resoundingly rejected Proposition 44. The act would have required certain nonprofit community health clinics serving low-income and medically underserved populations to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Those that fell short would be penalized. As of Wednesday morning, a whopping 82% of votes were against the proposition, more than any other.

A jubilant Nithya Raman stood before cheering supporters at her election night party Tuesday, giving a speech that fell just shy of declaring victory, but one that urged the crowd at the Greek Theatre plaza to hold off on the celebrations for now.

“I’m hopeful. I’m very hopeful,” Raman told a raucous crowd fueled by tequila and chicken tenders. “I’m also really superstitious. So we’re all just going to be cool, okay? Very cool.”

The initial vote tally Tuesday had Raman slightly behind incumbent Karen Bass in the race for Los Angeles mayor, but analysts were quick to point out that this was actually a strong indication that Raman would win. Polls have consistently shown Raman is heavily favored by younger voters, who tend to vote later than older people and whose late-arriving ballots are considered likely to turn the tide in her favor.

“The expectation is that once Nithya Raman starts gaining votes she will continue to gain votes. There is not going to be a seesaw. It is likely going to be pretty unidirectional,” said Paul Mitchell, who heads the polling data firm PDI. “I don’t call races. But if that expectation holds true then there is no reason to expect that Raman is going to do anything but gain votes from here.”

Votes were still being counted the day after the election, but by early Wednesday morning, Raman had taken a slight lead over Bass.

“Nithya Raman is going to win. She’s going to be our next mayor,” said a gleeful L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who has clashed with Bass and endorsed Raman a few weeks before the election.

“It’s over,” declared Estevan Montemayor, who ran an independent expenditure group supporting Raman.

Across town at the Loews Hollywood Hotel, Bass projected confidence on Tuesday night that she would triumph in her reelection bid.

“Let me just say it takes a while to count the vote in our city, but pretty soon we shall know and I am confident with all the work that is done here that we will achieve victory,” the mayor said at the L.A. County Democratic Party’s election night watch party.

The pattern of Raman gaining votes would follow what occurred in the June 2 primary, when former reality TV star Spencer Pratt was leading Raman for second place on election night, only for Raman to claw her way back day after day, until she finally overtook him five days after the election.

Raman and Bass were locked in a tight race up until election day, with final polling in the race showing the second-term council member and the incumbent mayor each with support from 40% of Angelenos while 19% of the electorate was still undecided.

But a blue wave across the country that toppled Republicans in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives also appeared to be buoying Raman’s campaign against Bass from the left.

Raman ran with the backing of the Democratic Socialists of America, the leftist organization that endorsed Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) in Congress, among others.

Bass, meanwhile, ran on a public safety message that was meant to convince moderates and more conservative voters that she was a better alternative to Raman.

Raman also cast herself during the race as a hopeful technocrat who wanted to deliver “A City that Works,” her campaign slogan, promising to make L.A. a city that fixes broken sidewalks and potholes and repairs darkened streetlights in a more timely manner.

“This city’s government has made solving problems look impossible for so long that I heard form people across this city who started to believe it was impossible,” Raman said during her more than 20-minute-long election night speech that verged on a victory speech. “Hopelessness can be fatal for a city, but this campaign refused to accept that.”

She then pitched a more hopeful Los Angeles.

“In just one century, Los Angeles built itself into a global metropolis. The gateway to the Pacific. A center of ingenuity and invention. The cultural capital of the entire planet,” she said. “That ambitious Los Angeles, that joyful Los Angeles, that creative Los Angeles, that entrepreneurial Los Angeles, that inclusive Los Angeles, is the Los Angeles that this campaign was born to fight for.”

Raman’s position on the precipice of ascending to the mayoralty would have seemed nearly unthinkable at the start of the year, when Bass’ challengers included Pratt, former LAUSD Schools Superintendent Austin Beutner, leftist Rev. Rae Huang and entrepreneur Adam Miller — with Horvath and billionaire developer Rick Caruso also considering bids.

Beutner suspended his bid following the death of his daughter and it seemed Bass, despite low approval ratings, might glide to a second term without a serious challenger in the race.

But the night before the filing deadline on Feb. 7, rumors began swirling that Raman was considering challenging Bass.

“Who remembers in February when it was the end of the candidate filing and no one was, like, running for mayor?” asked City Controller Kenneth Mejia at Raman’s election night party. “I was like, ‘Oh my God,, I’m going to be here again for another four years stuck like this.”

“And then out of nowhere — out of nowhere — Nithya Raman came out of nowhere with the three pointer and she came out of nowhere and was like, ‘I’m running for mayor!’” Mejia yelled during a rollicking speech, as he mimed himself shooting a basketball.

After her speech, Raman asked that her supporters join her on the dance floor, where she shimmied to “Remember the Time” by Michael Jackson, pausing every few moments hug her backers and pose for selfies with them.

Joeseph Fuchs, a representative for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, was watching the returns closely as they first came in.

“That’s just the beginning,” he said. “Get ready.”

Another point of data for Raman: “Kalshi says it’s a 95% win” for Raman, he said, referring to the prediction market site.

Bass had a warm reception at her election night party, with supporters chanting “four more years!”

Despite high energy at the party — in part due to the Democrats’ victories in Congress — some supporters understood the lead was far from safe.

“I’m disappointed that people don’t recognize all of the great things she’s done,” said Alton Reed, when asked how he felt about the extremely tight initial results.

Reed, who works for the Communications Workers of America 9003, said he had put in more than 100 hours knocking on doors urging voters to support Bass. He said the positive response he received in the field had made him feel that the incumbent mayor had a strong chance.

Reed said he was not giving up hope that Bass would prevail.

“I’ve been through many close races,” he said. “So we will see what happens.”

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez said he was “feeling good” about the election results shortly after the initial round of ballots were released Tuesday evening.

Soto-Martínez was one of several elected city leaders who gathered alongside labor union representatives and nonprofit leaders to support Bass at the watch party.

“I’ve been part of many elections and I think when you have a bigger coalition and more people behind you that is going to show in the results,” he said. “That’s why I remain hopeful.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) with María Corina Machado and her aides in January 2026.

Last night’s results confirmed what had long been signaled. As of this writing, Democrats are winning the House of Representatives with at least 228 seats, and the Senate with 54. Beyond Congress, they secured a majority of governorships for the first time in 16 years.

The White House’s reaction is a preview of what the next two years will look like. This morning, they posted a photo of the president with the caption: “Notice: Trump is still your president,” an idea echoed on X by his communications director, Steven Cheung. With this message, the administration appeared to signal that Trump will continue governing by executive fiat, bypassing Congress.

For Venezuelans, the question today is: what changes with this new majority? The answer remains the same: oversight. The tools Democrats have just regained could enable them to pressure the administration into accelerating an electoral process in Venezuela.

The races behind the shift

The surprise of the night came in South Carolina, where Annie Andrews won by four points in a state Trump carried by 18 in 2024. Results in Texas (James Talarico against Ken Paxton), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), Kansas (Adam Hamilton), Iowa (Josh Turek), and Maine—where Troy Jackson defeated Susan Collins—illustrate how White House policies exacted a toll on congressional Republicans.

This pushback was not confined to Congress: Democrats took governorships in Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. In Texas, Gina Hinojosa alongside James Talarico became the first Democrats to win a statewide race in more than three decades.

Even in Florida, which remains predominantly Republican, the figures make voter discontent clear. Byron Donalds won the governorship with 50% against David Jolly’s 48.7%. In a state Trump won just two years ago by 13 points, the margins secured by Republicans last night ought to worry them.

The line that could work for Democrats is the one led by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: accepting that what happened on January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift.

In Miami, margins collapsed for Republican representatives. María Elvira Salazar leads Eliott Rodríguez by roughly 1,100 votes in a district Trump won by 20 points in 2024, and every sign points toward a recount. Mario Díaz-Balart is winning by less than a point in District 26, while Carlos Giménez dropped from 64.6% to 53% in District 28. Despite a district map redrawn to favor Republicans, Democrat Jared Moskowitz won District 25.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz retained her seat, now in District 20, with 74.4% of the vote. Her campaign exemplifies the platform currently working for Democrats in South Florida: she publicly distanced herself from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); criticized Trump for leaving Maduro’s inner circle in charge of Venezuela; and spearheaded the legal defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans. Her unyielding stance against chavismo paired with protections for the diaspora reflects both deep familiarity with the country and a roadmap for how Democrats may operate starting in January.

Translating victory into effective oversight

Over the past two years, the Republican Congress served more as Trump’s shield than as a check on his power. The president’s policies may stay the course or harden, but oversight is where the real shift occurs. Starting in January 2027, when the new Congress convenes, Democrats can leverage their victory across four fronts.

First, subpoenas. House committees will shift to Democratic hands. Robert Garcia and Gregory Meeks—previously ranking members on the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees—will no longer be in the minority. They will have the authority to compel document production and testimony from the administration. In the Senate, the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees will also change leadership.

Second, the budget. Unlike the past two years, Republicans must now negotiate spending bills with Democrats. This gives Democrats the leverage to condition funding on greater executive transparency.

Third, appointments. High-level officials require confirmation from a Senate Trump no longer controls. Should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, that same Senate will confirm the replacement.

Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas.

Fourth, legislation. War powers resolutions that stalled in a Republican-led Congress could now pass with both chambers under Democratic control. Immigration bills long shelved in Republican drawers might finally see progress.

Real constraints remain: most legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, and overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers. Trump will continue advancing policies unilaterally, but sustained pressure on information flow and budgetary purse strings can alter outcomes.

Venezuela is a clear example of this new dynamic. Robert Garcia has spent the year probing the management of Venezuelan oil revenues. He has demanded accountability over more than $13 billion in proceeds and requested communications between the administration and companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Vitol, and Trafigura. Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas, and Salazar—who blocked Joaquín Castro’s subpoena request in September—will no longer chair the Western Hemisphere subcommittee.

Venezuela in the new dynamic between Trump and Dems

In September, I wrote that Democrats would likely take the House, that reclaiming the Senate was an uphill climb, and that Venezuela was not a party priority. The first proved accurate; the second underestimated the field. While polls anticipated Democratic gains, yesterday’s wave reshapes Venezuela’s place in the broader policy conversation.

With the White House on the defensive, Venezuela stands as one of the few accomplishments Trump can point to. Consequently, the administration will likely double down on its Venezuela policy—not out of concern for Venezuelans, but because it yields political capital. For Democrats, Venezuela exemplifies what Trump can execute without Congress, while underscoring that the diaspora does not tolerate leniency toward chavismo.

If Democrats approach Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and work to make it a bipartisan cause, it will serve as one of the few issues where this new majority exercises its mandate while projecting moderation.

In other words, amid this anti-Trump wave, the reflexive impulse will be to oppose everything the president does regarding Venezuela. That would also be an error. The viable path forward for Democrats is the one charted by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: acknowledging that the events of January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift—placing free elections and the release of political prisoners ahead of oil contracts.

This approach mirrors the incentives driving Republicans in Miami. Even as they supported Trump’s hardline immigration policies (only voicing reservations weeks before the election), they also urged the White House to back María Corina Machado.

If Democrats treat Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and steer it toward bipartisan consensus, it will become one of the few areas where this new majority executes its constitutional duties while projecting moderation, turning Congress into a venue for governance rather than another theater in the partisan war.

State governments also act as counterweights: governors determine whether to cooperate with ICE, sign 287(g) agreements, and administer election systems. Holding a majority of statehouses, including Texas and Georgia, gives Democrats greater influence over how the 2028 presidential race is run.

A first step toward 2028

This outcome is not a blank check for Democrats. Just as yesterday’s results served as a reprimand to the governing party in the White House, failure to convert this win into tangible outcomes will leave Democrats with little leverage by 2028. To preserve their gains, they must deliver on three fronts:

First, visible results. Voters penalized the cost of living, not just the president. If the new majority limits itself to holding hearings and releasing findings, it will alienate those who voted based on economic concerns.

Second, safeguarding the coalition. The margins in Texas and Florida demonstrated that Latino voters shifted over immigration and the economy rather than an ideological realignment. Retaining the Latino vote through 2028 will require legislative momentum on immigration reform.

Third, discipline. If oversight devolves into a weekly spectacle or a bid for social media engagement, Republicans will frame it as obstruction. Limiting executive overreach is not a partisan campaign; it is a constitutional imperative. Republicans who have broken with Trump on select issues remain natural allies.

What matters is forging a shared vision among potential Democratic contenders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela.

Throughout the campaign, Republicans routinely characterized Democrats as socialists—a narrative fueled by statements from the DSA, some of whose members went so far as to demand Maduro’s release. Yet the DSA’s actual leverage within the party remains far smaller than Republicans suggest. Its candidates expanded margins primarily in safe Democratic seats.

The decisive shift in this election occurred where centrists won over independent voters by substantial margins, such as Jon Ossoff taking 59% in Georgia or Chris Pappas winning by 14 points in New Hampshire. A sensible Venezuela policy should therefore focus on building bipartisan ground: advancing mechanisms like the Jeanne Shaheen–Ted Cruz resolution or Jared Moskowitz’s transition framework.

It is too early to settle on Democratic presidential contenders, but early discussions include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jon Ossoff, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Gavin Newsom.

Beyond Ocasio-Cortez’s consistent critique of interventionist foreign policy and former Vice President Harris’s familiarity with the Biden administration’s stance toward Caracas, none of these figures has really managed a deep portfolio on Venezuela.

Harris endorsed Machado while running against Trump, while AOC refused to recognize Maduro as the winner of the July 28, 2024 election. Among the potential candidates, AOC, Newsom, Buttigieg, and Harris have all commented—some with sharp criticism, others with calculated ambiguity—on the events of January 3.

What matters moving forward is forging a shared vision among these leaders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela. At its core, Venezuelans are demanding a government that improves everyday life, rather than one distracting the public with opaque oil deals that benefit a narrow few.

Democrats now have an opening to help shape Venezuela’s transition. Doing so requires activating the oversight and transparency tools they have long championed, including demanding visibility into the White House negotiations that began this past August.

WASHINGTON — Democrats heralded a new era in American politics Wednesday after voters broke Republicans’ control of government and delivered a pivotal rebuke of President Trump.

Victories that handed Democrats control of the House and Senate on Tuesday night came in historic form, with margins outstripping expectations, posting double-digit shifts to the left by nearly every voting bloc. In some of the reddest states in the union, even Republican redistricting efforts designed to shield districts from competition were not enough to prevent Democratic inroads.

The sweeping wins were driven by a rare coalition of voters across nearly all walks of American life, in cities and countryside, from the rural Midwest and Deep South to a traditionally conservative mid-Atlantic. Not since voters were repulsed by President Nixon after the Watergate scandal half a century ago has the popular vote swung so decisively in a single election cycle.

The wave was so comprehensive that it handed Democrats wins that for decades have been unthinkable — flipping Senate seats in Kansas, South Carolina and Texas — and gained a majority of governor’s seats for the first time in a generation. How large their House majority would be remained to be seen as states continued counting votes.

Statehouses in Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania flipped for Democrats — and, as ballots were counted, Texas hung in the balance — while the party wrested at least five gubernatorial seats from Republican control.

“The only thing unusual here is scale,” said Andrew Sinclair, an assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “It is not at all unusual in American political history to see a poorly led party lose badly in the next election.”

“To build anything enduring out of this election,” he added, “Democrats are going to have to do the hard work of having honest conversations with each other about how such a diverse group of people can cooperate and deliver results.”

The seismic routing appeared to validate the populist messages Democrats — in many cases, both progressives and moderates — ran on, from lowering costs to addressing healthcare and housing issues to confronting the power of corporations in American society.

Party leaders vowed the morning after to respond to voters’ mandate on affordability and to check executive power, as members of both parties predicted the results would reshape politics for years into the future.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called it “a generational remake of the Senate map that is going to change America not only now but on into the future.”

He pledged Democratic senators would be intent on working for their constituents and delivering on promises to relieve Americans’ economic “anguish” and clean up government corruption. He also nodded to the responsibility the party now shoulders.

“With this majority, Americans have given we Democrats the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy of their trust, and that’s our most important job,” Schumer said.

In every demographic, whether cut by gender, race, age, education or region, voters shifted to the left compared to 2024, in most cases by double digits, according to New York Times data. Men 18 to 44 moved to the left by 31 points, Latinos by 28 points, voters under 30 by 32 points.

The nation also elected several historic “firsts,” including the first Muslim senator, the first openly gay male senator and the first Black female governor, in spite of Republican campaign attacks around identity. And Democrats defied Republican redistricting efforts in at least 11 districts, including four in Florida,four in Texas,one each in Ohio, Alabama and North Carolina.

The results showed the success of economic populist messages, said Alex Jacquez, a Democratic consultant and former policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“The throughline for all the Democrats [who won] is the corporate-friendliness era of moderation is over and we are much more squarely in the prairie populism of the 80s and 90s,” Jacquez said. “You saw a real resurgence of that.”

The unambiguous nature of the victory helped repel the notion that Republicans might attempt to challenge election results, as Trump had telegraphed as a possibility before the election.

Republicans swiftly began trading blame as they parsed the results.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a likely 2028 presidential contender, predicted the results could “reverberate for the next decade or most,” saying the routing was worse than anticipated.

It was “close to an extinction-level event for Republicans across the country,” DeSantis told reporters Wednesday.

Republicans will now face questions about the party’s future direction, and how they prevent a repeat of Tuesday’s wave in 2028. President Trump signaled his willingness to accept the election results and work with Democrats, while evading blame for himself.

“For Republicans, it is clear that President Trump has led the party to disaster — again,” Sinclair said. “Looking to the future, Republicans should reconsider following his style of governance and his policy agenda.”

Democrats will now have to deliver on the affordability and accountability agenda. With full control of Congress, they will be able to send legislation to Trump’s desk, and could force him to sign bills or make unpopular vetoes. Schumer told reporters Wednesday that the party would work to lower costs “with the president or without him, period.”

“It is critically important now that Democrats, now that we’ve been given the keys to the car here, we’re able to drive it,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who won reelection Tuesday, said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

Shapiro, a likely presidential contender, projected confidence in the new majorities and said Democrats would need to show that they “can legislate, bring down costs, end these wars.”

The mood among Democrats was quickly turning to “resolute” amid the jubilation, said consultant Andrew DeStefano. Party operatives want to build lasting power, he said, not become just another swing in the electoral pendulum.

“Folks don’t want this to be the latest ping-pong volley,” DeStefano said. “Laser focused on how we can deliver on some achievable concrete policy.”

Colin Allred is all blue. The Democratic politician from Texas played linebacker for the powder blue-clad Tennessee Titans for four years and he rode the historic blue wave Tuesday to return to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Allred, who served three consecutive terms in Congress before making an unsuccessful bid for the Senate in 2024, is one of several prominent former athletes who ran for office in the midterm elections. He won this time in a landslide over Republican Patrick Gillespie, collecting nearly 80% of the votes in the 33rd Congressional District located in Dallas County.

In an Substack essay in August, Allred enumerated lessons learned playing in the NFL, calling them “the core values I’m bringing with me in my fight for Congress”: Staying humble, recognizing that leadership comes from bringing people together despite their differences and building strong relationships, trust and teamwork.

Joining Allred in Congress — albeit from the other side of the aisle — will be another former professional athlete who ran a successful campaign in Texas: Former Angels slugger Mark Teixeira, a Republican who will succeed Chip Roy.

Teixeira was the fifth overall pick in the 2001 MLB draft by the Texas Rangers, for whom he played until 2007. After brief stints with the Atlanta Braves and Angels, he spent nine seasons with the New York Yankees, helping them to a World Series title in 2009 and finishing second in MVP voting.

After retiring in 2016 with 409 career home runs, Teixeira returned to Texas and announced his candidacy for the 21st Congressional District a year ago. An avowed conservative, he said he was “ready to help defend President Trump’s America First agenda, Texas families, and individual liberty.” Trump endorsed Teixeira and he defeated 11 candidates in the Republican primary.

Historically, former athletes running for office lean Republican. Decades after helping Michigan to national championships in 1932 and 1933, the outstanding center and linebacker Gerald Ford became the 38th president of the United States on the Republican ticket.

Ford never played professionally, but several men who did have served in Congress: Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), Rep. Steve Largent (R-OK) and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) played in the NFL; Sen. and Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY) was a Hall of Fame MLB pitcher; and Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ) was a Hall of Fame NBA forward.

Dave Bing and Kevin Johnson became the Democratic mayors of Detroit and Sacramento, respectively. And if the net is widened to include powerlifting and pro wrestling, Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota get a nod.

Tommy Tuberville, a former longtime college football coach and Republican senator since 2021, won the governor’s race in Alabama on Tuesday, defeating Democrat former Sen. Doug Jones. Tuberville posted a record of 159-99 over 21 seasons at Auburn, Cincinnati, Texas Tech and Mississippi.

Two former NFL players and a veteran NFL broadcaster appear to have fallen short in their attempts to win political office.

Republican Jay Feely, an NFL kicker for six teams over 14 seasons, trails Democrat Amish Shah, a former team physician for the New York Jets, 52.6% to 45.4% with 85% of the vote tallied in a race for the U.S. Congress in Arizona. Democrat Chris Kluwe, a Minnesota Vikings punter from 2005-2012, lost a close race to Republican Gracey Van Der Mark to represent California Assembly District 72, which mainly consists of Orange County beach communities.

And Republican Michele Tafoya lost the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota to Democrat Peggy Flanagan, the state’s lieutenant governor. Tafoya was a sideline reporter for NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” and also worked as a broadcaster for CBS and ABC.

Perhaps the most impressive showing by a former athlete was that of Iowa Democrat Josh Turek, who flipped a seat for the U.S. Senate by defeating Republican Congresswoman and former TV anchor Ashley Hinson. Born with spina bifida and confined to a wheelchair after his father was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, Turek is a four-time Paralympian and two-time gold medalist in wheelchair basketball.

Xavier Becerra, who grew up in a 685-square-foot house with his parents and three sisters in working-class Sacramento before ascending to Stanford University, Congress and the White House Cabinet, will become California’s first directly elected Latino governor.

The historic victory thrusts the unassuming Democrat into the forefront of California’s scathing fight with the Trump administration over immigration enforcement, healthcare funding, environmental protections and social issues.

“I didn’t run to make history,” Becerra told supporters at his election night party in West Sacramento. “I ran to make a difference for anyone and everyone who calls California home — whether you voted for me or not.”

He paid tribute to his parents and late labor icon Dolores Huerta before stating his “straightforward” mission: “Deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

The Associated Press declared Becerra the winner at 8 p.m. Tuesday. He beat Republican Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator and former British political strategist backed by President Trump. Hilton conceded defeat a little before 9:15 p.m.

“We have a new governor of California,” he told about 800 supporters at his election night party in Garden Grove. “I know it’s not the one you wished for but I do wish Xavier Becerra well.”

Though the mood at his event was mostly one of defeat, Hilton stirred the crowd with a promise to help Republicans break the Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature in 2028.

“We love California and we’re going to fight for California,” he said. “The fight goes on. We have a plan.”

Becerra, 68, will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunity: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But there are also a long list of challenges: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless natural disasters.

Becerra spent more than 25 years in Congress before he was appointed California attorney general and, later, secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration. His long resume, as he often argued during the campaign, positions him to enter the governor’s office without “training wheels.”

“It’s groundbreaking,” Anna Sampaio, a professor of ethnic studies and political science at Santa Clara University, said of Becerra’s win. “It’s particularly important in this moment when Latinos are under siege, when they’re targeted by the federal government, and you have a Latino not only being elected, but a Latino who is consistently delivering this message that he is going to stand in opposition to a Trump agenda.”

Despite his long-standing presence in California politics, the modest Becerra initially struggled to energize support for his gubernatorial campaign. When explosive sexual assault allegations pushed a front-running Democrat out of the race, Becerra, a staid and experienced candidate with a clean reputation, leaped to the top of the crowded field and finished first in the top-two June primary.

The state has had one Latino governor, Romualdo Pacheco, who assumed office in 1875 when Gov. Newton Booth stepped down after winning a U.S. Senate seat.

Becoming the first Latino directly elected to California’s highest office is a distinction Becerra was reluctant to promote on the campaign trail, preferring instead to focus on his humble roots. His father, born in Sacramento and raised in Mexico, labored on farms and construction sites; his Mexico-born mother was a clerical worker.

The largest ethnic group in California, Latinos make up more than 40% of the state’s population and roughly a third of its voters.

Though noteworthy, polling suggests Latino voters care more about results than his history-making win.

“We’re moving from an era that has defined Xavier Becerra’s career as focused almost entirely on representation to one where the voters are demanding results far more,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who studies Latino voters. “When the housing situation for Latinos is getting worse, when affordability is getting worse, when school performance measures are not getting better, what difference does it make who’s holding office when we should be focused on results?”

Though he offered few specifics, Becerra discussed his priorities throughout the campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction.

He will take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s baton on the thorny question of who should pay when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, even for undocumented workers — a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

“Hopefully he uses an overwhelming victory to achieve what he wants to get done in 100 days,” said Steven Maviglio, who served as a spokesman for former Gov. Gray Davis. “That’s when you’re most powerful: when you assume office with an agenda, so hopefully he’ll detail that within days of being elected.”

Becerra’s victory ushers in a new era of Latino political power in California. For the first time, all members of the “big three” who negotiate the state’s behemoth budget — the governor, Assembly speaker and state Senate president — come from working-class, immigrant backgrounds.

“When you’ve watched your parents and grandparents struggle to make ends meet, you bring a different perspective,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister). “If we do this right, history won’t remember us simply because we were the first. History is going to remember us because we made a difference. We want California to work for everybody.”

Times staff writer Andrew Campa contributed to this report.

The Dodgers lost four straight playoff games to the Milwaukee Brewers in a humiliating end to their season.

But this was worse.

Steve Hilton lost to Xavier Becerra in the race for governor before “Jeopardy” aired.

But this was worse.

President Trump lost early, late and often Tuesday night in the midterm elections.

In contests across the country — for governor, for Senate, for the House — he had told people to vote as if he was on the ballot.

They did, and Democrats ran the table, taking the House and then the Senate.

Trump lost big, inspected the wreckage, and claimed the problem was lousy candidates.

Has he lost a step? I would have expected him to say the election was stolen. All of the elections.

But maybe he realized that for all intents and purposes, his political career is over. Trump was trounced, the country triumphed, and the long national nightmare is over, but for the rest of his lame duck presidency.

I don’t think we were witnessing a national love affair with Democrats, nor do I think Tuesday night’s winning political party has all the answers on any of the day’s pressing matters. The Dems have their own problems, including an identity crisis and a shortage of bankable presidential prospects.

But the country’s voters signaled loud and clear that they’re tired of:

The lies.

The insults and name-calling.

The hatred.

The chaos.

The self-dealing.

The lack of civility.

The absence of humility.

Last week I turned on the news and saw Trump making fun of the name of newly elected Michigan Sen. Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim.

An awful thing to see a president do, but here’s what’s worse:

I wasn’t surprised.

Then I saw him say at a political rally that he had looked at a man’s rear end, “and I’ve never done that before…Off the record, women, yes, men no, OK?”

Again, no surprise.

He once mocked the physical appearance of a female presidential primary foe, as well as the wife of a male foe, and insisted for years that the first Black president was secretly from Africa.

Trump had always been able to get away with this sort of numbskullery. His true believers were willing to put up with it as long as he seemed true to his promise of working on their behalf. Until they could no longer deny that he was only working on his own behalf.

The cryptocurrency profiteering. The bloody ballroom. The gold-plating of the White House.

All of it while working people, including staunch supporters, struggled to understand the goofball tariffs and wondered when the promise of lower grocery prices would be delivered.

Trump and the Republicans might have prevailed Tuesday night if not for the war in Iran, which everyone is still paying for at the gas pump. The president who promised we’d stay out of international conflicts went all in, for no good reason, then said it was over, we won, except that it’s not over, and we didn’t win.

And there’s no exit plan.

But so what?

It’s not like Trump is paying for gas. His golf cart is probably electric.

In the beginning, as a Republican populist who tapped into justifiable voter disapproval of Democratic leadership, Trump was onto something when he first ran for president. The scapegoating of immigrants was odious even then, but in 2016, at a Trump campaign rally in Arizona, I caught a glimpse of his appeal to adoring fans who cheered the presidential candidate’s vow to build a border wall, strengthen the military and make America great again. A struggling low-wage worker told me Trump was the best hope for a new day.

“We’re going to come back and rebuild our country,” Trump told the approving crowd that day in Arizona. “You will never be disappointed with me. … You are going to be so proud of your president.”

The act worked for way longer than I would have predicted. But 10 years later, and halfway through a second presidency, the gig is up. Voters said yes, they are disappointed, and no, they’re not so proud.

We thought we were having a mid-term election.

It turned out to be a political wake.

But also an awakening.

Red states voted for blue candidates in a nearly total Trump rebuke.

As I watched the returns Tuesday night, I thought about my daughter–an earth science grad student–and her generation. She’s 23, which means that for almost half her life, Trump has been a political force. Imagine being that young and living in a country that twice elected one of the most divisive and scabrous figures in history.

A man who attacked judges, invaded American cities, insisted ad nauseum that a lost election was stolen, pardoned the Jan. 6 barbarians, exonerated political donors and allies, called climate change a con job, gutted environmental protections and upended America’s global in scientific research.

It’s easy to understand why younger generations have lost faith in elections, both primary parties and the political/corporate establishment.

But on Tuesday, voters of all ages turned out and said enough already, in states red and blue.

The man who so bitterly divided us might ultimately have united us, at least for an evening.

That doesn’t mean that there is consensus on much of anything. Surely calamity awaits, just beyond the shadows, and new species of political trolls are being spawned as we live and breathe. But there was hope, on election night, in the collective declaration that we deserve and demand better.

Trump once said he was so popular and powerful, he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York, shoot somebody, and not lose any voters.

It might have been true once.

But he’s lost them now.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Mike Madrid was prepping to interview Xavier Becerra on Olvera Street last month when the immensity of the moment hit him.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

That morning, Becerra held a rally for his gubernatorial campaign in the birthplace of Los Angeles alongside California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and the leader of the state Senate, Monique Limón, that doubled as a referendum on where Latinos stood politically.

Never before have Latinos occupied the top spots in both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion simultaneously, Rivas told the cheering crowd. Becerra reminded the audience that the moment was fraught for Latinos, though. Federal agents were still detaining undocumented immigrants across the state, and Latino residents — the state’s largest ethnic group at 41% — were suffering under the crushing cost of food, gas and housing.

“[Latinos] are here, we are present and we will fight,” Becerra said. “But right now, our fight is to get the vote out, to make sure everyone understands that our power lies in our vote.”

Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra purchases an agua fresca from Taqueria Vista Hermosa in Mercado La Paloma on June 9.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

Madrid, a longtime political commentator and strategist, had set up his recording equipment at the Pico House, formerly a historic hotel named after the last Mexican governor of California. He recalled how Pio Pico, who helped found the California Republican Party but ended up dying destitute, opened the structure in 1870 as a testament to what Latinos had contributed to their state. But they would eventually be seen as a relic of the bygone days when Mexicans ruled — days that gringos imagined would never return.

The symbolism of a Becerra victory would be “kind of a big deal,” Madrid said, representing a back to the future opportunity for an ethnic group that ruled California until the United States won the Mexican-American War, then was relegated to political irrelevance for over a century before finally being at the doorstep of the governor’s mansion again. Becerra would become California’s first Latino governor in modern times and the second since Romualdo Pacheco served for 10 months in 1875.

Now that the race has been called, Becerra’s victory signifies how much Latinos have advanced since Pico’s days. But it’s also anticlimactic.

As California’s Latino population grew and their political power eventually did too, the days when such a victory would have been an inspiring surprise are long gone. Becerra is now just one of many Latino political captains who steer the Golden State.

Xavier Becerra, right, fist bumps with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles, during a tour of businesses in Little Tokyo on Aug. 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero became the first Latina to occupy that role when Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed her in 2023. The state’s senior U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, is the son of Mexican immigrants who settled in the San Fernando Valley. Rep. Pete Aguilar, a fourth-generation Mexican American from Redlands, is the third most powerful Democrat in Congress as the head of the party’s House caucus. Lorena Gonzalez, daughter of a Mexican immigrant father and white mother, leads the California Labor Federation, a longtime kingmaker in state politics.

And now, with Becerra at the helm, they will have to govern at a precarious moment, inheriting a state with existential problems affecting everyone, everywhere.

Droughts, El Niño, an eroding coast and the year-round threat of wildfires, much of it accelerated by climate change. Stagnant population growth that threatens to shrink the number of congressional seats. A presidential administration that keeps fighting California in federal court and has attempted to block the votes of 20,000 Californians it alleges are noncitizens. A restive population that Madrid predicts won’t let Becerra bask in his historic win.

“This is what you’ve always wanted. Here’s the keys to the car,” he cracked. “You’re responsible for it now. Who you’re going to blame if things don’t get better — Trump?”

Jody Agius Vallejo, associate director of USC’s Equity Research Institute, said she hopes that California’s new caretakers remember the struggles of getting to the summit — that they represent the dreams and battles of generations of politicians, voters and activists — as they embark on whatever’s next.

“You use these narratives [of Latino personal and collective struggle] to get elected,” she said. “Use them to understand what people need, and govern for them.”

1

2

3

4

1. Patricia Guerrero, left, is sworn-in to the California Supreme Court in 2022 by Gov. Gavin Newsom. (Nathaniel Levine / The Sacramento Bee via Associated Press) 2. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., questions Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2025. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press) 3. Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., speaks at a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in 2026. (Allison Robbert / Associated Press) 4. Lorena Gonzalez at podium with California Attorney General Rob Bonta during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024. (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Many voters were already shrugging about the significance of Becerra’s likely victory — especially Latinos. Only 45% of Latino voters in California felt “proud” about the prospect of a Latino governor, according to a Berkeley IGS poll released last week.

Those results aren’t surprising to Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach-area state senator who chairs California’s Latino Legislative Caucus. She praised Becerra’s victory as the culmination of decades of political organizing. But voters care more about results than identity, she said — something the Latino political class has been slow to realize.

“People will say, ‘OK, that’s great [he’s Latino], but how are you fighting back?’” she said. “I just think we need to lead now and not advertise we’re Latinos.”

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Xavier Becerra waves goodbye after a visit to Hoover St. Elementary School in March 2001.

(Kim D. Johnson / Associated Press)

Becerra has long been a poster child for Latino political firsts, representing L.A.’s Eastside in the state Assembly and Congress for 27 years before Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him to be California’s first Latino attorney general in 2017. Three years later, Becerra became the country’s first Latino Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden.

Becerra has rarely highlighted his latinidad while never shying away from his background as the child of Mexican immigrants. He told Madrid at the end of their interview at the Pico House that Californians should be prouder of his working class roots than his ethnicity.

Some have complained that Becerra is an unworthy, boring torchbearer for Latinos — not dynamic enough to meet a moment where many hoped for a firebrand. But in many ways, his style is a callback to the past.

When Latino politicians first began winning local and state legislative elections in the decades after World War II, they “were constantly about, ‘How do I mobilize the Latino vote without alienating the white vote, and how do I get support from the establishment which is white?’” said Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University and a longtime chronicler of California politics.

Latinos were the majority of the population in some areas during that era, but politicians couldn’t rely solely on them to win, because they still didn’t represent a majority of voters. That changed by the late 1980s, as immigration brought millions of Latinos to California.

Civil rights activists successfully sued cities and counties to draw district lines making it easier for Latinos to vote for Latino candidates. Local activists registered new voters by selling them a future where people like them would be leaders, not tokens. Pioneers like Richard Alatorre and Gloria Molina subsequently created political machines, which helped Becerra get his start.

Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, center, and Assemblywoman Karen Bass, left, dance to gospel music sung by the McCoy Memorial Baptist choir during an endorsement celebration in 2005.

(Stefano Paltera / For The Times)

That set the stage for politicians who “didn’t need the external validation anymore” of white voters or power brokers, Guerra said. “They could now say, ‘I am a Latino candidate with a Latino agenda, because I represent a Latino district.’”

By 1996, two years after the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 galvanized Latino activism, a record number of newly registered Latino voters in Orange County helped Loretta Sanchez upset longtime Republican Rep. Bob Dornan, the first welt of purple in a famously red county. That same year, Cruz Bustamante became the first Latino Assembly speaker, then lieutenant governor — the first Latino elected to statewide office in California since Pacheco ascended to the same position in the 1870s. In 2005, Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor of Los Angeles, sparking national headlines as the first Latino to occupy that position in modern times.

The Latino political firsts kept coming over the next 20 years, now reaching a pinnacle with Becerra’s win. Guerra said that “incremental” approach made Latinos mainstream to the point where the novelty of another milestone quickly wore off.

“Do you want a transformative moment? Absolutely,” he said. “But those come few and far in between. Incremental comes every two years.”

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie with supporters after a campaign stop on May 21 at the Wende Museum in Culver City.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Becerra started his campaign for governor far behind in the polls, surging after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out due to sexual assault allegations. Becerra’s campaign leaned into his milquetoast persona and crowned him Tío Xavier — Uncle Xavier — to market him as a non-threatening moderate who happened to be Latino.

Madrid, a lifelong Republican, voted for Becerra because of GOP candidate Steve Hilton’s refusal to denounce MAGA. He also thinks Becerra can “resurrect a healthy economy for the working class” — something he accuses Democrats of “abandon[ing] for a generation.” The “burden” is on California’s Latino leaders to show they can serve not just their own community but everyone, he said.

On Monday, Becerra mingled with eaters at Homegirl Cafe in Chinatown, looking anodyne in a white shirt, wire-framed glasses and tan khakis as supporters asked for selfies or a hug.

Half-hearted shouts of “¡Sí se puede!” gave way to authentically boisterous chants of “Be-ce-rra!”

The heavy favorite for governor took questions in the packed dining room and didn’t flinch when I asked him to reflect on the fact that Latinos will head every branch of California government if he wins.

“We’re all fortunate when a state like California gives all of us opportunities to be in position of authority,” Becerra replied.

He nodded at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who stood by his side.

“But we gotta do it right,” he said. “And it’s on me to be a good governor — not to be a good Latino governor, but to be a good governor.”

WASHINGTON — As the scale of the Republican Party’s losses came into focus late Tuesday, President Trump watched from the White House and went looking for someone to blame.

First it was Fox News. Just before midnight, with Democrats projected to seize control of the House, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the network “bears responsibility for these losses by constantly and consistently putting on the Dumocrat opposition, and worse.” Then it was the fact that he had not been on the ballot, otherwise, he said, “we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!”

Minutes later, Trump was on the phone with the same network he had just accused of sabotaging his party. And over a 22-minute interview, conducted before the Senate had been called for Democrats, his tone shifted from grievance to something closer to acceptance, though never to the idea that the election results were a rebuke on his administration.

“Congratulations to the Democrats. They did a good job. They’ve been looking for this one for 11 years and they finally got it,” the president said. “But I don’t view it as a hit on me. I think we’ve had the greatest two years in the history of the president in terms of the economy, in terms of all the things that we’ve done.”

Reflecting on the losses, Trump largely put the onus on the candidates, some of whom he said he only endorsed for the good of the party.

“I was trying to get people that, frankly, let’s say that I didn’t get along with. But for the purposes of the party I went along with it,” he said.

Trump said his supporters “didn’t like the candidates,” and that some of the nominees had failed to “inspire” the MAGA base, which over a span of 30 days he tried to engage in campaign rallies in Republican strongholds, including South Carolina, Texas and Kansas, where Democrats pulled off upsets against the GOP candidates.

As Trump reflected on the election results, he offered a narrow acknowledgment that his war with Iran has played a role, saying voters “probably don’t agree with the short-term consequences” such as higher gas prices.

“It’s a short-term problem but for long term-gain,” he said, and then argued that history would judge his actions in the Middle East as “much more important than this evening.”

Looking ahead to what the election results mean for the last two years of his presidency with Democrats in control, Trump said he is willing to work with them — but that he will not hesitate to use the power of the veto.

“I have the power of veto, one of the strongest powers that a president has and they’ll send over things that are insane and I will veto them,” he said.”After a couple of months of vetoes they will call, and they’ll say, how do we get this stuff done? And we’ll work together.”

Trump said he has “a lot of friends who are Democrats.” He said he talked to five Democrats – two senators and three representatives – on Tuesday night and that three others were about to call him.

In the end, Trump said Democrats “fought hard” and did a “good job.”

Jose Ugarte was ahead of Estuardo Mazariegos in the race for District 9 on the Los Angeles City Council, while in District 3, Barri Worth Girvan and Tim Gaspar were nearly even, according to early returns Tuesday night.

The current council members in both districts — Bob Blumenfield in District 3 and Curren Price in District 9 — are leaving office because of term limits.

From his campaign headquarters in South L.A., Ugarte did not declare victory but said he felt confident he could hang on to the lead. Supporters watched on a big screen as live results rolled in from the county registrar’s website.

“This means everything to me,” Ugarte said. “I’m looking forward to hitting the ground running. There’s a lot of work to be done in the district.”

District 9 has for decades been represented by a Black council member. Both men vying to replace Price are Latino immigrants, reflecting demographic changes in a district that is nearly 80% Latino and that includes the Convention Center and USC.

Despite the shift in representation, both Ugarte and Mazariegos have said they are committed to ensuring Black residents are heard and represented. The 9th District is the poorest in the city and residents face an array of challenges, including homelessness, safety and street cleanliness, according to the candidates.

Mazariegos, who attended a campaign party at Paseo San Miguel, a Salvadoran restaurant, remained optimistic, saying the early returns “show us that when you show up for the community, they show up for you.”

“We still have a lot of votes to count but already you can see the impact of our campaign, increased youth turnout, and so much optimism at the polls,” he said in a statement.

Jose Ugarte at the South L.A. Wetlands Park on Aug. 12.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Ugarte is a former deputy chief of staff for Price, and Mazariegos is co-director of the L.A. chapter of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. The most recent campaign finance reports show Ugarte raising $1.1 million in contributions and matching funds, and Mazariegos with about $787,000.

Ugarte’s campaign also has received major outside support through independent expenditure committees, which have no contribution limit but aren’t allowed to coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. His campaign has received more than $2.3 million in independent expenditure support, with funds coming from Airbnb, Uber, the California Apartment Assn. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, which represents workers at the Department of Water and Power.

Estuardo Mazariegos at Los Angeles City Hall on March 17.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Mazariegos, who is endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America’s L.A. chapter, also has received support through several groups running independent expenditure campaigns on his behalf, including United Teachers Los Angeles and the Progressive Era PAC. Special interest groups have spent more than $250,000 supporting his campaign.

Gaspar and Worth Girvan are competing in a west San Fernando Valley district that includes Woodland Hills, Reseda and Canoga Park.

Tim Gaspar outside the Lucky Strike Bowling Alley in Woodland Hills.

(Arwen Clemans / Los Angeles Times)

At a Woodland Hills watch party, Worth Girvan said she was feeling confident about the early returns, which showed her nearly tied with Gaspar.

“I’m extremely full of gratitude,” she said at the Local Peasant restaurant. “For me, it’s always been about the people of the west Valley and making sure we have a voice.”

In a statement, Gaspar said he was encouraged by the early results and the momentum behind his campaign.

“We saw and heard it everyday on the campaign trail,” he said. “The West Valley showed up to have their voices heard on safety, homelessness, and the cost of living. We look forward to the final votes to be counted.”

Gaspar founded an eponymous insurance company in the Valley in 2008, selling it in 2021. He has said he intends to bring a pro-business perspective to City Hall.

Worth Girvan is a longtime public employee. Prior to running, she was L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s district director for three years, and has said that she would leverage her years of experience in the public sector to advocate for the district in City Hall.

Gaspar has outraised Worth Girvan, raising about $1.3 million of individual contributions and matching funds. Worth Girvan raised about $753,000.

Barri Worth Girvan chats wth LAPD Capt. Rudy Lopez during a neighborhood National Night Out event in Canoga Park’s Lanark Park on Aug. 4.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The race also has received interest from outside groups, with Gaspar’s campaign receiving more than $2.7 million in independent expenditure spending. During the runoff, special interest groups, including IBEW Local 18, the California Apartment Assn. and Uber, were among those that spent a combined $1.3 million supporting his candidacy.

Worth Girvan received about $438,000 in outside contributions during the runoff, with funding mostly from labor unions.

A ballot measure that would funnel more money to the Los Angeles city Fire Department by raising sales taxes by a half-cent was leading in early returns Tuesday night, along with seven other ballot measures before city voters.

“I’m humbled by the support of the voters,” said Doug Coates, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, which spearheaded the measure. “We showed up and we did what we needed to do … Thank you to the voters.”

Partial returns also showed L.A. voters turning thumbs up on a City Charter amendment that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of the thrice-weekly meetings now required.

Measure FD would increase the city’s retail sales tax from 10.25 cents to 10.75 cents per dollar spent, with all of the extra revenue going to the Fire Department. The city still would be required to fund firefighters at its normal rate, meaning the measure would add an estimated $345 million annually to the department’s budget.

Proponents of the measure include the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who say the department is underfunded. The tax fund is needed to lower response times across the city and increase the number of firefighters, according to the union.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a nonprofit that advocates for lower taxes, opposed the measure. The organization raised concerns that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.

It also was opposed by the union representing Los Angeles Police Department officers, which objected to limiting the revenue to one city department.

The measure that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week was included in Charter Amendment EE. Most City Council members supported it, with Councilmember Tim McOsker noting his time is better spent working in his district.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, arguing that having fewer public forums is a disservice to constituents, who would have less time to meaningfully engage with their representatives. She also worried fewer meetings would mean council members would rush through deliberations.

The amendment also would make smaller changes to how the city governs, including giving more power to independent inspectors to conduct audits of the L.A. Police and Fire Departments, and increase the penalties for campaign finance violations.

The number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum also would rise, and ethics commissioners would be barred from City Council or the L.A. Unified Board of Education for five years.

The six other measures were leading by wider margins.

Proposition TE was ahead in early results. Measure ULA, also known as the “mansion tax,” imposes additional taxes on L.A. property sales above $5.4 million. Proposition TE would allow Palisades fire victims who own homes in the area to avoid the tax as long as they sell the property within five years of the disaster.

Charter Amendment LA, which aims to streamline how the city delivers basic services for infrastructure in need of repair, was leading in early results. The measure would reduce the power of the city Board of Public Works and possibly lead to eliminating it.

Charter Amendment PL took a big lead in partial early returns. The measure folds in five proposals, including to consolidate the city’s planning department, to facilitate building and opening businesses in the city.

Charter Amendment PRK, which would double the minimum amount of money earmarked for the Department of Recreation and Parks, had a big early lead in early results. If it passes, the department could receive a minimum of $986 million annually by 2036, up from the current rate that would generate $493 million by that year.

A measure that would make changes to the city’s airports, harbor and Department of Water and Power had a big lead in early results. Charter Amendment PRT would require the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners to include two members who live in Van Nuys and three who live around LAX.

Charter Amendment SC, which makes small clarifying changes to language surrounding campaign finance rules for the LAUSD Board of Education, also led in early results. Those changes would affect campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.

Marissa Roy is on track to become Los Angeles’ next city attorney after jumping out to a significant lead over L.A. County prosecutor John McKinney based on early returns.

Roy, 34, a deputy state attorney general, campaigned on a promise to convert the city attorney’s office into a massive “public interest law firm,” vowing to champion renters and defend Angelenos from an increasingly hostile White House.

Roy, a coalition-builder, had long been the favorite in the race, leading McKinney by double digits in polls leading up to Tuesday. She won the June primary with more than 40% of the vote.

Roy and McKinney’s head-to-head race came after voters and powerful city unions turned on the incumbent, Hydee Feldstein Soto, whose June primary defeat marked the first time a sitting L.A. elected official failed to advance to a general election in nearly a century.

Supporters at Roy’s watch party at the downtown Audio Graph brewery erupted in cheers when the first batch of results dropped, showing Roy doubling up McKinney’s early vote total. The mood was ebullient as the first batch of returns trickled in, buoyed by dramatic wins for Democrats across the country and a better than expected early lead for their candidate.

Roy arrived around 9 p.m. in a plum-colored dress, her arms stacked with bangles that rang as she embraced supporters and took the stage.

“I was planning on hedging and saying, ‘It looks like we’re winning,’ but I think we won!” Roy told the crowd to whoops and cheers.

Roy ran to the left of her opponent and tried to paint him as the preferred choice of Republicans in L.A. County. McKinney is a lifelong Democrat and has been critical of President Trump.

At Hill Street bar, close to the downtown criminal courthouse where McKinney has built his career, supporters swayed to smooth jazz and Top 40 radio hits, nursing cocktails and betraying no reaction to the dismal early returns.

In a brief interview outside the bar, McKinney remained positive and said he always knew he faced an uphill battle. He announced his candidacy long after Roy and Feldstein Soto began their campaigns, yet still surged to a surprise second-place finish in June. He said he was proud he was able to inject discussion of public safety issues and real strategies for solving homelessness into the race.

“I got into this race nine months ago because the people of Los Angeles deserve better,” he said.

Although he said he had “no bitterness” toward Roy and wished her the best of luck, he did express disappointment at the efforts her campaign and some of her supporters took to incorrectly paint him as a conservative.

“I just felt that it was very misleading … it’s not a political position. It’s not a partisan position,” he said.

The candidates were a study in contrasts: Roy is a stylish progressive with savvy social media campaign videos, while McKinney is a stoic law-and-order-type. They also offered voters starkly different plans for leading the city attorney’s office.

A core part of the California Department of Justice legal team that won a historic $17-billion settlement from Meta this summer, Roy ran as a champion of the average Angeleno, promising to hold corporations and landlords accountable for misconduct. A Yale-educated lawyer, she positioned herself as the only candidate who would stand up to Trump administration policies that have harmed Los Angeles.

McKinney, who often noted he has been a lawyer nearly as long as Roy has been alive, leaned on his nearly unblemished record prosecuting some of the region’s most notorious and violent crimes and his compelling personal history. Orphaned at 5, he was raised by an older sister in a household where money was extremely tight and found himself painting houses just to afford college classes. In a 28-year career as an L.A. County prosecutor, McKinney won convictions in a number of high-profile cases, including the murder of rapper Nipsey Hussle.

The veteran prosecutor promised to focus his energy on reducing homelessness and improving public safety through misdemeanors he believed the prior administration under-enforced, including street racing and animal abuse on Skid Row. He also vowed to conduct more aggressive reviews of the way nonprofits that do business with the city spend funds meant to aid unhoused citizens.

Although they aligned in few places, both Roy and McKinney said they would work to bring down the city’s out-of-control legal costs. That figure exploded to nearly $300 million in city payouts last year.

Roy was supported by the L.A. County Democratic Party, the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). McKinney was backed by a coalition of law enforcement unions, four former city attorneys and L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman.

The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.

California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.

While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.

“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.

Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants, notably in California, are swaying elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.

The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.

The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.

Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.

The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.

The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.

Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.

Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.

In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.

Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:

Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:

• Proposition 1, which proposed a $11.25-billion bond to boost the construction of affordable housing, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 2, which would gave state lawmakers more flexibility over state spending by exempting certain tax revenue from a state spending limit, allowing them to place it into a “rainy day” fund, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 37, which would create a down-payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a home, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 44, which would require certain health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care rather than overhead and executive compensation, failed.

Among those that remained too close to call:

• Proposition 4, which would allow state and local candidates to receive public campaign financing if they demonstrated broad support and agreed to expenditure limits.
• Proposition 5, a constitutional amendment that would alter the state’s recall process by limiting it to the question of whether to remove an elected official from office, and no longer including the cadre of candidates hoping to replace the politician.
• Proposition 38, which would create an $8.4-billion bond to support the immunology and immunotherapy fields.
• Proposition 43, which would bar local governments from imposing special taxes unless two-third of voters support the effort. Current law requires a simple majority vote.
• Proposition 45, which would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up certain housing, water, energy, transportation and other projects deemed essential.

Hollywood Park was winning one fight and losing another, both by slim margins, as vote counting continued Tuesday night on two ballot measures in Inglewood.

According to results posted by the Los Angeles County registrar shortly after 10:30 p.m., Measure AT was losing, 51.9% to 48.1%, a margin of 583 votes; and Measure BB was losing 51% to 49%, a margin of 307.

Measure AT would mean more ticket taxes for big events in Inglewood, home to SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome and the Forum. The City of Inglewood wants that.

Measure BB would bar the city from allowing billboard advertising on sidewalks, medians and the like. Owners of those sports and entertainment venues, who have their own sponsorship deals, are backing that measure.

Meanwhile, City Council member Gloria D. Gray led incumbent Mayor James T. Butts Jr., 34.6% to 29.8%, putting them on an early track for a runoff election in March.

Los Angeles County does not provide a timeline for when the election results will be listed as final.

The ballot measures were spawned by a feud between Inglewood and Hollywood Park, the nearly 300-acre development anchored by SoFi Stadium and owned by Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

The fight started last year over billboards. Inglewood signed a deal with WOW Media for 60 digital signs carrying 108 screens, some of them bus-shelter-sized kiosks. Others are street displays up to 22 feet tall on sidewalks and medians.

SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome and the Forum sued to block the deal, arguing the signs would undercut their individual sponsors who paid for exclusivity. A judge sided with the city and an appeal is underway.

Measure BB, short for “Billboard Blight,” aimed to restrict billboard advertising on public property. It qualified with nearly 13,000 signatures.

The WOW deal runs 20 years with two 10-year options, so it could be around for 40 years.

“It’s biblical in length,” said John Shallman, the political strategist managing the “Yes on BB” campaign. “You go back 40 years. We didn’t even have the Internet. We didn’t have cell phones.”

Skip Miller, lead attorney for the city, said the kiosks “blend in with the surrounding areas” and connect to a network that provides traffic and safety information.

The billboards are subject to Inglewood Ballot Measure BB, which calls for the halt of advertising on them.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Measure AT, backed by the city, would lift a $15-million cap on the 10% admission tax the stadium pays. Hollywood Park sees it as punishment for challenging the billboard deal.

The billboard fight led to a bigger one. Last month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled void the 2015 development agreement that cleared the way for SoFi Stadium, citing a 2018 Moreno Valley decision.

Under the 2015 agreement, Hollywood Park paid up front for roads, water lines, streetlights and event-day police and emergency services, with the city agreeing to eventually reimburse Kroenke for those expenses. Now that the agreement has been voided, the city argues it isn’t required to pay.

For more than a decade, Donald Trump seemed to defy all the known laws of political physics.

He was impeached, repeatedly indicted and convicted of multiple felony counts. He ranted and raged and acted more like a colicky infant than any president that anyone living today has ever seen.

He enriched himself lavishly, pursued his self-interests relentlessly and indulged his whimsies — from war, to tariffs to tacky decor — without regard to cost, crudeness or any flicker of conscience.

And yet Trump bestrode the country like no figure since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was not just a political titan, but an irresistible social and cultural force.

On Tuesday, however, time, impatience and gravity finally caught up with Trump.

He took an electoral thrashing that will stand alongside the worst political beat-downs of modern times. His party not only lost control of the House and Senate, but drowned in a blue wave that swept away Republicans in election contests big and small, from sea to shining sea.

No lies, no bluster, no flimsily drafted lawsuits challenging the result can change or overturn that fact.

Presidents almost invariably lose congressional seats at the midpoint of their term, especially during their second stretch in office. But Tuesday’s results weren’t predestiny. They were a Republican disaster wholly of Trump’s making.

Keeping control of the House, which the GOP held by a historically small margin, was always going to be exceedingly difficult, even after Trump and his allies ruthlessly gerrymandered congressional lines to improve their chances. Democrats needed a gain of merely three seats. They scooped those up before the polls even closed in California, Nevada and other Western states.

The only question, with many races still to be decided, is how big a majority Democrats will enjoy when the next Congress convenes in January.

The Senate, where Republicans enjoyed a 53-47 advantage, should have been the GOP’s bulwark.

The political map could scarcely have been more favorable. Roughly two-thirds of the contested Senate seats were in states that Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races were in states Trump won, several by double digits.

Democrats were happily biding their time Tuesday night, awaiting results from Michigan and Alaska to see how many seats they would ultimately gain.

At the start of this election cycle, the notion that Democrats would seriously compete in such deep-red bastions as Kansas, South Carolina and Texas would have seemed absurd. On Tuesday, voters elected Democrats James Talarico in Texas and Annie Andrews in South Carolina, the first time the party has won a statewide office in either state in decades.

In Kansas, Adam Hamilton beat Roger Marshall to become Kansas’ first Democratic U.S. senator since before “The Wizard of Oz” was released in movie theaters in 1939.

Trump could not have done more in the last two years to undermine his party and its political standing if he’d purposely set out on a mission of self-sabotage.

His meddling in primaries left Republicans with several flawed candidates, including in Texas and South Carolina. His cruel and roughshod anti-immigrant policies alienated Latinos, who just two years ago voted for Trump in record numbers.

His tariffs and, in particular, go-it-alone war with Iran stoked inflation and sent the cost of gas, diesel, groceries and fertilizer soaring. Those elevated prices taxed consumers everywhere but hit particularly hard in rural, small town and exurban America, which is home to much of the Republican base.

Trump’s focus on building a White House ballroom, raising a triumphal arch and resurfacing Washington’s Reflecting Pool — which he visited on election eve for a closing message, that, inexplicably, drew attention to its botched renovation — showed exactly where his skewed priorities lie during these economically anxious times.

Empathetic it was not.

As inflation worsened and his seeming obtuseness grew — “I don’t give a damn,” Trump said of higher gas prices, “we’re making a freaking fortune” — the president’s approval ratings sank to levels not seen since a Trump-inspired mob laid siege to the Capitol in a failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Even that defeat wasn’t as bad as Tuesday’s political massacre.

Voters were not happy.

Roughly three-quarters of those sampled by the Associated Press said they were angry or dissatisfied with the overall direction of the country as well as the state of the economy. Nearly 7 in 10 said they wanted Congress, supine under Republican control, to provide more checks and balances on the capricious president.

We live in an age of remarkable political volatility.

From 1960 to 1978, there were three elections in which control of the White House, Senate or House switched parties. From 1980 to 1998, there were four. Since 2000, there have been 12 elections in which power shifted, with Tuesday’s midterm referendum being the latest.

Voters have punished presidents for an unpopular war (in Iraq), for policies they didn’t like (Obamacare, threatened cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and for that particular scourge of presidents and their parties, inflation.

But no other midterm election this century delivered the kind of personal repudiation that Trump faced, because no other president placed himself so very front and center in the campaign.

Riding the thermals of his over-inflated ego, marching stridently beneath his banner of self-regard, Trump incessantly urged voters “to pretend I’m on the ballot.” They did and their verdict was thunderous and clear.

Trump lost. Epically.

Let the healing — and the reckoning — begin.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna was leading challenger and former Sheriff Alex Villanueva by a wide margin in his bid for reelection Tuesday, according to early returns, in a rematch of the 2022 race between the two lawmen.

Early returns also showed L.A. County voters favoring Measure A, which would establish binding arbitration for sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other public safety employees who by law cannot go on strike.

A second county ballot measure, Measure E, was far ahead in early returns. Measure E asks voters to create an independent ethics commission that previously was approved by another measure, and address administrative missteps that invalidated funding approved by voters in 2020 to support jail alternatives.

In the sheriff’s race, Villanueva was seeking to regain the job he lost in 2022 when Luna successfully challenged him for reelection.

This contest was lower profile than the 2022 race, but the stakes are just as high, as the new Los Angeles County sheriff will face a host of challenges, from navigating relationships with federal and local agencies to boosting recruitment and retention.

Luna pitched himself to county voters as a calmly effective operator who has brought down crime while building relationships with local, state and federal leaders that suffered under his predecessor’s tenure. The incumbent highlighted his department’s successful navigation of World Cup security and the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration agents and troops to L.A. as examples of the efficacy of his approach.

Villanueva, on the other hand, has sought to depict L.A. County as more dangerous under what he describes as the overly permissive approach of Luna. The former sheriff claimed Luna has presided over a deep decline in department morale and staffing while being too soft on drug users, the homeless and petty criminals.

Representatives of the Luna and Villanueva campaigns did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday evening.

Both men guided the department through tumultuous periods for the county. Villanueva was sheriff for nearly two years at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Luna was in office during the Eaton and Palisades fires.

The next four years promise further challenges. The Olympic Games are less than two years away, and the sheriff’s department will be expected to play a major role keeping millions of visitors and athletes safe.

The new sheriff also will be expected to rein in the department’s budget, which has experienced ballooning overtime costs as sworn vacancies have risen markedly under both sheriffs.

Villanueva claims Luna is out of touch with deputies and that they are leaving the force en masse in response to his poor leadership skills. Villanueva said he would improve staffing by redirecting overtime spending and serving as a beacon to would-be deputies who’ve been turned off by Luna.

But Luna denies that deputies are fleeing the department and says he’s taken major steps to improve the hiring process. He has hired an outside contractor to speed up applicant background checks and provided an avenue for many new deputies to go from the academy to patrol instead of first requiring a stint in one of the county’s jails.

Among the two countywide ballot measures, Measure A was the highest profile, with unions representing county deputy sheriffs, firefighters and others spending millions of dollars in support.

Measure A would mandate binding arbitration between the county government and negotiators who represent deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety employees in the event contract talks reach an impasse.

Currently, the county supervisors can impose a final offer that employees must accept because by law, public safety personnel are not allowed to strike.

Supporters say the measure adds balance to the negotiations process and removes the unilateral authority of the county Board of Supervisors. The change is backed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees.

County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath authored the motion, which has the support of four out of the five supervisors. No formal opposition has been filed. Supervisor Holly Mitchell raised financial concerns about the measure but has not officially opposed it.

Measure E on the county ballot would fix issues with Measure J, which was approved by voters in 2020, and Measure G, which passed in 2024.

Measure J earmarked at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue to incarceration alternatives. However, some of the ballot language in Measure G unintentionally repealed Measure J — an administrative error that was discovered in June 2025. Amendment E would partly ensure the funding to incarceration alternatives remains in effect.

The amendment also would enshrine in the county charter the seven-member ethics commission and ethics compliance office that was created when Measure G passed.

The amendment has the support of Horvath and other supervisors, as well as the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, who said Measure J shouldn’t be undone by an administrative error.

Nov. 3, 2026 10:52 AM PT

We are tracking all races across Los Angeles County, in dozens of cities, communities and school districts.

Of note in this year’s elections are a neck-and-neck Los Angeles mayoral race, a rematch for the L.A. County sheriff and nearly 100 city council seats (two of which are in L.A.). Less prominent races cover water district boards, school district trustees and the judge’s bench. Angelenos were asked to vote on propositions, measures and charter amendments — many of which involve funding programs with bonds or new taxes — at both the county and city levels.

With a few exceptions, the Associated Press does not call local city and county races. The county has 30 days to submit certified results to the secretary of state.

Countywide

Only three races are on the ballot for all of L.A. County.

Alex Villanueva is seeking to reclaim his position leading the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. He is running against the incumbent, Robert Luna, who unseated him in 2022.

Measure A would require binding arbitration if talks between county officials and unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety groups reach an impasse.

A “Yes” on Measure E would do two things: enshrine previously approved Board of Supervisors ethics reforms into the county charter, and fix a problem created by a 2024 measure that invalidated a previously approved jail alternatives funding proposal.

Back to top

Cities and communities

Six of L.A. County’s 88 cities have mayoral races, including Los Angeles, Compton, El Monte, Inglewood, Lawndale and Monrovia.

Also on the ballot are city council races and measures that would issue bonds or create taxes to fund a variety of government services.

Back to top

School districts

Across L.A. County, dozens of school and community college districts have board seats and bond measures on the ballot.

Superior Court judges

Angelenos have four Superior Court judges on their ballots.

Back to top

Water districts

Multiple water district board members will be decided by voters in Los Angeles. In several districts where voters could select multiple candidates, the two with the most votes win.

Back to top

Other races

Back to top

Nov. 3, 2026 10:52 AM PT

The 2026 elections in the city of Los Angeles include mayor, City Council, city attorney and eight ballot measures.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, Nithya Raman, have spent $13 million on their mayoral campaigns. In the latest poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, the mayor and City Council member were locked in a dead heat, with 40% of likely L.A. voters supporting each of them. And 19% still undecided.

The race for city attorney has gained outsize attention as California Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy, with strong support from the left, has campaigned against L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney. In late-October polls about 45% of likely voters were undecided.

Voters in the city of Los Angeles also weighed in on ballot measures and City Charter amendments covering everything from taxes and fire resources to governance of airports and the port and the quality of parks.

Mayor

City attorney

City Council

Back to top

Ballot measures

Back to top

Nov. 3, 2026 10:52 AM PT

A total of 23,450,456 ballots were issued to registered voters across California. Voters have the option of returning ballots by mail or in a drop box or voting in person. California also allows for same-day registration. The majority of returned ballots will be counted by the end of election night.

After the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, of those ballots are delivered to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, where they are verified and tallied. County registrars are deliberate and expeditious with the vote count, even as they handle millions of votes under increasing political scrutiny.

Nearly two thirds of registered voters in California are concerned that the federal government might try to stop the vote count before all ballots are counted, an October UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times found.

Each county is responsible for collecting and counting ballots on election night and in the following weeks. The registrars then communicate those results, in batches, to the secretary of state. The counties with the most voters — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange and Riverside — are prepared to process hundreds of thousands of ballots.

In Los Angeles County, the operation to deliver ballots to the processing center involves eight helicopters flying in ballots from Lancaster, Palmdale, Catalina and other far reaches of the county.

Where the votes still are being counted

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and estimates how many votes were cast in each race using vote returns and other data.

One factor considered by analysts in calling a race early is where the remaining uncounted ballots are from. For example, if a Republican stronghold still has a large number of ballots to process, it may indicate a different outcome than if the ballots left to be counted were from a more left-leaning area.

The county has 30 days to submit certified results to the secretary of state. The Associated Press’ Estimated Expected Vote Percentage will remain at 99% until the state certifies the election on Dec. 11.

How many ballots have been processed so far

The speed of California’s vote count is determined by the state’s grace period for mail-in ballots. For a week after the polls close, county registrars will continue to accept and count ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 3.

Ballots with certain errors such as signatures on the return envelopes not matching the ones on the voter rolls have the opportunity to be corrected. Voters have until two days before certification to correct, or cure, their ballot.

Counties must provide the secretary of state an estimate of their remaining unprocessed ballots. Once available, The Times will track those reports as counties update the state each day.