POLITICS

These contributions were reported by major candidates on the Oct. 7 ballot who have received at least $100,000 for their gubernatorial campaigns. Totals are for all contributions through Aug. 23 plus contributions of $1,000 or more through Thursday. Donations of $1,000 or more must be reported within 24 hours of receipt.

* The Operating Engineers Union Local 12 in Pasadena gave the maximum $21,200*. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, a major Minneapolis law firm with a large Century City office, donated $15,000. The Home Ownership Advancement Foundation, an arm of the California Building Industry Assn., provided $10,000. The San Francisco personal injury law firm of Harowitz & Tigerman gave $5,000. Marilyn Y. Isenberg of Sacramento and Vicki L. Nunez of South San Francisco each gave $5,000.

*–* Contributions Candidate or committee Total reported Reported in 24 hours ending Thursday Cruz Bustamante $3,571,934 $96,500 709 contributions 28 contributions

*–*

Bustamante controls three other committees:

Californians for Stability is an anti-recall fund that has raised $421,186. Another fund, the Cruz Bustamante Committee Against Prop. 54, raised $49,700 from the California State Employees’ Assn. Bustamante’s anti-Prop. 54 committee has collected more than $4.6 million, most of it transferred from a third committee, the Lt. Gov. Bustamante 2002 Committee. That is an old reelection campaign fund, which reported raising more than $911,800, excluding the transfers.

*–* Arianna Huffington $632,552 $2,000 2,334 contributions 2 contributions

*–*

* Edward F. Limato, a Los Angeles talent agent, and Russell Lungerich, an attorney in Rancho Palos Verdes, gave $1,000 apiece.

*–* Tom McClintock $1,006,402 $20,990 1,268 contributions 6 contributions

*–*

* Martha Bobbitt, president of JRBT Inc. of Rancho Santa Fe, gave $14,990. John Zsarnay of Sunnyvale contributed $3,000.

*–* Arnold $12,803,611 $499,500 Schwarzenegger 1,505 contributions 146 contributions

*–*

* The Cimarron Group, an advertising, marketing and design company in Hollywood, gave $21,200. So did venture capitalist Robert C. Kagle of Woodside, Palo Alto investor William L. Edwards and George Garrick of Atherton, CEO of Activcard Corp. Goldman Sachs investment banker Bradford C. Koenig, also of Atherton, gave $20,000. UC Regent Ward Connerly, author of Proposition 54, the Oct. 7 ballot measure that would outlaw the collection by government of certain data on race and ethnicity, gave $1,000.

Schwarzenegger also controls Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Total Recall Committee. The pro-recall group has raised more than $1.55 million.

* R. Hall Investment Properties of Tustin gave $57,600. The American Sterling Corp. in Irvine provided $50,000. The financial services firm has contributed $150,000 to the Total Recall committee. The New Majority PAC composed of moderate Orange County Republican businessmen contributed $25,000, bringing their total to $103,800.

Davis Fights the Recall

*–* Californians Against $9,114,078 $910,129 the Costly Recall 581 contributions 47 contributions of the Governor

*–*

Gov. Gray Davis controls this anti-recall committee.

* The Kings Arco Arena partnership in Sacramento provided $100,000. Casden Properties, a Beverly Hills-based real estate investment company, gave $50,000, bringing its total support to $150,000.

Davis also continues to raise money through his former reelection committee, the Gov. Gray Davis Committee, which has transferred more than $1.7 million to Californians Against the Costly Recall.

A third committee, Taxpayers Against the Governor’s Recall, has reported more than $2.7 million in contributions.

*Contributions to candidates from each outside source are limited to $21,200. There is no cap on the amount candidates can give their own campaigns, or on donations to noncandidacy committees.

Reported by Times staff writer Jeffrey L. Rabin and Times researcher Maloy Moore.

Source: Campaign reports filed with the California secretary of state.

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.

The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.

Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.

That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.

Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.

President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.

(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)

The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”

One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.

“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”

The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”

Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”

Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.

But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.

President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”

(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.

Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.

“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.

President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.

Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.

(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)

Thrift store millionaire Ray Ellison leaned back in his office chair and laughed.

He knows a liar when he sees one, he said. And he knows a liberal. He doesn’t like either.

“I called him a slimeball, scum-sucking liar,” said Ellison, 65, reciting a description of then-Ventura Mayor Dennis Orrock that he painted on a truck parked near a freeway in 1984.

Ellison took on the mayor’s ally the following year, dubbing Councilwoman Pati Longo “The Phony with The Toni” in full-page newspaper ads that declared her a liar, too.

In 1991, Ellison’s large ads depicted Councilman Donald Villeneuve astride a defecating bull, stating: “Screw the Marketplace.” Last fall, two councilmen and a challenger were featured as smiling fish in ads titled: “A Fish Stinks From The Head. Take A Sniff of These.”

Of the forces that have reshaped Ventura’s political landscape in recent years–pushing campaigns to increasingly personal attacks–none has been consistently harsher than Raymond W. Ellison.

Spending tens of thousands of dollars, including at least $14,000 last fall, Ellison has been described by critics as Ventura’s godfather of mudslinging.

“Based on the ads he ran, I would judge him to be venal and mean, coarse and crass,” said former Councilman Todd Collart, defeated Nov. 5 after he was caricatured as a smelly fish. “He continues to set lower and lower standards to be aimed for by others. And that works against good people seeking elective office.”

Councilman Gary Tuttle–also featured in the “fish ads”–said he considered not running for a second term last year because of Ellison.

“I knew he was going to come after me, and I had to think, ‘Do I want to put my family through this?’ ” he said. “My mom, my wife, my sisters, they got very upset. The Tuttle name has always been a positive in this community.”

Even some candidates backed by Ellison distanced themselves from his methods. Newly elected Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures called a press conference before the election to say she was not associated with Ellison, and asked that he cancel future ads.

Councilman James Monahan, a recipient of Ellison political assistance for 16 years, said recently that he does not condone his friend’s advertisements, because they “can have a negative effect on everyone. You can turn people off.”

But to many of Ellison’s political allies and friends, the Ventura businessman is far more complicated and admirable than his crude public persona might suggest. And his opinions–though presented in a blunt style–air the frustrations of Ventura’s business community, they said.

Supporters say Ellison holds work, family and religion most dear–that he is generous in his donations to church and charity and in his employment of society’s least employable.

A high school dropout turned business whiz, Ellison says he started the nation’s first privately owned thrift store in 1948 with money he earned as a paratrooper in World War II. Now semi-retired, he claims about 1,300 employees in the 28 stores he and his two sons own or operate in seven states.

Officials at organizations for war veterans say Ellison’s thrift stores keep them in business by paying the charities millions of dollars a year for donated goods or by operating charity-owned stores at a healthy profit.

“The United States could use more Ray Ellisons,” said Jim Pechin, business manager for the Vietnam Veterans of America in Washington. “We probably wouldn’t be here today without Ray, because he developed our funding base.”

Locally, Ellison donates to charity golf tournaments and gives time and money to the First Baptist Church of Ventura. In recent days, he helped decorate the church for Christmas dinners–then washed dishes afterward.

“He’s just a very helpful, generous man,” said Nick Bailey, a church associate pastor. “He’s not afraid when he sees needs in the church community and in the ministry here to be a part of the solution.”

*

Ventura attorney William D. Fairfield, who has known Ellison for 20 years, said of his friend:

“I have tremendous respect for this man–for his integrity, for his business acumen, for him as a family man. And I think he’s done more for this community than any single individual by asking public officials to be accountable.”

Banker Bob Alviani, president-elect of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, said the comments of Ellison–whose philosophy is pro-growth, pro-business and anti-government waste–reflect the sentiments of others.

“I don’t think Ray Ellison is alone in his feelings or alone in how he expresses his opinion,” Alviani said. “If he wants to pay the price to say what he’s saying, fine. If you take it to heart, fine. If you choose to ignore it, fine too.

“The wonderful thing about our politics in this country is that a person has a right to say whatever they want,” Alviani said.

Gruff, lean and balding, Ellison is skittish about public attention. He wants to have his say every so often in political advertisements and letters to the editor, and leave it at that.

But the nature of his business–and his family’s pioneer role in it–have prompted a series of television and newspaper reporters to knock at his door.

“I’ve had lots of stories,” Ellison said in a recent interview. “You name it–NBC, CBS, ’60 Minutes,’ ‘The Today Show.’ . . . It’s a big pain in the ass.”

The theme of those stories, including a 1987 investigation by The Times, has been that private thrift store operators such as Ellison use charities’ names to collect tax-deductible donations of clothes and household goods, then sell them for large profits, most of which go into the pockets of the operators and not the programs of charities.

*

The Times’ investigation found that private thrift store operators nationwide typically made $1.50 for each $1 the charities got. Ellison, his extended family and the Ellisons’ former employees dominate the private thrift store industry, The Times found.

But in Ray Ellison’s case, the charities generally have not complained about the revenue they receive from the stores he owns or manages for them. They say their share of profits is higher than industry standards. For instance, charity profits reach about $1.45 million a year–about two-thirds of the total profit–at five stores owned by the Disabled American Veterans organization of Colorado and operated by Ellison.

“Ray runs the Cadillac of the thrift store management,” said Fred Friedrich, president of the DAV’s Colorado thrift store committee. “The guy’s good. He’s got a lot of respect out here.”

Ellison’s Ventura-based M & M Management wrote checks totaling $7 million to veterans’ groups last year, including $4 million in profit from the 28 stores, he said. He won’t say how much his company earned, but he has prospered.

Ellison and his family valued M & M at $5 million in 1985, according to public records. His two sons, Matthew and Mark, and the husbands of his two daughters all work in the family business, Ellison said.

Ellison’s 142-acre ranch just north of Ventura is for sale for $3 million. He has a condominium in Colorado, where he spends summers and holidays. His family owns most of the 28 stores they operate. He’s a real estate developer in Texas, where he recently sold 40 acres to Wal-Mart, and in Washington state, where he’s building a 180-house subdivision and shopping center.

Ellison’s prosperity is surely greater than he could have imagined as a Depression-era son of a Salvation Army officer. As a boy, he said he struggled in school because of frequent family moves along the West Coast, and dropped out in ninth grade.

*

But he began to learn the skills that would make him rich. He remembers watching his parents directing teams of men sorting salvaged goods for the Salvation Army.

Family lore credits his mother, Stella, with coining the term “thrift shop” as the Ellisons helped the Salvation Army transform its bulk salvage operation into a retail one in the 1930s.

Eventually Ellison’s father, Orlo, and four uncles all entered the private thrift store business. But it was young Ray and one uncle who Ellison said started the first private thrift store 46 years ago in Santa Ana with $3,500.

By 1965, Ellison, who lived in Ventura briefly in 1947, had returned to the city with his wife, Sue, a Westmont College graduate, to raise his two sons and two daughters, Ellison said.

Since then, Ellison has left a legacy of hard work and hard feelings.

Even in semi-retirement, the Montana-born Ellison said it is not uncommon for him to arrive at M & M’s national accounting office on Main Street in Ventura by 4 a.m.

“Get your buns out of bed, get your work done before the traffic gets too heavy, then go home and enjoy your family,” Ellison once wrote.

In a recent written statement, Ellison described his children and their spouses, all Ventura residents, as loving and hard working. “Neither they, or my wife and I attend social functions, bridge parties, or have our names associated in any way with playing Santa Claus. Our lives focus around our families, church, friends and business,” he wrote.

Despite such tendencies, Ellison has become well known, first as the Ventura Keys homeowner who led a successful seven-year legal battle against the Ventura Port District to force dredging at the mouth of Ventura Harbor.

The 1968 case cost Ellison $50,000 in fees, but is now cited in law school textbooks as an example of a citizen forcing government to keep its word, he said. More recently, he lost two lawsuits that challenged Ventura County’s General Plan and rezoning policies because of changes he claimed lowered the value of his ranch.

“I have no use for people who lie or abuse their authority to rule over me,” he said in a written explanation of the lawsuits. “I give due respect to every type of authority until that body proves unworthy.”

*

Ellison’s dramatic public entry into Ventura politics came in 1984, when he warned the Ventura City Council not to appoint attorney Dennis Orrock mayor, then attacked Orrock so tenaciously that the new mayor asked the council to appoint an ethics committee to investigate the charges.

On one large sign he placed near a freeway on-ramp, Ellison wrote: “For sale cheap, slightly used mayor. Outstanding qualifications. Unethical. Deceitful. Lies Frequently.”

“I still have the sign,” Ellison said with a laugh.

Ellison claimed Orrock, who years before had represented Ellison and other investors in an ill-fated business deal, knew or should have known that the deal’s promoter had failed elsewhere with similar proposals.

Orrock denied the accusation. And after hours of testimony, all carried on local cable television at Ellison’s expense, the ethics committee cleared Orrock of any wrongdoing.

“That was the first time it got nasty,” remembered John McWherter, a councilman for 18 years ending in 1991. “That was the first time that a personal vendetta had come into City Council politics.”

Orrock said he has not seen or spoken with Ellison since. And despite the “hurtful memories,” he even jokes about the experience.

“In 1984, he elevated me to one of 10 movers and shakers in the area, because I was on the front page of the newspaper for 23 days,” Orrock said. “I don’t know what motivates Mr. Ellison. The guy is kind of an enigma.”

Ellison said his motive was that Orrock was not fit to be mayor. The hearings were a whitewash, Ellison said, but that was OK because Orrock did not seek another council term.

“It was my intention that he never run again for anything,” Ellison said. “I didn’t care about the (lost investment). The money didn’t mean squat. I cared about who would represent the city.”

In 1985, Ellison took on Pati Longo. The councilwoman–whose politics were conservative and pro-business like Orrock’s and Ellison’s–had defended Orrock in his squabble with Ellison.

*

Ellison bought a series of newspaper ads attacking her as a phony who had lied to the grand jury. He cited her admissions that she had been evasive when asked if she’d discussed the closed-door proceedings with others.

“I figured the public had a right to know, because she would have been mayor,” Ellison said.

Longo, who lost her bid for reelection, said she thinks Ellison’s reason for challenging both her and Orrock, and in opposing Villeneuve in 1991 and Collart last year, was to improve Monahan’s chances of being mayor.

“Ray Ellison’s motivation was that Jim Monahan had always been his resident politician,” Longo said. So when Monahan had a chance at the mayoralty, Ellison attacked the favorite, she said.

Villeneuve said he also sees a connection between Ellison’s attacks and Monahan’s political fortunes and agenda.

“His interest in politics is in the form of personal vendetta for somebody he disagrees with in ideology or most often in a very personal sense,” Villeneuve said. “He attempts to parallel his protege, Jim Monahan. I’ve had to sit and listen to Jim Monahan extolling the virtues of Ray Ellison. It’s almost hero worship.”

Both Monahan and Ellison said they are friends who generally see eye-to-eye politically. Ellison will occasionally check with Monahan on issues, they said. Ellison said he doesn’t follow politics closely and will ask Monahan about his reelection plans and the voting records of other council members. But he said he doesn’t ask Monahan’s advice.

“I know that Jim can fill me in if I’m wrong on how somebody has voted,” Ellison said. “I don’t even take the (local) newspaper. I don’t go to council meetings any more. I haven’t for many years. I can get behind on my facts. So I call Jim, or somebody else, but normally Jim.”

Monahan said he has never recommended who Ellison should oppose or support in an election.

“Believe me, he knows how to make up his own mind,” the councilman said. “Ray’s the kind of guy who’s a loner. He does everything on his own.”

*

Monahan said Ellison has helped Ventura politics by bringing information to voters, but he said he didn’t care for the recent fish ads, and thought the Orrock hearings were an unnecessary “dog-and-pony show. That was a sad day for everybody.”

If Ellison opposed Orrock and Longo for perceived ethical shortcomings, he said he opposed Villeneuve two years ago and Collart, Tuttle and environmentalist challenger Steve Bennett this year because he did not agree with their politics.

“They’re discouraging almost carte blanche what needs to be done to rejuvenate the city. What it amounts to is no growth,” he said. “They don’t allow anything that will generate money. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid studies.”

That was as detailed as Ellison got in critiques of his political opponents during two recent interviews. He had trouble remembering what he had written about them in campaign ads. At one point, he read his Villeneuve ad to refresh his memory about the councilman’s principal flaws.

“Let’s see what I had to say here,” he said. “Well, yeah, I did look up his votes. I ought to keep this crap (advertisements). . . . I don’t remember them. I just make them up and forget about them.”

In the Villeneuve ads–as with his fish ads–Ellison stated his pro-business philosophy and lashed his “liberal” opponents. He said his colorful headlines were only a way to grab voters so they will read his full message.

“You have to get people’s attention,” he said.

He does that. For example, in a Villeneuve ad segment titled “To Wee or Not to Wee,” Ellison repeated a second-hand comment Villeneuve allegedly made at a City Hall urinal during a break in a hearing about dredging the Ventura Keys.

Villeneuve and former Mayor Richard Francis, who had battled Monahan before leaving the council in 1991, said they responded with their own negative campaign this fall.

*

Some of their “Anyone but Monahan” ads were more personal and biting than Ellison’s fish ads, especially a radio spot late in the campaign.

“I knew his ads were coming,” said Francis, a Ventura attorney. “I didn’t want to start slinging mud, but if mud is going to get slung and you’re going to get dirty anyway, you may as well get into the fray.”

Monahan doesn’t accept that explanation. “Richard Francis took a personal attack on me that was far worse than Ray’s comments about these other three,” he said.

Nor does Monahan think it’s fair that Ellison is seen as “the special interest in the black hat,” while Patagonia, an environmentalist clothing company that spent about $15,000 in the last campaign, “is seen as the special interest in the white hat.”

Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard “doesn’t give a damn about anybody else’s business but his own,” Monahan said. “Ray Ellison cares about everybody’s business, and he’s willing to stick his neck out for it.”

Patagonia spokesman Paul Tebbel said the big difference between the two is that Patagonia endorses candidates positively, while Ellison attacks them personally.

“He’s strongly within his rights to do that,” Tebbel said, “I just hate to see Ventura politics reduced to who can put out the strongest negative ad.”

Ellison did also buy some endorsement ads last fall, backing Measures, Monahan and Clark Owens.

Whether Ellison has had much impact on election results is an open question. Longo, Villeneuve and Collart, who all lost their races after Ellison’s criticisms, think he has. Tuttle, who placed only fourth last fall, does too.

Others, including McWherter and Monahan, said that Longo, Villeneuve and Collart were vulnerable anyway.

As for himself, Ellison thinks his types of ads work. “I think it’s very effective,” he said.

Ellison said he recognizes the personal pain his ads may cause. Public criticism following news stories about his thrift stores has hurt his family too, he said.

“I feel sorry about that,” he said. “They all have kids. Just like our kids went to school and had to put up with having negative things said about their dad. It’s hard on them. But they become accustomed to it over a period of time. . . . It goes with the territory.”

Yet Ellison felt compelled to write a letter of explanation to Collart shortly after the councilman lost in November.

“I imagine you consider me a callous and insensitive disgrace to society,” Ellison wrote.

He said he respected Collart and considered him truthful. “I wish you well, apologize if you took personal offense to my methods, and thank you for your service,” he wrote.

But within the same letter may be an indication of things to come during the campaign of 1995.

While praising Collart for being true to campaign promises, Ellison chastised those “who forgot . . . what they were elected to do.” He pointedly mentioned Mayor Tom Buford and former Mayor Greg Carson as examples of two who have “breached their stated positions.”

*

Carson and Buford, both originally backed by the business community, have been criticized by some businessmen for votes over the last two years. And Ellison referred to Carson in his fish ads as a weak conservative enticed by liberals with the promise of the mayor’s job.

Nursery owner Carson, who describes himself as a moderate and insists he’s broken no promises, said he first felt Ellison’s sting after council members chose him mayor two years ago.

Ellison immediately telephoned Carson to tell him he had considered him “a nice young man,” but now believed he was a jerk, Carson said. “He was upset because Jim Monahan didn’t become mayor.”

Carson said he considers Ellison’s ads detrimental to Ventura politics, and he said the specter of Ellison would not deter him in 1995.

“Somebody like Ray Ellison doesn’t scare me,” Carson said. “If anything, people like Ray Ellison would be a reason I would run.”

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal appeals court to throw out the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders who were sentenced to prison terms for leading members of the far-right extremist groups in attacking the U.S. Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House more than five years ago.

Trump commuted the prison sentences of several Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders in January 2025 in a sweeping act of clemency for all 1,500-plus defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

The request by the Justice Department would go a step further and erase the convictions for the extremist group leaders, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes.

In court filings, prosecutors asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the convictions so that the government can permanently dismiss the indictments.

“The government’s motion to vacate in this case is consistent with its practice of moving the Supreme Court to vacate convictions in cases where the government has decided in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of a criminal case is in the interests of justice — motions that the Supreme Court routinely grants,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing signed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro.

Juries in Washington convicted the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power after Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democratic President Biden.

Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Another woman came forward Tuesday to describe rape allegations against Rep. Eric Swalwell, who announced his resignation from Congress on Monday amid a torrent of sexual misconduct accusations.

Lonna Drewes said at a news conference called by her attorneys that she was drugged and raped by Swalwell (D-Dublin) in 2018 while she was working as a model in Beverly Hills.

Drewes said she met Swalwell three times as she was growing her fashion software company and toying with the idea of a political career.

On the third occasion, she said, she believed he drugged her glass of wine. She said they were supposed to go to a political event and they stopped by his hotel room to retrieve some paperwork.

She said she found herself incapacitated despite having had only one drink.

“He raped me and he choked me and while he was choking me I lost consciousness and I thought I died,” she said. “I did not consent to any sexual activity.”

Swalwell’s attorney Elias Dabaie did not immediately respond to a call or email requesting comment. Swalwell has previously denied allegations against him, while acknowledging undefined “mistakes.”

Swalwell and his team threatened legal action against several individuals over the claims, Dabaie previously confirmed to The Times.

Lonna Drewes, left, says she met Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on three occasions in Beverly Hills in 2018. She says he sexually assaulted her on the third occasion.

(Myung J Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Drewes said she didn’t undergo a rape kit test, but disclosed the assault to people close to her and described it in her calendar. She did not have contact with Swalwell again, one of her attorneys said.

Drewes said she had no interest in Swalwell romantically and was drawn to his friendship, she said, in part because he touted connections that she believed could help her grow her businesses. She was in a relationship at the time, and he had a pregnant wife, she said.

The alleged rape had a severe impact on her mental health, causing her to self-medicate, she said. She said she also went to therapy sessions at a sexual assault center.

“I did not want to live anymore,” she said. “I cried all the time for years.”

She said she’d been considering a run for Beverly Hills City Council at the time. After the incident, she said, she feared a political backlash and felt like she had no choice but to remain silent.

Lonna Drewes walks behind her lawyer Arick Fudali during a news briefing in Beverly Hills on Tuesday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

“My delay in taking action against Eric was driven by fear, not doubt,” she said. “I have never doubted what happened.”

The L.A. County Sheriffs Department said Tuesday that it is investigating the case.

“The investigation remains in its preliminary stages and is ongoing,” the department said. “Investigators are in the process of gathering information, reviewing available evidence and conducting follow-up inquiries as part of a comprehensive investigative process.“

A spokesperson for the L.A. County district attorney’s office said the Sex Crimes Division had been assigned to work with law enforcement partners in an unfolding investigation.

Arick Fudali, one of the attorneys representing Drewes, said he hoped his client’s account would encourage other women to come forward.

“This is not about Democrat versus Republican,” Fudali said. “This is about accountability versus silence.”

“Lonna deserves what all women deserve — autonomy over her own body,” said attorney Lisa Bloom.

Bloom is well-known for representing high-profile victims of sexual misconduct, including women in cases against actor Bill Cosby and commentator Bill O’Reilly. Bloom said they would be providing text messages, journal entries and photographs to the police. Those include a photo of Drewes and Swalwell at the opening of a restaurant called Avra that was displayed Tuesday for reporters.

Bloom said she wanted to assist with an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, who has opened a case into allegations against Swalwell. She said three other women have reached out to her.

Swalwell, who has served in the House of Representatives since 2013, has said he plans to fight the “serious, false” allegations made against him.

“However, I must take responsibility and ownership of the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell wrote in a statement Monday.

Bloom called Swalwell’s recent statements about the accusations against him “blather and spin” and a “slap in the face” to victims.

“Stop it,” she said. “Own your behavior.”

Swalwell had been a Democratic front-runner in the hotly contested and crowded race to be California’s next governor. Then in two bombshell reports in the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN on Friday, women accused the congressman of sexual assault and misconduct.

Candidates in the California gubernatorial race reacted to the new allegations with horror.

“The level of my disgust and outrage just continues to grow,” former state Controller Betty Yee told The Times after a business forum in Sacramento. “The fact that this is still being uncovered, that it could be bigger than what we already know?”

Swalwell said he would resign from his congressional seat under intense pressure from lawmakers of both parties. The resignation came on the heels of the House Ethics Committee opening an investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations and bipartisan threats to expel him from the House if he did not resign as women continued to come forward.

One woman told CNN that after messaging with Swalwell about her interest in Democratic politics last year, she met him for drinks and tried to deflect his advances without jeopardizing potential job opportunities. She said she began to feel “really fuzzy” and intoxicated and later found herself in his hotel room with no memory of how she got there.

Another woman, a former staff member who accused Swalwell of rape, told CNN she met him for drinks in 2019, blacked out and awoke naked in his hotel bed and could tell she had had intercourse. She said that in a separate encounter years later, he forced himself on her while she was too intoxicated to consent and despite her protests.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday called a special election for Swalwell’s Alameda County seat on June 16, two weeks after the state’s regularly scheduled primary. If no candidate receives 50% of the vote, a second special election will be held on Aug. 18.

The June 2 regular primary and Nov. 3 general election will decide who will represent the recently reconfigured district for the next term, starting in January 2027. The special election decides who will represent the district for the remaining months of Swalwell’s term.

Times staff writers James Queally, Dakota Smith and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Kennedy Center’s new leadership wants to prove to critics the building is damaged beyond simple repair. It’s starting with Congress.

Matt Floca, the performing arts institution’s new president, is leading a series of tours this month that show water damage and intrusion to expansion joints, marble slabs and exterior pavers. Participants are guided through the building’s water and HVAC systems along with parking garages and loading docks that are said to be in need of repair.

The sessions began earlier this month while Congress was in recess and included staff for a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrats on Capitol Hill. A representative for Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser was also included on the tour.

Similar access has been provided for several corporate and individual donors and in the coming weeks, Floca is expected to provide tours for the lawmakers themselves and members of the media.

Assessing a suddenly controversial operation

Once one of Washington’s relatively few apolitical spaces, the Kennedy Center has become a source of controversy during President Trump’s second term. Shortly after returning to office, Trump ousted the institution’s previous leadership and replaced it with a handpicked board of directors.

The president’s name was added to the building’s facade and its programming took a Trump-friendly turn, serving as a venue for events such as the premiere of First Lady Melania Trump’s documentary, “Melania.”

Trump’s move to shutter the building for two years starting in July, which was approved by the board last month, has spurred lawsuits and an outcry that the closure is merely a response to plunging sales as artists canceled Kennedy Center performances in droves.

The tours are intended to cut through that and show that the Kennedy Center, which began construction in 1964, is in genuine need of a fundamental update.

“As the July closure approaches, the Trump Kennedy Center is leading with transparency and making sure Congress and the public understand what’s at stake and why the work can’t wait,” Floca said in a statement.

In addition to staff for Schumer, Jeffries and Bowser, the recent tour included representatives for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), along with Reps. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Rick Larsen (D-Wash.).

By virtue of their positions, these lawmakers are ex officio members of the Kennedy Center’s board. Kennedy Center spokesperson Roma Daravi said working with both parties was a “top priority” as the institution implements Trump’s vision for the renovation.

None of the participants discussed the tour on the record.

Need for repairs is not disputed

Those who are arguing against the Kennedy Center’s closure haven’t disputed the need for routine maintenance and repairs. They say the more substantial changes Trump has hinted are in the works should go through the typical review process that governs many major projects in the nation’s capital.

Trump has suggested changes at the Kennedy Center could be so dramatic that the steel supporting the structure could be “ fully exposed.”

According to a lawsuit filed last month against Trump, the Kennedy Center and others in the administration, “Demolition, new construction, major reconstruction, major renovation, or major aesthetic transformation of the Kennedy Center would permanently destroy historic fabric, degrade the monumental core’s vistas and public grounds, and compromise the Kennedy Center’s memorial purpose and architectural integrity, causing permanent, irreversible harm that no subsequent remedy can fully undo.”

The Kennedy Center is entering a critical period before its anticipated July closure, which will produce staff reductions.

In the meantime, the Kennedy Center is still hosting shows, including the musical “Chicago,” which Trump attended this month. Performances of “Moulin Rouge! The Musical” are on the calendar from June 18 through July 5. Comedian Bill Maher will be presented with the prestigious Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, just before the closure begins.

The Kennedy Center is part of Trump’s broader effort to leave a lasting imprint on the Washington cityscape. He demolished the East Wing of the White House last year and wants to replace it with a ballroom, an effort that is also tangled in litigation.

The president also unveiled plans on Friday for an arch that would stand between the Lincoln Memorial in the east and Arlington National Cemetery toward the west and within a traffic circle connecting Washington with northern Virginia.

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Eric Swalwell’s downfall has raised the possibility of a broader reckoning on Capitol Hill as congressional staffers, reporters and opposition researchers race to verify long-standing rumors of a sordid underground culture among the city’s most powerful.

Former lawmakers across the political spectrum have warned for years of a hushed congressional bacchanal marked by inappropriate revelry and sexual misconduct. But a sense of growing momentum gripped Congress on Tuesday, as Democrats grappled with Swalwell’s resignation and Republicans called for other lawmakers to face scrutiny.

The 72-hour collapse of Swalwell’s political career has shifted attention not only to his closest associates in Congress, but also to a larger set of sitting lawmakers from both parties suspected of lurid sexual activity. Several members have claimed that Swalwell’s alleged behavior was an open secret amid a cacophony of rumors on social media of other potential offenders.

“I think that many people knew about this for a while,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, said in an interview with The Times.

Luna, who planned to lead the charge to expel Swalwell before he resigned, alleged that young staffers would talk among one another about Swalwell’s conduct. Lawmakers should have done more to approach him about the rumors, she said.

Multiple current and former female staffers who spoke with The Times described a broader culture of warning one another about lawmakers with reputations for inappropriate conduct.

But the warnings, passed privately among junior aides, have focused on “sleazy” activity and boundary-crossing behavior, said one former legislative aide, who asked to remain anonymous. Whispers about sleazy behavior generally do not meet the coverage threshold for traditional newsrooms, which are bound by strict ethical standards.

Another former aide said that quiet guidance shared among female staffers focused on behavior that is legal, but nevertheless viewed as unprofessional and unbecoming of members of Congress — a line that has prevented many from speaking out publicly.

Now, a race is on for leverage between two political parties facing comparable strategic risks — each with members facing growing questions over their alleged conduct — and for scoops among news outlets, seeking to break the story first.

The Monday resignations of Swalwell and Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, who faced his own sex scandal, was also forcing lawmakers to address the issue publicly. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) — one of Swalwell’s closest friends in Congress — answered questions from reporters at length Tuesday, telling them he should have confronted Swalwell when he heard rumors about his behavior.

“You let your guard down. I let him into my circle. … I deeply regret it,” Gallego said.

He denied knowing about Swalwell’s alleged misconduct when asked about the behavior.

“Look, we socialized. We went out. But I never saw him engage in any of the predatory behavior, harassment, sexual assault,” Gallego said.

Notably quiet was President Trump, who has faced sexual assault accusations of his own and frequently parried with Swalwell throughout his presidency. Although Trump posted an article reporting Swalwell’s resignation on social media, he has not commented on the matter in his own words.

The unraveling scandal comes at a time when lawmakers have come together across party lines to push for transparency in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender and alleged sex trafficker whose network of powerful associates included Democrats and Republicans alike.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, details of the Swalwell scandal continued to unfold Tuesday, as a Beverly Hills woman accused him of drugging and raping her in 2018. The Times could not immediately reach his attorney; he previously denied allegations of rape and sexual misconduct made by multiple women in published accounts last week.

Sex scandals are not a new phenomenon on Capitol Hill, which has seen over a dozen members embroiled in controversy over the last decade, including Katie Hill of California, Cory Mills and Matt Gaetz of Florida, and Blake Farenthold of Texas, among others.

But several prominent former members — including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — have warned of a more widespread cultural problem.

“Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there,” McCarthy said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Luna had pressed lawmakers to address alleged sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill. In February, she called on the “predatory freaks” in Congress to leave office as she complained about the process to get ethical complaints handled.

“It pisses me off because while some of us are actually working and busting our asses, these clowns are sexually harassing their own staff, doing illegal crap, insider trading etc,” Luna wrote at the time.

Luna said Monday that she was encouraged to see bipartisan support for expelling Swalwell and Gonzales.

A longtime staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity said Tuesday that allegations against Swalwell have sparked conversations about how to do more to help staffers report sexual misconduct, such as reforming procedural rules that would allow staffers to report any of their concerns directly to ethics panels, and about the need for ethics investigations to move more quickly.

“Congress has a short-term memory, that is the difficulty here,” the staffer said. “After these guys leave their seats, there needs to be a concerted and consistent effort for reforms to be established and be made permanent.”

Why now? Why now?

Every time a woman comes forward with her story of sexual assault, this is the first question she faces. OK, maybe the second — after some variation of “Are you a lying slut?”

At least we are consistent. But on behalf of all survivors everywhere, of any gender, identity or age, let me give you some blanket answers to “Why now?”

Survivors come forward now, whenever now is, because they have reached the point in their recovery when facing the inevitable “lying slut” accusation is less terrible than watching their abuser strut around as if that person is not a dangerous, cruel predator who is almost certainly going to hurt someone else if they are not stopped.

Whether it’s in Congress, on a movie set, in the halls of their school — wherever that predator is just living their life without consequence — there is a survivor who has been cowering in the shadows of her own life, in pain, wanting to scream to the world that this person is not what they seem.

But the price of that honesty has always been steep. Too steep. Even after #MeToo.

Ask Cassie Ventura. Ask Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Ask E. Jean Carroll. Dolores Huerta. Simone Biles.

Even powerful women can’t escape the blowback, the fear. Even powerful women are steamrolled over and over again by the overwhelming presumption that they are lying, and there is an ulterior motive for coming forward at this particular moment.

Imagine just being an average person holding that secret. Who are any of us to stand up alone against a rich and powerful man whose very freedom will depend on crushing our credibility?

P. Diddy. Harvey Weinstein. Donald Trump. Cesar Chavez. Larry Nassar. Eric Swalwell.

Those men know power, and know how to use it.

“He thought he was untouchable. He acted with total impunity. He never thought that the consequences of his actions would follow him,” Ally Sammarco, one of the women who has spoken out about Swalwell (who has previously denied allegations of misconduct), told CBS.

It’s why the women of the Epstein files stayed silent for so long. It’s why there are thousands of rape survivors out there right now who have never said a word about what they endured, and maybe never will.

“Why now?” is just a more palatable version of “lying slut,” a question based on ignorance about how trauma — and society — works. A question meant not to elicit fact, but to feed the Jezebel frenzy men always use in their attempt to escape justice.

Here’s the truth about sexual assault: There is no right way to respond to it, no right time. There is no one reaction that proves it happened or that creates the perfect scenario that will protect the survivor’s reputation while delivering justice upon the predator. In fact, there is really no way at all to respond to a sexual assault that won’t bring secondary trauma.

Wait years and face disdain — that it didn’t happen, wasn’t serious, is only coming out now for some agenda, like politics or money.

Report it immediately and be prepared for every move, every smile, every sip of a drink, to be examined for signs that this was, if not consensual, somehow deserved — a gray area of shared responsibility.

Imagine, at a moment of crushing vulnerability, when your body has been violated and your mind is reeling trying to find safe ground, being bludgeoned by these accusations, stated or implied, that you brought this on yourself.

“Why now?” becomes “Why would you?”

Even when the scenario is one in which there can be no defense — such as the UCLA gynecologist, James Heaps, who on Tuesday pleaded guilty to sexually abusing five of his patients during exams — the cost of reporting is terrible. That case has wound on for years, leaving each of the victims to constantly relive their worst moments, constantly fear that all of their courage would come to nothing.

Which is why survivors don’t always come forward. Maybe they need time to put themselves back together, even just a little bit. Maybe the fear of all that societal scrutiny is just too much. Maybe they fear they won’t be believed, and their attacker will be free to harm them again.

Maybe they just want it to all go away. Maybe they do blame themselves, and are paralyzed by an unfounded shame.

There are so many reasons why survivors stay silent — and none of them are because it didn’t happen, or because they are lying.

Lonna Drewes, the Beverly Hills model who came forward Tuesday with an accusation that Swalwell drugged and raped her in 2018, summed up the experience of many, many survivors.

“I did not want to live anymore,” she said of how she felt after the attack. “I cried all the time for years.”

So here’s the real answer to “Why now?” from a victim’s statement that one of Heap’s survivors read in court.

“What you intended to break, you did not,” she said.

That is the answer to “Why now?” Because the bravery and courage at the heart of the survivor was bruised but not defeated.

Because she doesn’t want it to happen to anyone else.

Because she deserves to be free of his secrets: Ones she has been forced to keep out of fear of him, but also of us.

SACRAMENTO — Eric Swalwell is out — of the California gubernatorial race and Congress, spending time with family, as they say, after allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. That could be considered good news for the slew of Democrats who remain in the running, and even the two Republicans currently polling near the top.

But this muddled campaign season has clearly failed to capture voters’ imagination. This despite a sex scandal, a billionaire spending his millions, a dark horse spending tech-bro millions, a debate where the invitations were so controversial the event was canceled and a sheriff seizing ballots in a failed MAGA-pandering stunt. (President Trump ended up backing his opponent.)

After all that, you’d think Californians would care, at least in a spectacle sort of way.

But they don’t. At least not yet.

So is “undecided” going to remain the leader in the race until voters are forced to fill in their ballots? Even Republicans, with the Trump-endorsed Steve Hilton and Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco as their main choices, can’t make up their minds.

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak ponder why the race is such a hot mess, who benefits from the Swalwell implosion, whether anyone will ever get excited about any of these candidates — and what all that means for the future of California.

Chabria: We are less than 50 days out from the primary on June 2 and somehow this race remains both boring and unpredictable.

There’s lots of talk about whether the two remaining top Democratic candidates, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire investor Tom Steyer, will scoop up Swalwell’s supporters — or if a second-tier contender such as San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra or ex-L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa may rise from the near-dead with a surprise surge.

With such a short amount of time and candidates who have already proved their lack of charisma, I’m worried that what happens next really comes down to money — which Steyer and Mahan have. Mahan’s tech-industry backers are already said to be lining up millions of dollars in ad buys to blitz his name and image on our consciousness in these final days, like a breakfast cereal we didn’t know we wanted to buy.

Ditto Steyer, though he’s got a much higher profile and backing from several key unions.

Do you think that money is going to rule the finish line in this one, or do any of the other candidates have a shot through sheer determination?

Barabak: Let’s be real.

If Tom Steyer was some schmo named Tom Steinway without a vast fortune buoying his political ambitions, he wouldn’t be remotely in the running, much less talked about as one of the putative front-runners. As it is, Steyer has burned through the equivalent of a small country’s GDP and he’s still not cracking 15% in polls.

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, notwithstanding all those he’s managed to leverage through his wealth.

California has a long history of rejecting moneybag candidates. In fact, not one has ever been elected governor. That said, we’ve never seen a contest like this one — and that was before Swalwell’s candidacy went up in salacious smoke.

The closest parallel — absent that above-referenced self-immolation — was in 1998. Voters weren’t crazy about the two leading candidates, including a rich guy blasting them with a firehose of TV advertising, so they opted for the colorless guy running far back in the pack. (And yes, dear reader, Gray Davis was eventually recalled, but that came well after the fact.)

There’s a saying in Iowa, around its presidential caucuses. The secret is to organize, organize, organize and then get hot at the end. California, obviously, is not the kind of state you win by holding a million and one kaffeeklatsches. But the principle — lay the groundwork, then count on timing and good fortune — could apply here.

Who might that be? Mahan’s sudden cash gusher can’t hurt. But your guess is as good as mine.

Chabria: The thing about organizing is that for Democrats, much of that work is done by labor unions. They provide the people, the phone banks, the door knockers. The California Labor Federation this time around endorsed basically everybody (Swalwell, Steyer, Villaraigosa and Porter), giving none of the Democratic candidates an advantage.

In a rare move, the California Labor Federation and Service Employees International Union California pulled their endorsement of Swalwell, as have other unions after these allegations came out. But labor remains split among the other candidates (though Steyer seems to be gaining unions’ affections), a real problem when it comes to that kind of organizing.

It’s that division of real people power that makes me worry money will have even more influence this time around.

But also, there is the unknown. There’s chatter online that a famous or strong contender (Kamala? A celebrity?) could stage a last-minute write-in campaign. Although state law no longer allows a write-in for the general election, there’s a tiny window left for one in the primary. What do you think? Could someone new swoop in and excite the voters enough to go rogue?

Barabak: Well, there’s Steve Cloobeck.

Who, you’re probably asking?

He’s a rich real estate developer who quit the race in November after an unsung yearlong campaign. Upon exiting, he enthusiastically endorsed his close friend, Eric Swalwell.

Speaking with our colleague Seema Mehta, Cloobeck said he wished the Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the governor’s race — a delusion right up there alongside President Trump comparing himself to Jesus.

Seriously, political gossips abhor a vacuum, so they fill it with all sorts of fantastical scenarios of candidates riding in on white horses and rescuing us from … what exactly?

I’ve been the rare voice arguing this governor’s race is not at all boring. Boring would have been Kamala Harris holding a commanding lead for the Democratic nomination and people speculating whether anyone could stop her. While this bunch of candidates won’t send laser light dancing across the darkened sky, there are plenty of quite capable people still in the running, unless you’re looking for someone to entertain and/or offer California four years of distraction and diversion.

And we’ve seen what putting a reality-TV star in the White House has gotten us.

Chabria: At the end of the day, or at least election day, this is a question of whom we trust with the future of California. Ultimately, that’s why this race is a hot mess — none of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, have offered a vision inspiring enough to make voters want to trust them with the next four or eight years.

To me, that’s the real failure here. I don’t think voters would mind boring at all, if it was dolled up with credibility and competence.

I agree with you that we don’t need another reality star in any elected office. And more than one of these candidates has the skills to run the state. But in an era of deceit, arrogance and flashy incompetence, voters do want someone they feel they can trust.

So far, none of the candidates have delivered that sense of security, that they are campaigning as a public servant — instead of the thirsty contender hoping for a rose.

So either someone steps up and earns the rose, or it goes to the top-two least-worst. The June primary is holding on to her secrets for now.

Barabak: You know me; always one to look on the bright side!

If you’re a Republican, the bright side is the long shot, but not impossible, prospect of Bianco and Hilton nabbing both spots on June 2. That would mean one of the two lands in the governor’s office in January, notwithstanding California’s overwhelmingly Democratic leaning.

For an unaffiliated voter and political noncombatant like me, a Californian who deeply cares about my home state, the bright side is this: At least people are finally paying attention to the governor’s race.

So dive in! You’ve got just under seven weeks to make up your mind.

President Trump has signed a bill restoring federal funding to tech startups in California and elsewhere, money that had been held up for more than six months.

The Small Business Administration money, a key source of capital for new aerospace and defense firms in the Los Angeles region, ran out in October after a Congressional impasse.

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act signed by Trump on Monday funds the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and related programs.

They provide more than $4 billion in seed funding to commercial startups that provide valuable services to the government and public, stimulate the economy and help maintain the country’s competitive edge.

The money is awarded by multiple agencies, including the Health and Human Services and Energy departments and NASA, with the military distributing the largest portion.

The funding has helped launch defense and aerospace startups across Southern California, including Costa Mesa autonomous weapons maker Anduril Industries, now valued at more than $30 billion.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, held up reauthorization over concerns some startups had become reliant on the money instead of developing commercial businesses. She proposed a bill with a $75-million lifetime funding cap for individual companies.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the committee’s ranking Democrat, contended the bill would crimp innovation and hurt companies.

The reauthorization includes no lifetime caps but requires departments to set limits on how many times companies can apply each year for the SBA funding, prioritizing startups .

The bill also establishes a Strategic Breakthrough Allocation program that awards up to $30 million in SBA funding to a single company provided it can bring in matching funding.

The new program is intended to assist startups to become commercially viable after they run through their SBIR or STTR funding, which are intended to fund feasibility studies and prototypes. STTR requires a partnership with a research institution.

Other provisions in the bill include new due diligence standards to prevent any tech developed by the startups from falling into the hands of adversaries such as China .

“With a bipartisan, five-year reauthorization signed into law, small businesses are once again empowered to create these innovative technologies and tackle our nation’s most pressing challenges head-on,” Markey said in a statement.

The battlefield is narrowing and the timeline is tightening in a congressional redistricting contest among states seeking a partisan advantage ahead of the November midterm elections.

The end of Maryland’s legislative session this week marked the demise of Democratic efforts to reshape the state’s U.S. House districts. But Florida lawmakers are to begin a special session Monday for a Republican attempt at congressional redistricting. And Virginia voters are deciding Tuesday on a Democratic redistricting plan that could help the party win several additional House seats in this year’s election.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census. But President Trump triggered an unusual round of mid-decade redistricting last year when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to give the GOP an edge in the midterm elections. California Democrats reciprocated, and redistricting efforts soon cascaded across states.

So far, Republicans believe they could win nine additional seats in states where they have redrawn congressional districts, while Democrats think they could gain six seats elsewhere because of redistricting. But that presumes past voting patterns hold in November. And that’s uncertain, especially since the party in power typically loses seats in the midterms and Trump faces negative approval ratings in polls.

Democrats need to gain just a few seats in November to wrest control of the House from Republicans, potentially allowing them to obstruct Trump’s agenda.

Where redistricting remains in play

Officials in more than a dozen states debated or floated redistricting proposals. The immediate focus is on two states — one led by Republicans, the other by Democrats.

Florida

Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

Proposed map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has called a special legislative session to begin Monday on congressional redistricting. Republicans haven’t yet publicly released a specific plan.

Challenges: The state constitution says districts cannot be drawn with intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

Virginia

Current map: six Democrats, five Republicans

Proposed map: A new U.S. House map passed by the Democratic-led General Assembly could help Democrats win up to four additional seats. For the map to take effect, voters would have to approve a constitutional amendment allowing mid-decade redistricting. That amendment is on Tuesday’s ballot.

Challenges: The state Supreme Court ruled the referendum can proceed, but it has yet to rule whether the effort is legal. The court is considering an appeal of a Tazewell County judge’s ruling that the amendment is invalid because lawmakers violated their own rules while passing it.

Where new House districts were approved

New U.S. House districts have been adopted in six states since last summer. Four took up redistricting voluntarily, one was required to by its state constitution and another did so under court order.

Texas

Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised House map into law last August that could help Republicans win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in December cleared the way for the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It put on hold a lower-court ruling that blocked the new map because it was “racially gerrymandered.”

California

Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans

New map: Voters in November approved revised House districts drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in February allowed the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It denied an appeal from Republicans and the Department of Justice, which claimed the districts impermissibly favor Hispanic voters.

Missouri

Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a revised House map into law last September that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A Cole County judge ruled the new map is in effect as election officials work to determine whether a referendum petition seeking a statewide vote complies with constitutional criteria and contains enough valid petition signatures. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit claiming mid-decade redistricting is illegal. It’s scheduled to hear arguments in May on claims the new districts violate compactness requirements and should be placed on hold pending the potential referendum.

North Carolina

Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A federal court panel in November denied a request to block the revised districts from being used in the midterm elections.

Ohio

Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: A bipartisan panel composed primarily of Republicans voted in October to approve revised House districts that improve Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: None. The state constitution required new districts before the 2026 election, because Republicans had approved the prior map without sufficient Democratic support after the last census.

Utah

Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans

New map: A judge in November imposed revised House districts that could help Democrats win a seat. The court ruled that lawmakers had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters when adopting the prior map.

Challenges: A federal court panel and the state Supreme Court, in February, each rejected Republican challenges to the judicial map selection.

Where redistricting efforts were denied

Governors, lawmakers or partisan officials pushed for congressional redistricting in numerous states. In at least five states, those efforts gained some initial traction but ultimately fell short in either the legislature or court.

Maryland

Current map: seven Democrats, one Republican

Proposed map: The Democratic-led House in February passed a redistricting plan backed by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore that could help Democrats win an additional seat.

Challenges: The legislative session ended in April without the Democratic-led Senate voting on the redistricting plan. The state Senate president said there were concerns it could backfire on Democrats.

New York

Current map: 19 Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: A judge in January ordered a state commission to draw new boundaries for the only congressional district in New York City represented by a Republican, ruling it unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of Black and Hispanic residents.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in March granted Republicans’ request to halt the judge’s order, leaving the existing district lines in place for the 2026 election.

Indiana

Current map: two Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: The Republican-led House passed a redistricting plan in December that would have improved Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: Despite pressure from Trump to adopt the new map, the Republican-led Senate rejected it in a bipartisan vote on Dec. 11.

Kansas

Current map: one Democrat, three Republicans

Proposed map: Some Republican lawmakers mounted an attempt to take up congressional redistricting.

Challenges: Lawmakers dropped a petition drive for a special session on congressional redistricting in November, after failing to gain enough support.

Illinois

Current map: 14 Democrats, three Republicans

Proposed map: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in October proposed a new U.S. House map that would improve Democrats’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Challenges: The Democratic-led General Assembly declined to take up redistricting, citing concerns about the effect on representation for Black residents.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration fired four Justice Department prosecutors involved in cases against anti-abortion activists, accusing the Biden administration on Tuesday of abusing a law designed to protect abortion clinics from obstruction and threats.

The firings are the latest wave of terminations of employees involved in cases criticized by conservatives or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to President Trump’s agenda. The terminations came before the release of a report accusing the Biden administration of biased prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or FACE Act.

“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said in a statement. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

The report is the first released from the Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group,” created by former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to scrutinize the federal prosecutions of Trump and other cases criticized by conservatives.

Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, and Jack Smith, the special counsel who prosecuted Trump, have said they followed only the facts, the evidence and the law in their decisions. Critics of the Trump administration say Bondi — who was fired by Trump this month — and Blanche are the ones who politicized the agency, with the norm-breaking actions that have stirred concern that the institution is being used as a tool to advance Trump’s personal and political agenda.

The Biden administration brought cases against dozens of defendants under the FACE Act, which makes it illegal to physically obstruct or use the threat of force to intimidate or interfere with a person seeking reproductive health services, and prohibits damaging property at abortion clinics and other centers. It was signed into law in 1994, when clinic protests and blockades were on the rise along with violence against abortion providers such as Dr. David Gunn, who was murdered.

The Trump administration alleges in the report that prosecutors under Biden often “ignored and downplayed” attacks against pregnancy resource centers or houses of worship, which are also protected under the law. It also claims that the Biden administration pushed for harsher sentences against anti-abortion activists than it did in cases against abortion-rights defendants. Trump last year pardoned anti-abortion activists convicted of blockading abortion clinic entrances, calling them “peaceful pro-life protesters.”

Kristen Clarke, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Biden, defended the prosecutions, saying the attorneys “enforced the law even-handedly and put public safety at the center of this work.”

“The Civil Rights Division brought law enforcement leaders, crisis pregnancy center representatives, faith leaders, and reproductive health care staff together to address the real violence, threats of violence, and obstruction that too many people face in our country when it comes to reproductive health care,” Clarke said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge that has shaken career Justice Department lawyers generally insulated from changes in administrations thanks to long-recognized civil service protections.

Justice Connection, a network of former department employees, said the agency leadership’s “cruelty and hypocrisy are on full display in this report.”

“They insist on zealous advocacy by career staff in advancing the President’s priorities, while shaming and firing those who did just that in the prior administration,” Stacey Young, a former department lawyer who founded Justice Connection, said in a statement. “They’ve put career employees on notice: if they do their jobs, they face potential termination if future political leadership disagrees with the policy goals of prior leadership.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge must end his “intrusive” contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.

Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in forging ahead with criminal contempt proceedings over the March 2025 deportation flights, according to the majority opinion by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

President Trump’s administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to the termination of the contempt proceedings, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”

Rao was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Boasberg, chief judge of the district court in Washington, D.C., was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

On March 15, 2025, two planes transporting Venezuelan migrants from the U.S. to El Salvador were in the air when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn them around.

Administration officials claim Boasberg is biased and overstepped his authority.

Boasberg has said the Trump administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador. In an April 16, 2025 order, the judge said he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Trump has called for impeaching Boasberg. Last year, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rejected calls for Boasberg’s impeachment.

The case is assigned to Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Roa’s. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented from the majority.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.

The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this season, and many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.

Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.

Most say taxes are too high

About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.

Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallup, conducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.

Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes

Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.

By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.

About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.

Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach

Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.

The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.

This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.

Less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump had helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hadn’t made a difference and only 23% said he’d helped.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.

Reporting from Washington — Some of President Obama’s most disputed judicial nominations — including UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu and San Francisco federal Magistrate Edward M. Chen — are about to expire without getting a vote in the Senate.

Dozens of Obama’s judicial nominees have languished, but in the past four days, the Senate has approved 12 of them without opposition. Another seven are expected to be confirmed before the lame-duck session of Congress ends. Four others, including Liu and Chen, aren’t expected to get a vote.

Their nominations will lapse after this congressional session. Although Obama could renominate them, their chances of confirmation would be even slimmer because Republicans will hold several more seats in the next Senate.

Liu, nominated to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is well-regarded among liberals and legal scholars and won a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Assn. But several Republicans contend that his liberal views put him “outside the mainstream.”

They also criticize his 2006 testimony against Samuel A. Alito’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Judge Alito’s record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse … where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man,” Liu said then. “I humbly submit that this is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be.”

The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states.

Chen, nominated to be a U.S. district judge in San Francisco, also ran into solid Republican opposition. Some conservatives complain about his former affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union. He was an ACLU attorney before becoming a magistrate.

Liberal activists pointed out that Republicans during the George W. Bush administration argued that the president’s nominees deserved an up-or-down vote.

“If Republicans kept to their old playbook and allowed the Senate to vote on Goodwin Liu, he’d be a shoo-in given his stellar qualifications,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice.

Two other district court nominees — Louis Butler of Wisconsin and Jack McConnell of Rhode Island — also face Republican opposition and are unlikely to be confirmed.

Obama will finish his first two years in office with far fewer judges confirmed than any recent chief executive.

As of Monday, the Senate had confirmed 53 of Obama’s 103 judicial nominees to the federal district or appeals courts in the last two years. Another seven approvals would bring the total to 60.

By contrast, President Clinton won approval for 126 lower court judges in his first two years, when his party controlled the Senate. One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed during George W. Bush’s first two years, even though Democrats narrowly controlled the Senate for most of that time.

Democrats have held a strong Senate majority in the last two years, and a judge can be confirmed with a simple majority vote. But a single senator can block a vote. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has done just that to prevent votes on nominees opposed by most Republicans.

Opponents also can filibuster nominees, and it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and set a final vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been reluctant to tie up the chamber in a prolonged debate over a lower-court judgeship.

Nominees confirmed in the last four days include Albert Diaz, a North Carolina state judge who won a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee in January. He will join the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

Sacramento Magistrate Kimberly Mueller was confirmed to be a federal district judge there, and Chicago prosecutor Edmond E. Chang was confirmed as a federal district judge for northern Illinois.

david.savage@latimes.com

Closing a two-day Western trip, President Clinton on Tuesday pledged to Los Angeles audiences his special commitment to help the California economy, while asking state residents to do their part for the economic plan he is pushing through Congress.

Clinton, in mobbed campaign-style stops in South-Central Los Angeles and at Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys, asserted that the U.S. economy won’t recover until the nation’s largest state can pull itself out of its slump. “We can’t turn this economy around unless we’re going to lift California up,” Clinton told students at the community college.

The President also signaled his interest in California immigration problems, saying that he will soon pick a “compassionate but hard-headed” person to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He said he hopes to get Atty. Gen. Janet Reno’s recommendation for that post as early as this week.

Clinton, who has traveled out of Washington for part of the past two weeks trying to drum up support for his economic plan, visited a black-owned apparel store on South-Central’s Florence Avenue to illustrate his view that the riot-torn area can only be rebuilt through a joint effort of government and business. He used the community college stop to stress his advocacy of continually retraining workers to make them competitive in a world economy.

The Clinton road show has been part economics seminar and part campaign extravaganza, and his visit to Los Angeles was no exception.

At the community college, he sat on a wooden stool under flowering mimosa trees to field questions from students on education, jobs, immigration and other subjects. At the South-Central stop, he and Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown toured the store, then stripped off their suit jackets and ties and shot baskets for a few minutes with a group of youngsters.

The crowds were large and warm, but Clinton’s most impassioned defense of his program came when hecklers taunted him at the community college. To their chants “You broke your promise”–referring to his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class–and “No new taxes,” the President rejoined:

“You know what the ‘no new tax’ crowd did for 12 years? They cut taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the middle class and left the country in a ditch,” he said. “The free lunch crowd has had their chance.”

He cited as proof of his commitment to California the efforts of Commerce Secretary Brown, who has visited the state seven times since January to help coordinate the government’s effort to help the economy. He said he had asked Brown to “map a specific plan to turn this economy around.”

The President told the college students he would like to help the state’s economy through increased aid for laid off defense workers and their communities, additional community policing and financial aid to offset immigration-related costs.

He made again a pitch for the central idea of his economic plan, that the country needs to cut its deficit while increasing spending–”investment”–for other purposes that will strengthen the economy over the long term.

In South-Central Los Angeles, Clinton visited The Playground, a community center and sporting goods store on Florence Avenue just one mile west of where rioting erupted last year. It was founded by a business person, a lawyer, a doctor and ex-gang members from the Crips. A basketball court was established in back so youths could play as well as buy merchandise.

While the store has received no federal aid, Clinton used it to illustrate his Administration’s redevelopment strategy, which also calls for the use of tax-advantaged “empowerment zones” to bring commerce to distressed areas.

After touring the store and meeting its owners, Clinton headed for the basketball court. He shed his coat, removed his shoes and socks and deposited the contents of his pockets in a shoe box.

In front of a phalanx of several dozen photographers, Leonard Baylor, 8, presented Clinton with a gift of size 13 sneakers.

“Thank you, Mr. President, for coming,” Leonard told the President. “Here, take these shoes.” Then, the boy said to the President: “Shoot some hoops with us?”

Baylor broke into tears–because he was overcome with emotion, a store owner later said. The President pulled Baylor close to comfort him.

Clinton pulled off his tie and pulled on athletic socks and the sneakers. Brown did the same. They then joined 18 youths on the court ranging in age from 6 to 17.

The President captained one team and Brown led another while a friendly crowd of about 200 as well as reporters and camera crews looked on.

Clinton, with shirttails flapping from the back of his baggy suit pants, missed his first two shots, then saved face by hitting from 10 feet out. Brown, however, swished from 20 feet away.

Clinton also grabbed five rebounds. “I made some good passes,” he said, but seemed to acknowledge that his commerce secretary stole the show, declaring, “Can Ron Brown shoot a jump shot or what?”

After the game, Clinton told the crowd: “I want everybody in America to know that there are people here in Los Angeles who believe that we can bring business to this area, that we can put people to work, if you have the help you need.”

“I wanted to come here today not just to have a little fun with a basketball, but to say to you and all of America that we’re going to have to rebuild this country from the grass roots up,” Clinton said. “This is an incredible untapped resource for America. If everyone in this country who wanted a job had one, we wouldn’t have half the problems we’ve got.”

Clinton said that he and Brown planned to go back to Washington to try to pass an economic program that will put “you back to work.”

The crowd in South-Central was clearly with him. Dorothy Redmond, a nursery school owner in the neighborhood, said: “I’m very encouraged. I am an entrepreneur of a small business and I think this is a step in the right direction.”

“I’m just speechless,” said Flora Lane, who traveled to South-Central from her home in the Wilshire district. “He is a person who cares about all people. I am for him 100%, plus his wife.”

But all the reviews of Clinton’s program weren’t favorable.

In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) characterized Clinton’s trip as “heading West while his poll numbers go South.”

“His West Coast public relations blitz is just another political make-over to try to convince people he’s cutting spending when he’s really breaking all world records for tax increases,” Dole said.

In Sacramento, the Wilson Administration released a report contending that Clinton’s five-year plan would cost Californians $11.6 billion more than their “fair share” of spending cuts and tax increases.

The state Department of Finance said it drew its figures from Clinton’s proposals for defense cuts, defense conversion and retraining, tax increases on personal income and energy, and tax credits for investment. The analysis also included estimates of the indirect effect of changes in spending and tax policy and a possible reduction in interest rates.

The study said it was assumed that “California will receive a disproportionate share of benefits included in the Clinton proposals–tax credits, investment spending and defense conversion spending.”

But those benefits, it said, will only partially offset the “dampening effect” of the defense cuts. Although California’s population is about 12% of the nation, the study said it appeared the state would absorb at least 25% of the cuts.

Overall, the report said, the plan would cost Californians $68.7 billion, or 14.6% of the total. Based on the state’s 12% share of the nation’s population, the “fair share” of the deficit-cutting burden would cost the state and its residents $57 billion, the report said.

Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this story from Sacramento.

* RELATED STORIES: A3, B1

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (“Intelligence Bill Slipping Away, but Foe Won’t Budge,” Dec. 1) is a hero in my book. The Senate and Bush administration want a sham “intelligence reform” bill that does little more than shuffle around boxes on an organization chart, in order to make it look as if they are doing something in response to 9/11.

Any provisions that actually might do something to protect the lives of American citizens are “too controversial” and therefore must be kept out of the bill. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refuses to be a party to the charade. He is to be congratulated for his integrity.

Lance B. Sjogren

San Pedro

*

There are more than enough votes in both houses of Congress to pass the bill in its present form. However, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has refused to bring it to a vote unless it receives more Republican votes. Apparently a partisan win is more important than the safety of the United States.

Can someone explain to me how the GOP is better at protecting the United States than the Democrats?

Michael Stark

Santa Monica

“I’m not afraid.”

With these three words Sunday morning, Pope Leo XIV offered as powerful a rebuke of President Trump and everything he has wrought on the world as anyone ever has.

Three words that mocked Trump for being the bully that he is.

Three words that undercut Trump’s self-hyped aura of invincibility.

Three words to inspire all good people to fight against Trump — because if a mild-mannered man of God such as Leo isn’t afraid, no one should be.

Pope Leo’s words thrilled me as an American but especially as a Catholic. His quiet, confident witness since becoming pontiff in May had already reignited a spiritual light in me to adhere closer to the faith I was brought up in.

Trump’s actions during his second term — war, deportations, nasty rhetoric and a love of himself above all else — have been like fuel to that fire. They stand against everything I was ever taught was good and holy.

Hearing Leo’s simple smackdown of the president, at a time when too many people insist we must sink to Trump’s lows to beat him, is like receiving a sacrament I never knew I needed.

Leo spoke a few hours after Trump trashed him on social media, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” — all because of the pope’s critiques of perpetual wars and this country’s vile treatment of undocumented immigrants, while never mentioning anyone by name.

Until now.

“I’m not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the church works for,” he told reporters while traveling to Algeria to kick off a 10-day African mission. He repeated the message later, stating: “I have no fear.”

In response, Trump melted down like the Nazis at the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” critiquing the pope to reporters and then posting an image on social media of himself as a robed savior healing a sick man, light emanating from his hands.

This pathetic fusillade offended even Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who has made a career of trashing liberal Catholics and who defended Trump last year after the president shared an image of himself in papal robes and mitre after the death of Pope Francis. This time, Donohue deemed Trump’s Christ-like imagery “offensive and immature.”

President Trump waves as he returns to the White House on Sunday. During a short interaction with reporters, he blasted Pope Leo XI as “very liberal.”

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

The president has a lot to fear these days, and not just because he violated most of the Ten Commandments with his bonkers Jesus post, which quickly disappeared. One of the few sane adults left in his administration must have reminded him that antagonizing Catholics is a terrible political move. About 55% of them voted for him in the 2024 election, many in swing states such as Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that had sided with Joe Biden — a Catholic — four years before.

A Fox News poll released last week found that only 48% of Catholics nationwide approve of Trump’s overall performance. While 57% of white Catholics still support Trump, a majority of them aren’t happy with his actions in Iran — the issue that’s turning out to be a millstone around his neck.

Trump’s second term has been a nightmare that seems to worsen every day. Yet not only is this country still standing, but more and more people are waking up to the mockery he’s made of American values. One of the new warriors is Leo, who told reporters he spoke out not to sway politics in his home country, but to offer, in his role as head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, a reminder of what Jesus practiced and preached.

No wonder Trump, who wants to erect idols to himself like a Canaanite king, is so upset.

May Leo’s words wake up more good people, regardless of their faith, to rise against Trump — and especially stir lapsed Catholics to return to Mother Church.

U.S. Catholics have long served as a barometer of acceptance for newcomers and the working class. But only about 20% of Americans identify as Catholic, per a Pew Research Center study released last year. And only 30% of those Catholics attend Mass weekly. Many more leave the faith than adopt it, at rates that far exceed other Christian denominations. This collapse has allowed the Catholic church’s conservative wing to take over, departing from the historic mission and instead leading us to Trump.

My lifelong commitment to social justice and my eternal skepticism of power and avarice comes from what I learned growing up at St. Boniface in Anaheim. I even had aspirations to become a priest, because I find few things more noble than dedicating your life to helping others.

I stopped attending Mass once I began covering the church’s sex abuse scandals as a journalist. I was outraged that men who held themselves up to be the custodians of God on Earth not only allowed such crimes to happen but usually covered them up and shunted off the offenders to poor parishes like mine.

I never stopped praying or considering myself a Catholic — but I couldn’t bring myself to support institutions headed by men such as L.A. Archbishop José H. Gómez and Diocese of Orange Bishop Kevin Vann, who always seem to have sharp words for progressives but never for Trump.

It’s been a long road back for me to openly write about my faith with pride — but Trump’s continued heresies have made it necessary. I still don’t know when or if I’ll start attending Mass again regularly, but the fact that I’m even thinking about it shows Leo’s impact on me.

Recently, someone I was interviewing noticed my scapular of the Santo Niño de Atocha with the word “Amor” on the other side. Last year, I tucked this simple necklace that’s a sign of devotion inside the plastic sleeve holding my Los Angeles Times badge, along with a few religious medals.

Pope Leo caused that. Trump caused that. Any chance to talk about my Catholic faith and why Trump is bad, I’m going to take.

I’m not afraid.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.

SACRAMENTO — With coronavirus cases continuing to rise across much of California and many workers unemployed indefinitely, several major banks and other lenders have agreed to provide mortgage relief to homeowners struggling to make their monthly payments.

The assistance arrives as more than 1 million Californians applied for unemployment benefits over the course of just 12 days through Wednesday because of layoffs or reduced hours amid the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday.

Eligible homeowners would be able to defer mortgage payments for at least three months and perhaps longer if they suffer hardship due to the pandemic. Late payments would not be reported to credit agencies.

Along with the mortgage assistance, Newsom is urging the lenders to extend financial relief to small businesses and student loan recipients “in the days and weeks to follow,” according to an email sent recently to financial institutions by state Department of Business Oversight Commissioner Manuel P. Alvarez.

The moves came as public health officials reported a continued increase in COVID-19 cases, including in Los Angeles County, where the county health officer on Wednesday ordered that all those who test positive for the coronavirus self-isolate, along with those in close contact with the infected.

Officials confirmed 138 new COVID-19 cases Wednesday in the state’s most populous county, for a total of more than 800. Three additional deaths brought the total in Los Angeles County to 13. Statewide, more than 3,100 of those tested have been confirmed to have infections, while 67 have died.

Public health officials emphasized that the actual number of people infected is almost certainly higher, but an accurate count is impossible because so few tests have been given.

The mortgage relief package that Newsom described at an afternoon news conference will come from four of the nation’s largest banks — Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase — as well as 200 state-chartered banks and credit unions.

“We still have people that are struggling to get back to where they were before the Great Recession,” Newsom said of the financial struggles Californians have experienced, now exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak.

Newsom noted that another huge lender, Bank of America, agreed only to allow customers to defer mortgage payments for one month, but said he is hopeful the institution “will do the right thing” in the near future.

Bank of America disputed Newsom’s assertion that it resisted providing more generous mortgage relief to homeowners. “Bank of America is deferring mortgage payments on a monthly basis until the crisis is over,” spokesman Bill Halldin said.

The continued spread of the coronavirus and the resulting wreckage of the economy suggest the need for even greater financial relief for consumers, Alvarez said in his email.

“As we continue the battle on the public health front, we must also brace ourselves for a financial crisis that is only beginning,” Alvarez wrote. “Now is the time for all institutions, public and private, to do our part in staving off a tsunami of financial harm barreling toward California consumers.”

The governor’s announcement came a week after he ordered all California residents to stay home to help stem the spread of the virus, with limited exceptions for essential workers, including doctors, nurses, grocery store employees and truckers.

Thousands of Californians have lost their jobs or have seen their working hours dramatically reduced, particularly in the hospitality and service industries. And the hardships fall on millions in the state who already struggle to make mortgage and rent payments, given skyrocketing housing costs.

The federal government this month announced that Americans with loans backed by the government-sponsored agencies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would be eligible to defer mortgage payments and be shielded from foreclosure if they could not afford to make payments because of the outbreak.

More than 30 state lawmakers on Wednesday sent a letter to Newsom asking for a statewide eviction moratorium. They say fewer than 50 local governments — out of the 539 cities and counties statewide — have passed moratoriums, as the governor urged last week.

Housing advocates called for an eviction ban statewide, particularly for those who aren’t working as a result of the coronavirus. Newsom has said he will take additional steps if he believes local jurisdictions are failing to protect their residents.

Officials warned that the worst days of the pandemic in California are yet to come.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city could be six to 12 days from seeing a spike in infections and hospitalizations like the one now afflicting New York City, where the death toll has dramatically increased in recent days.

“It’s coming,” Garcetti said. “The peak is not here yet. The peak will be bad. People will lose their lives.”

San Francisco leaders issued a similar warning, saying it was “plausible” the city could face a crisis similar to the one in New York and fall 1,500 ventilators and 5,000 hospital beds short of the numbers needed.

“It is not even a question as to whether we will need more,” Mayor London Breed said during an hourlong news conference. “Sadly, things are going to get worse.”

Anticipating a surge of patients in the coming days, government officials were working to find additional hospital beds. More than 1,000 beds will be provided by the Navy ship Mercy, which will arrive in Los Angeles on Friday, earlier than expected, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Alyssa Farah.

Officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco rejected suggestions from President Trump that there could be a quick easing of restrictions.

Garcetti said Angelenos should be “prepared for a couple months like this.”

“I know that everybody is hopeful, and some are putting out that hope of us being back in churches by Easter or synagogues by Passover or restarting the economy in a couple weeks,” Garcetti said. “I think we owe it to everybody to be straightforward and honest. We will not be back to … that level of normal in that short period of time.”

Dr. Grant Colfax, director of health for San Francisco, concurred.

“I know there are people out there who will lead you to believe our efforts are too aggressive,” Colfax said, “but I cannot stress enough just how vital they are.”

Los Angeles County Public Health Department Director Barbara Ferrer also said residents should not expect an immediate return to normality.

“We would be foolish to not prepare for a similar scenario in L.A. County,” she said. “We talk about numbers, but these aren’t numbers — these are people’s lives.”

Times staff writers Rong-Gong Lin II, Maura Dolan, Taryn Luna and Colleen Shalby contributed to this report.

Reporting from Washington — President Obama reassured India’s prime minister Tuesday that the partnership between their two countries would be “one of the defining relationships of the 21st century.”

Appearing with Manmohan Singh at the White House after two hours of talks, Obama said the United States and India have agreed to broaden cooperation in a variety of areas, including the economy, agriculture, technology, trade and counter-terrorism.

“The United States and India are natural allies,” the president said at a news conference.

Indian officials have worried recently that the Obama administration might be less committed than its predecessors to strengthening the U.S.-Indian relationship. Indians are anxious that their relationship is taking a back seat to growing U.S. ties with China and Pakistan. Obama returned last week from a trip to Asia that included a three-day stop in China.

But the administration made a special effort to dispel those perceptions: Singh is the first foreign leader invited to the Obama White House for a state visit, which included a state dinner Tuesday night.

The president emphasized that the U.S. is not looking solely to China for leadership in Asia.

“The United States welcomes and encourages India’s leadership role in helping to shape the rise of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Asia,” Obama said. He also accepted an invitation from Singh to visit India next year.

Ashley J. Tellis, who was a senior South Asia aide in George W. Bush’s administration, said Obama’s statements held valuable symbolism.

But the “real tests are yet to come,” said Tellis, now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

It remains to be seen whether the United States will devote the time needed to build a strategic relationship, and whether the two countries can work out their differences on such issues as climate change and nuclear nonproliferation, he said.

The Obama administration would like India to take aggressive steps to reduce carbon emissions, while India contends that the developed world should bear a larger share of that responsibility.

India, which has nuclear programs, has also been reluctant to impose tough economic sanctions on Iran, with which it has strong economic ties.

The United States and many other Western powers allege that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran says its nuclear development program is for civilian energy purposes.

Obama and Singh may have been closer on concerns about Taliban militants in Afghanistan, a subject that the prime minister raised repeatedly this week at a series of public meetings in Washington, and which the two leaders discussed at the White House.

Michael Hammer, a White House spokesman, said Singh and Obama “agreed that stabilizing Afghanistan and preventing a return of the Taliban to power are critically important.”

Hammer said that in their discussion of Iran, the two leaders “resolved to work together to make sure that all countries live up to their international obligations in the nuclear context.”

Teresita Schaffer, a former U.S. ambassador now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Indians don’t want the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan because they believe it would mean “a much bigger footprint for militant Islam.”

More broadly, she said, “they’ve bet their international role on ties to a United States strong enough to deliver the goods.”

paul.richter@latimes.com

cparsons@latimes.com