Reporting from Sacramento — There are more voters in favor of a ballot measure that would repeal the death penalty in California than one that attempts to speed up executions, but neither proposition has attracted the majority of votes it needs to pass come Tuesday, a new poll finds.
Partly, it’s because some voters seemed confused about what each measure promises, pollsters and strategists said. Mainly, it’s because voters remain strongly divided on the issue of capital punishment, with a strong core of beliefs driving their decisions.
National debate over criminal justice reform and racial disparity in sentencing has not swayed those attitudes, they said, as it has with other crime and punishment measures on the ballot.
“The death penalty is much more controversial, in a sense,” said pollster Anna Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the Democratic half of the bipartisan team of polling firms that conducted the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. “People have strong religious or moral opposition on both sides of the issue. They have core values.”
Proposition 62, which would replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole, received 44% support and 45% opposition among the 1,382 likely voters polled in October across the state through telephone interviews. Ten percent said they did not know how they would vote or refused to answer.
The more clearly written measure of the two, pollsters said, it garnered a predictable demographic on both sides: 59% of Democratic voters were in support and 65% of Republican voters were in opposition.
The results also reflected national trends, which show public support for the death penalty has declined, though an almost even split of voters still favor the punishment. The latest Pew Research survey, released in September, found 49% of Americans favored the death penalty, the lowest in more than four decades.
More confusing to interpret, pollsters said, were the results of Proposition 66, which seeks to speed up the death penalty system through changes and limits on how and how often death row inmates can challenge their convictions and sentences.
Thirty-five percent of voters said they would support Proposition 66, 42% said they would oppose it, and 21% said they did not know how they would vote or refused to answer.
But only 45% of Democratic voters opposed the measure, while 31% said they would support it. Of Republican voters, 40% were in favor and 36% were against.
Interviews with poll participants illustrated the opposing values among California voters.
Alan Cheah, 67, a retired technology specialist in the Central Valley, said he strongly opposed the death penalty on moral grounds.
“A lot of people have been wrongly put to death,” he said. “The whole justice system is skewed toward disadvantaged people and people of color, and a lot of them have been accused of murder or wrongdoing but have been acquitted – some have not been acquitted in time.”
To Steven Lang, a 56-year-old self-described fine artist, it’s a sensitive, personal issue. His sister was killed in 1994. The killer was not sentenced to death.
“This guy has robbed me of memories of my sister,” Lang said. “You can’t take life and whitewash it in gray. Every life has a value, and I believe people who take that life, lose theirs.”
Yet even as the two death penalty propositions “are trying to achieve competing aims, opponents of one don’t necessarily support the other, mostly due to confusion about 66,” said pollster Ben Winston of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
Voters who supported repealing the death penalty and opposed the competing measure were 21% of the electorate, a mostly Democratic group which also supported Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Voters who opposed repealing the death penalty and favored the measure intended to speed up the process formed 18% of the electorate, a group that leaned Republican and toward Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Another 15% of voters, mostly younger Democrats and Clinton supporters, said they would give their “Yes” vote to both propositions, while 21% of the electorate said they would oppose both measures.
The survey was conducted for USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint.
SACRAMENTO — As Democratic leaders in California challenge President Trump’s latest effort to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, they also must grapple with a troubling development in the last election.
A significant number of mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted in the Nov. 4 special election for Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successful measure to reconfigure the state’s congressional districts, according to state data.
Ballots came in late at an average rate four times higher than that of the 2024 election, with rural counties seeing some of the biggest increases, according to a Times review.
“Something changed,” said Melvin E. Levey, who heads the Merced County Registrar of Voters. “We don’t like seeing late ballots and if someone has made the effort to vote, we want to count it.”
Merced saw almost a sevenfold increase in late-arriving mail ballots in the November election compared with the year before.
Vote-by-mail ballots are considered late if they are not postmarked on or ahead of election day or do not arrive within seven days of election day.
The issue appears to be linked to the U.S. Postal Service, which last year reduced the number of trips to pick up mail at post offices in mostly rural areas. Election officials warned before Nov. 4 that the Postal Service changes could delay the postmarking of ballots and lead to votes not being counted.
During the Nov. 4 election in California, an average of 8 out of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected by counties because they arrived too late, according to Secretary of State data. In the 2024 general election, which included the presidential race, an average of 2 of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected for being late.
In Kern County, for example, 3,303 mail-in ballots — or 1.95% of returned mail-in ballots — were not counted in the 2025 special election because they arrived too late. In 2024, that number was 332 — or 0.14%. And in Riverside County, 5,831 ballots — or 0.95% of those mailed in — were deemed too late to count, more than double the number of late ballots rejected in 2024.
Postal Service spokesperson Cathy Purcell recommended that voters mail their ballot a week in advance of when it must be received by election officials to ensure it arrives on time.
“You should never be mailing your ballot on election day,” Purcell told The Times.
Before last’s year’s special election, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a similar warning about the delays. Anyone dropping off their ballot at a post office on election day should get it postmarked at the counter, she said.
“We don’t want anyone to just toss it into the mailbox as we have been able to do in the past and have it counted,” she said. “The Postal Service has said that they may not be counted in certain areas.”
California voter data expert Paul Mitchell expressed astonishment about the Postal Service’s guidance.
“We’ve had six, eight years of elections where people were feeling confident about mailing in their ballot,” said Mitchell, vice president of the voter data firm Political Data Inc. “Now the USPS is saying they have to mail it in a week early.”
“That is a dramatic change that can disenfranchise voters who are just following the same pattern that they’ve used in prior elections,” he added.
Democrats have been defending the vote-by-mail system in the face of Republican attacks. Trump recently signed an executive order to impose federal restrictions on mail-in ballots and, without evidence, has long criticized mail-in ballots as a source of fraud and a factor in his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
The Nov. 4 special election on Proposition 50 was the Democrats’ attempt to counter Trump’s push for Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. The ballot measure overwhelmingly passed.
Nearly 89% of votes in the Nov. 4 election were vote-by-mail ballots, according to Weber’s office. In addition to Proposition 50, tax measures were also on the ballots in some counties.
Postal Service changes
About a month before the Nov. 4 election, Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta held a news conference to encourage California voters to vote early because of service changes at the U.S. Postal Service.
Bonta told reporters that voters living 50 or more miles from six large mail processing centers in urban areas who mailed their ballots on election day would not have those ballots postmarked in time. The centers are in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.
The changes at the U.S. Postal Service are part of a 10-year plan that kicked off several years ago aimed at improving services and reducing costs at the independent federal agency.
In the 17 counties that are mostly or entirely within the 50-mile distance from the mail facilities, the average rate of late ballots doubled in the November 2025 election compared with the election the year before — from 2.5 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 5.6 per 1,000 in 2025.
But in counties that are entirely or mostly outside of the 50-mile radius, the average rate of late ballots quadrupled — from 2 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 9.3 per 1,000 in 2025, state election records show.
Similar complaints about late ballots because of the mail changes have been reported in other states, including in Snohomish County, Wash., according to the New York Times.
The U.S. Postal Services told the Times that there are “any number of factors” that may affect the timeliness of mail.
“The Postal Service has successfully delivered America’s election mail, and we are confident that we will do so again this year,” spokesperson Nikolaj Hagen said. “We rely on long-standing, robust and tested policies and procedures, which have proven successful in the secure and timely delivery of election mail.”
Hagen added that “adjustments to our transportation operations will result in some mailpieces not arriving at our originating processing facilities on the same day that they are mailed.”
Postmarks are generally applied at those processing facilities, Hagen said, so the postmark date may not reflect the date the mail was collected by a letter carrier, dropped off at a retail location, or placed in a collection box.
While the U.S. Postal Service uses postmarking as an internal tool to track the place and date the mail was accepted, outside entities also use the postmarks for their own purposes, including the Internal Revenue Service, which requires federal tax returns to be mailed by April 15.
Several U.S. senators, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), sent a letter in January to USPS Postmaster Gen. Dave Steiner warning that changes to postmarking will make it more difficult for people, particularly those in rural areas, to vote by mail and pay tax bills on time.
On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to put new federal controls on voting by mail in states, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.
The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters.
States must follow the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots. They also must submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.
Separately, the Republican National Committee is challenging a Mississippi law that allows ballots that arrive up to five days after election day to be accepted and counted. The case was argued before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in March.
Times staff reporter Kevin Rector contributed to this report.
Rights groups have raised concerns about Trump’s efforts to change election administration before November’s midterms.
About two dozen Democrat-led states have filed a lawsuit against the administration of United States President Donald Trump to block an executive order setting new limits on mail-in ballots.
Friday’s lawsuit comes as voting rights groups charge that Trump is seeking to make it more difficult to vote before the consequential midterm elections in November.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Trump, meanwhile, has argued that his efforts are meant to counter rampant voter fraud in US elections.
That opinion runs counter to the findings of independent election monitors, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, whose decades-spanning database has found an exceedingly low rate of election fraud.
New York Attorney General Letitia James was among the attorneys general in 23 states and the District of Columbia who filed Friday’s suit, alongside the governor of Pennsylvania.
In a statement, she argued that Trump’s executive order exceeded his presidential power.
“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, and no president has the power to rewrite the rules on his own,” James said.
Trump’s latest executive order, signed on Tuesday, calls on the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit” a list of United States citizens who are eligible to vote in each state.
It then requires the United States Postal Service (USPS) to “transmit ballots only to individuals enrolled on a State-specific Mail-in and Absentee Participation List, ensuring that only eligible absentee or mail-in voters receive absentee or mail-in ballots”.
Voting rights groups have said the measures would likely rely on an incomplete federal list of US citizens and would heap too much responsibility on USPS.
Mail-in voting has increased across the US, in states that lean both Republican and Democratic, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 2024 elections, a third of all ballots were cast by mail.
In Friday’s lawsuit, the states argue that Trump’s order violates the US Constitution, which says that state officials decide the “times, places and manner” of elections.
The states further maintain that only Congress can pass new restrictions related to how elections are conducted. Forcing a change to election administration so close to the November elections will also create chaos, according to the lawsuit.
The midterm elections will determine which party controls the US House of Representatives and Senate.
Trump has previously voiced concern that he may face impeachment proceedings, should the Republican Party see its majorities in both chambers disappear.
For years, Trump has maintained, without evidence, that his 2020 election loss was the result of widespread fraud, and he has pledged reforms to the voting system.
He previously signed executive orders seeking to overhaul US election administration, although they have been mostly blocked by the court system.
The Department of Justice has also sued several states in an attempt to gain access to voter information, and the FBI seized ballots from the 2020 election during a raid last January in Fulton County, Georgia, further stoking concerns.
Trump, meanwhile, has been pushing lawmakers to pass the “SAVE America Act”, which would require increased proof of US citizenship when registering to vote, including a birth certificate or a passport, as well as a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Rights groups have warned the measures could disenfranchise many voters, including women who changed their last name upon marrying.
President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday purporting to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.
California leaders immediately responded with promises to fight the order in court. They said mail ballots are a safe and secure method for voting relied on by millions of Californians, that Trump’s order infringes on the state’s constitutional right to administer elections as it sees fit, and that it amounts to an “illegal power grab” ahead of midterm elections in which his party is poised to suffer substantial losses.
The order directs the United States Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters, and that only eligible voters return such ballots.
It requires states to submit to the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots, and to submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.
It also requires the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Social Security Administration to “compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State.”
Those lists will be drawn from federal citizenship and naturalization records, Social Security records and “other relevant Federal databases,” and the USPS will be barred from transmitting ballots that do not match those lists, the order says.
“Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters,” the order reads. “Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.”
Trump — who recently voted by mail himself in Florida — framed the order as a solution to “massive cheating” in U.S. elections currently, which he did not back up with evidence.
“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said.
“He’s going to make sure that mail-in ballots are safe secure and accurate,” said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appeared alongside Trump and whose agency the order requires to be involved in the coordination of the new voting measures.
California officials blasted the president for attacking and undermining election integrity, rather than shoring it up, and said they would fight the order from taking effect.
“President Trump’s Executive Order marks a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in his ongoing attacks on our elections. The power to regulate elections belongs to the States and to Congress — he has no role to play. We blocked his previous Executive Order on elections in court, and we are prepared to stop him again,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.
“The reality is that President Trump and Congressional Republicans see the writing on the wall — that they are likely to lose in the upcoming midterms — and they are pushing to make it harder for people to vote,” Bonta added. “We won’t stand idly by.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in a statement to The Times, said Trump’s actions were “a clear and present threat to our democracy,” that he will “use every tool I can to stop him,” and that he expects “immediate legal challenges in order to protect our free and fair elections.”
“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November. This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” said Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
“The President and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024,” he said. “A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution.”
“In the middle of an unauthorized war abroad and an escalating authoritarian crackdown by ICE here at home, Trump is attempting another illegal power grab,” Padilla said.
A vast majority of Californians vote by mail. In the state’s 2025 special election on Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure, nearly 89% of votes were cast by mail, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office — or nearly 10.3 million out of about 11.6 million votes cast.
Trump has long criticized mail-in ballots — without evidence — as a source of fraud and a factor in his losing the 2020 election to President Biden, which he still contends was illegitimate.
Election experts, voting rights advocates, local elections officials and other California leaders have all dismissed those claims as unfounded and inaccurate. They have also been preparing for Trump to act to curtail such voting.
Padilla previously warned colleagues that he would force a vote on any effort by Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, forcing them to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.
Critics of mail ballots have also been actively working to end or curtail the practice. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case in which the Republican Party challenged a Mississippi law that allows ballots to be accepted and counted if they arrive up to five days after election day.
During those arguments, the court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted as legal.
Weber, California’s top elections official, has warned that attacks on mail-in voting risked undermining a system the state has spent years building around universal mail voting.
Trump’s executive order is the latest front in a years-long campaign he has led attacking the integrity of U.S. elections — which has contributed to a steep decline in voter trust in U.S. elections.
On Tuesday, Trump said his order was drafted by “great legal minds,” and will survive any legal challenges unless “rogue” judges rule against it inappropriately.
“We want to have honest voting in our country,” he said.
Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, argued otherwise in a post Tuesday, noting that an earlier executive order purporting to place new federal controls on elections was blocked in court, and “this one is likely to fare no better.”
“To put this in plain terms: the order would use the USPS, which is not under the direct control of the President, to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots. If the state does not comply with these rules, federal law would purport to interfere with a state’s conduct of its own elections,” Hasen wrote. “The President does not have the authority to do this.”
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he’d like to be our governor, but more and more, it’s looking to me like the real goal for the far-right provocateur is just to be MAGA-famous.
That’s cool. That’s fine. Honestly, who in Southern California hasn’t dreamed of their 15 minutes? And he certainly has the cop-stache to play the role of rogue Wild West lawman.
But Bianco’s bid for celebrity may help extremists take down American elections, and that is a problem — one California needs to deal with quickly, before the midterms suffer from his antics. There are two separate issues at play here, both of which state courts will be asked to weigh in on in coming days — Bianco apparently is putting his so-called investigation on hold until those cases bring some measure of clarity, and hopefully sanity.
The fact that these two issues are coming up now — together— is no accident. President Trump’s election fraud claims have been moving toward this moment for years, largely out of the consciousness of mainstream voters, but very much intentionally pushed by those who would like to see MAGA officials remain in power, even at the cost of democracy.
The real question being answered right now in Riverside — the one we should all be clear on — is, if Republicans want to invalidate election results that don’t go their way this November, what’s the nitty-gritty of actually doing that?
Bianco is attempting an answer.
“This is about more than just what Sheriff Bianco is doing,” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “… It shouldn’t happen. And again, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are winning or Republicans are winning, no sheriff should come in and take over possession or counting of ballots.”
Bianco claims he has the right to seize these ballots and investigate as he sees fit — and it’s not our business or anyone else’s, not even state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to stop what he was doing until Bonta could review it.
Bianco has largely ignored that order, instead scooping up even more ballots late last week — all but giving Bonta a certain finger reserved for simple communication. Fox News loved it. Bianco’s admission Monday that he is pausing his effort is the first hint that even he may see he’s gone too far.
But Bianco’s hubris is in line with the attitude of many so-called constitutional sheriffs, a national movement by some far-right elected lawmen that Bianco has been associated with, though he’s never claimed outright affinity.
These extremist sheriffs misguidedly believe that they are above both state and federal law, and get to decide for themselves what’s constitutional or not in their jurisdictions — and therefore what’s law and what’s not.
Since about 2020, empowered by successes in ignoring pandemic restrictions, these sheriffs have dived deeper and deeper into the election fraud movement that Trump loves so much, claiming increasing rights to investigate alleged fraud. Though their national organization doesn’t publish its membership list, media and other tracking show there are at minimum dozens of these like-minded lawmen across the country, likely closely watching Riverside County.
Some election experts now worry that if Bianco is successful in the courts in retaining the right to take ballots, it will give a dangerous legal precedent that empowers other constitutional sheriffs to do the same at the midterms. Only then it would be fresh, uncounted ballots — leaving these far-right sheriffs in charge of providing results instead of trained, trusted elections officials.
“What happens if the ballots have not been properly counted by the right people yet and a sheriff decides they want to go confiscate them?” said Chad Dunn, co-founder of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and the trial lawyer who successfully halted Texas’ gerrymandering effort, for now anyway.
“Once the chain of custody … is broken, as they have been with these, you’ll never count them in a way that you’ll be able to get reasonable confidence from the public,” Dunn said. “It puts the entire election process in jeopardy.”
The constitutional sheriffs would become the boots on the ground for Trump’s election deniers to implement their will, seizing ballots as they see fit and creating such a crisis of confidence that it’s likely we the voters would never accept the results, Republican or Democrat.
It could even give Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson a plausible reason — an ongoing fraud investigation — not to seat elected Democrats, stalling as he did with Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva last year after she won a special election.
The Voting Rights Project, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit last week asking the state Supreme Court to uphold the laws that govern how ballots are handled in California — basically protecting that chain of custody and making it clear sheriffs can’t ignore it and are not part of it.
“They do not, under California law, have the right to take ballots away from the Registrar of Voters, and they do not, under California law, have the right to count or handle ballots,” Barreto said. “There’s no question that it violates California election law.”
Separately, Bonta’s office filed its own action, with that issue of constitutional sheriffs front and center. Bonta is asking courts to tell Bianco that he’s not a law unto himself, and does in fact answer to the state attorney general.
This issue of whether sheriffs have any legal duty to listen to the state’s top law enforcement officer has long been one of Bonta’s fights — he argued about it with then-L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva in another public corruption fiasco over then-L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.
I’m guessing Bianco will refer Bonta back to that simple communication of a single finger, much the same as Villanueva did.
But it’s long past time that the state decide just how powerful sheriffs are, for the good of the country this time. The state Legislature has repeatedly kicked the can on clarifying the issue, a failure on their part.
Legislators could amend the state Constitution to make sheriffs appointed instead of elected — the same as police chiefs. Then boards of supervisors could hire and fire them just like other law enforcement leaders.
With the Legislature’s resounding absence on the issue, we have to rely on courts. That’s likely to be a long battle.
In the meantime, Bianco is up to his mustache in attention. This has become a national story, boosting his profile throughout the MAGA-verse as a champion of election deniers everywhere.
Whether Bianco wins or loses these legal battles, resumes his investigation or not, he’s won the attention battle — he’s even polling at the top in the gubernatorial race, thanks to the 8 million Democrats who refuse to drop out.
Riverside County, once as red as it comes, is increasingly purple, Barreto points out. Bianco’s tenure as elected sheriff may not last forever. His shot at governor, despite the polls, is unlikely.
But maybe Fox News will be so impressed with his aggressive rants that he’ll get an offer. Maybe Trump, known for watching it, will like what he sees. So many possibilities from the publicity.
STOWE, Vt. — Looking back, gubernatorial candidate Dean Roy says his political ambitions started in the eighth grade. And by that he means last year.
After working as a legislative page at the Vermont Statehouse, the 14-year-old freshman at Stowe High School now has his sights set on the corner office. In November, he’ll be the first candidate for governor under age 18 to appear on the state’s general election ballot.
“I don’t expect necessarily to win,” he said. “What I do expect is to start the movement, and get more young people to come in behind me and say, ‘Yeah, we also want to make change.’”
Another eighth-grader, Ethan Sonneborn, sought the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018 but finished last in a four-way primary. Roy secured his spot in the general election by creating his own third party, the Freedom and Unity party. Both were able to run because the state constitution sets no minimum age for gubernatorial candidates, requiring only that candidates have resided in the state for four years.
“I know it sounds crazy, a 14-year-old running for governor, but honestly, look at the people in charge right now,” Roy said in a post on his campaign’s Instagram page. “They’ve been doing this forever and things still aren’t working.”
Nearly all other states set minimum age requirements for governor, often 30 years old. In Kansas, lawmakers added a requirement that gubernatorial candidates be at least 25 years old in 2018 after six teenagers ran for office.
Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, has a different take than Roy on Vermont’s constitution. He points to a section in the document referring to what qualifies someone to be “entitled to the privileges of a voter,” and that is that they must be 18 years of age. Even under Roy’s interpretation, Teachout doesn’t predict a win for the teenager.
“In theory, a 4-year-old could run for governor. Should we be worried about it? No,” he said. “Vermonters can be a little cantankerous and provocative just for the fun of it, but it is not something they are likely to support in this context.”
But Roy’s former history teacher, James Carpenter, said he thinks it’s great that Roy is giving it his all. Though most 14-year-olds aren’t concerned with property taxes or healthcare, Carpenter describes Roy as an “old soul” with endless curiosity.
“It just really shows what type of kid Dean is. He’s very earnest in what he’s doing. There’s no gimmick behind this,” he said. “I think he blends that youthful optimism with some pragmatism that few kids have.”
Roy, who said he doesn’t identify with either major party, said housing is the most important issue facing the state. He’s also thought about how he’d juggle school with a full-time job as governor, saying he’d consider online classes and would do his homework at night after work.
The current governor, Republican Phil Scott, applauds Roy’s interest in politics and public service but questions whether someone so young is ready for the responsibilities that come with running a state.
“He believes it’s important for our youth to get involved,” said Press Secretary Amanda Wheeler. “But the governor also believes that a teenager may not be best suited to serve in that role given the lack of experience and lived perspectives youth have at that point in their lives.”
Roy disagrees that age has anything to do with whether a candidate is fit to run for office.
“What I’m aiming for is that these career politicians look at me and they say, ‘Oh my God, he actually has a chance to disrupt things,’” he said. “If I can get people to think that I am a threat to them, then I know that’s been a success. Because what I want is to show them that the youth have a voice. We’re gonna make change. The future is now.”
Swinhart writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Holly Ramer contributed to this report from Concord, N.H.
ATLANTA — Attorneys for Georgia’s Fulton County and President Trump’s administration squared off in court Friday over the county’s demand that the FBI return seized ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing Fulton County, noted that the January raid was “unusual” because it involved an old election and allegations that have already been investigated in the years since Trump, a Republican, lost the county and the state to Joe Biden, a Democrat.
Lowell contended that the Trump administration seized the materials because it grew impatient with litigation the Justice Department filed to obtain them last year. “There’s abundant law that the left hand of the department needs to know what the right hand is doing,” Lowell told U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee.
Michael Weisbuch, representing the federal government, replied that the separate civil litigation wasn’t “relevant in any respect.” He said the administration has already provided Fulton County with digital copies of everything taken and needs to retain physical copies to carry out its own investigation.
Boulee wrote in a scheduling order that the hearing was needed after the two sides failed to reach an agreement in court-ordered mediation.
Trump’s actions alarm Democrats and election officials
The Jan. 28 seizure from a warehouse near Atlanta targeted the elections hub in Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him reelection.
The FBI’s move was among several actions by the Trump administration that have alarmed Democrats and many election officials who are concerned it’s using law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year’s midterm elections. The FBI also used a subpoena earlier this month to obtain records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona, another battleground state Trump lost that year.
At the same time, the Justice Department is fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.
Justice Department says it’s investigating 2020 ‘irregularities’
Lawyers for Fulton County argued in a court filing that the seizure of its documents was “improper and unjustified” and demonstrates “callous disregard” for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Justice Department seeks to “set a precedent that would grant the federal government unchecked power to interfere with the local administration of elections,” it wrote.
Justice Department attorneys argued that preparing a detailed affidavit and presenting it to a judge “is the exact opposite of ‘callous disregard’” for those constitutional rights. “Their goal to disrupt an ongoing federal criminal investigation is clear,” they wrote of Fulton County officials.
The Justice Department said it is investigating “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.
The filing said the FBI is looking into whether Fulton County properly retained ballot images; whether some ballots were scanned and counted multiple times; whether unfolded, unmailed ballots were counted as mail-in absentee ballots; and potential irregularities concerning tabulator tapes from the scanners used to count ballots.
Fulton County’s lawyers wrote that the “deficiencies” or “defects” in the county’s handling of the 2020 election cited in the affidavit are the kinds of human errors that commonly occur without any intentional wrongdoing and cannot establish probable cause.
Election tech expert cites problems in the affidavit
To support their claims, Fulton County officials submitted a sworn declaration from Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who advised the county during the 2020 election. He said the affidavit contains “a multitude of false or misleading statements and omissions” and offered explanations for the alleged “deficiencies.”
Investigations by the Georgia secretary of state and independent reviews contradict the core allegations of the affidavit, which is “rife with statements from witnesses lacking credibility, with extraordinary and undisclosed biases,” Fulton’s lawyers argued.
Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Biden’s win.
Federal government lawyers rejected the idea that the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit “intentionally or recklessly misled” the judge, writing that “the supposed misrepresentations and omissions flagged by Petitioners are illusory and/or immaterial.” They also asserted that a lapse of the statute of limitations on the potential crimes does not negate probable cause.
The Justice Department also noted that a federal magistrate judge reviewed the FBI affidavit and signed off on the search warrant. Fulton County sought to have the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit testify at Friday’s hearing, but the Justice Department objected and the judge sided with the federal government.
Brumback writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
REDDING — At a Board of Supervisors meeting in rural Shasta County last month, Clint Curtis dropped a bombshell: A sheriff way down in Riverside was going to confiscate all the ballots from a recent election.
Curtis, the county registrar of voters, was the first to announce the planned ballot seizure. Even the sheriff himself, Chad Bianco, had not publicly revealed his intentions.
Later, as Bianco’s move grabbed headlines — he is a leading Republican candidate for governor — Curtis’ behind-the-scenes maneuvering remained largely unknown. The registrar had worked with the Riverside County citizens group whose fraud allegations had sparked Bianco’s investigation, even traveling 600 miles south to speak on their behalf.
Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis poses last month in the new election observation room at the elections office in Redding.
In his short time in Shasta County, Curtis, whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s, has solidified his position as a torchbearer of the election denialism movement, vowing to take his message about untrustworthy machines and potential fraud across California and beyond.
Critics here say he has steadily disenfranchised voters. He has eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes, telling The Times he did not trust ballots in the hands of “little old ladies running all over” to collect them. And he has advocated for a local ballot initiative that would limit elections to one day, eliminate most voting by mail and require voter ID as well as a hand count of ballots.
Curtis also has accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of election fraud and has called for federal authorities to raid the office he now runs.
“Do I think ballots were stuffed? Yes. Have I contacted the DOJ? Yes,” Curtis said at the Feb. 24 Shasta County supervisors’ meeting just before announcing Bianco’s planned ballot seizure.
Curtis, a 67-year-old attorney, was appointed by the Shasta County supervisors last April. He lived in Florida then, had no previous ties to the area and had never run an election.
He got the job based largely on two stated qualifications: He wanted to hand-count votes. And he had worked with Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist.
In his public job interview, Curtis promised to grill local elections staffers to “find out what they know.”
Now Curtis is running for election himself, trying to keep his job in this Northern California county where a majority of the supervisors were so swept up in President Trump’s discredited election fraud claims that they ditched their Dominion voting machines in 2023 and opted to hand-count ballots (quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so).
Share via
Curtis says he is running to make elections more transparent by questioning the status quo and hanging cameras everywhere to capture election workers’ every move.
“Republicans love me,” Curtis told The Times. “The Democrats are pretty good. And then I have these crazy socialist people that just hate me.”
Beliefs aside, Curtis has quickly become a colorful local character.
He took a lie detector test to attest that he didn’t rig the November election. He chose as his number two a heavy metal guitarist from San Francisco — stage name “Turmoil” — who is a progressive Democrat.
And last September, surveillance cameras captured him pushing an antique metal safe through the Shasta County elections office on a Saturday while his wife assisted with a pulling harness. Curtis wore blue jeans — and no shirt.
He said he moved the safe, which contained odds and ends, on a hot day to make more room for election observers.
Curtis first gained national attention for election skepticism in December 2004, in testimony before Congress.
He had been working as a computer programmer in Florida and was brought in as an expert witness by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who were reeling over President George W. Bush’s defeat of John Kerry a few weeks earlier and furious about an error with an electronic voting machine that gave Bush extra votes in Ohio.
Curtis claimed that he had written “a prototype” of software that would allow cheaters to alter votes using “invisible buttons” on touch-screen balloting machines. His claims were largely dismissed. But he continues to tout his congressional testimony to cast himself as an expert on election malfeasance.
A woman passes by a “Greetings From Redding” mural on Feb. 25.
After testifying, he unsuccessfully ran for office multiple times in Florida. He refused to concede after one loss, alleging the machines were rigged.
In Shasta County, he saw a chance for redemption.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Supervisors gained a hard-right majority supported by anti-vaxxers, secessionists, members of a local militia and pro-Trump election deniers.
In 2022, someone hung a trail camera — the kind hunters use to track wildlife — behind the elections office to monitor the staff. Some observers yelled at staffers and got in the face of Cathy Darling Allen, the longtime registrar, who installed a 7-foot metal fence to keep them at bay.
Joanna Francescut, who worked in the elections office for 17 years, is running to be county registrar.
Darling Allen clashed with the supervisors as they pushed to hand-count votes, a process she argued would be slow, expensive and prone to error. She retired in 2024, citing health reasons.
Her successor resigned after less than a year. The supervisors appointed Curtis in a 3-2 vote, passing over Joanna Francescut, who had worked in the elections office since 2008 and was Darling Allen’s number two.
Days later, Curtis fired Francescut. She is now running against him in the June 2 election.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, called Curtis a “nationally known conspiracy theorist.”
“I can’t imagine bringing in someone who is neither an election administrator nor a Californian for a job like that and basically chasing out experienced election officials whose work had withstood scrutiny for decades,” Becker said. “The voters of Shasta County, unfortunately, are paying the price.”
Curtis has accused Francescut and other elections staffers of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans.
“I want to laugh because it’s that ridiculous,” Francescut, 43, said of the allegations.
“People that work in this field, they’re doing this work because they care about elections,” she said. “They want the community to be better. They want what both sides want — transparent and accurate elections.”
During her 17-year tenure, the elections office got little public attention. But “once 2020 hit, people went from completely trusting us to, the day after election day, calling and yelling at our staff so much that we couldn’t get the work done to count ballots,” she said.
Curtis was a favorite of then-board chairman Kevin Crye, a hard-right supervisor who enlisted Lindell to support the county’s crusade against Dominion. Crye had survived a 2024 recall effort by just 50 votes.
1
2
1.Carl Bott, co-owner of KCNR 96.5 FM, interviews Joanna Francescut on Feb. 25, 2026, in Redding, Calif.2.Joanna Francescut’s campaign manager, Mary Williams, wears an orange button that reads “Vote for Jo for County Clerk” as Francescut waits in the offices of talk radio station KCNR.
Citing that close margin, Curtis said he believed recent elections were rigged because Republicans were not winning by large enough margins in a county where registered Republicans greatly outnumber Democrats.
In a letter to the U.S. Justice Department, Curtis said he had learned of lax security and potential ballot stuffing in 2024, the year of the attempted recall against Crye. Curtis sent a copy of the letter to Trump and requested a federal investigation because “the destruction of these ballots is nearing.”
In 2019 and 2024, a Shasta County grand jury investigated local election procedures and found no wrongdoing.
“How does it make me feel? Really angry,” Darling Allen, who is advising Francescut’s campaign, said of Curtis’ allegations. “It calls into question the integrity and character of every single person who worked in the elections department.”
To replace Francescut, Curtis hired Brent Turner, the guitarist from San Francisco. He is a longtime election reform activist who has pushed for nonproprietary open-source voting systems with software code that can be examined by anyone.
Turner described their partnership as: “Republican and Democrat team up to fight outdated software for elections. Oh, my!”
“We have to have the adult conversation in the United States that if the systems are loose enough to allow people — in this case, we’re talking about even people internal to the system — to cheat, they might cheat,” Turner said.
Last October, Secretary of State Shirley Weber wrote to Curtis, asking him to detail planned changes to voting procedures. He responded with a 15-page letter.
Election observers, he wrote, were “treated like invaders … corralled behind spiked fences.” And drivers who picked up ballots from drop boxes sometimes left them in their vehicles. Under his watch, he wrote, “no detours or even bathroom breaks are allowed.”
A woman exits the Cottonwood Post Office in Shasta County.
Curtis told Weber that someone had carved death threats on his vehicle and left “antifa” business cards on his windshield wipers.
Weber’s communications team said in an email that her office “continues to monitor new election processes proposed by Shasta (or any county) County to ensure they do not violate state law.”
In his letter to Weber, Curtis promised to take a lie detector test after each election. Answering pre-written questions he had submitted, Curtis said in a January polygraph test that he did not change the results of the November election and believed a predecessor had rigged previous contests, according to a summary obtained by The Times.
The examiner wrote that he “was likely telling the truth.”
Inside the elections office, Curtis created a large room, decked out with American flags, for citizens to observe the vote-counting process.
More than a dozen large TV monitors display close-up video, also streamed online, of election workers’ hands inserting ballots into machines. On June 2, those workers will sit beneath iPhones hung overhead to record them while observers are positioned on barstools a few inches behind them.
The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office is decorated with American flags.
Curtis has been traveling across California to tout his methods. He told The Times he has spoken about his video setup in Kern and San Joaquin counties and discussed it with candidates for state office.
And he advised the Riverside County citizens group that claimed to have found an overcount of 45,896 ballots in the November election for Proposition 50, which redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.
Art Tinoco, the Riverside County registrar of voters, has refuted that number — saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
After Bianco last week announced that his office had seized more than 650,000 ballots, Curtis appeared on the social media broadcast of a right-wing election integrity advocate who called him “the stealth behind the scenes in making that happen.”
Curtis smiled and repeated what he has been espousing since the early 2000s: “You can’t really trust a computer.”
The feud between California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has escalated after Bonta asked a court to stop Bianco’s investigation into alleged election fraud.
In a 70-page petition filed with the Fourth Appellate District Monday, Bonta wrote that “the Sheriff’s misguided investigation threatens to sow distrust and jeopardize public confidence” in upcoming elections. The investigation, which he also called “sweeping and unprecedented,” is an abuse of the criminal process, he wrote.
Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, last month seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in Riverside County in the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.
The sheriff has said that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.
Bianco has described his probe as a “fact-finding mission” to determine if votes were fraudulently counted. He has accused the attorney general, a Democrat, of improperly interfering with what he says is a lawful criminal investigation.
In Riverside County, the proposition passed by more than 82,000 votes. Statewide, it passed with about 64% of the vote and a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.
“Well, well, well, the political corruption in California just gets bigger and bigger,” Bianco said in a social media video Monday night in response to Bonta’s petition.
“Why in the world would Rob Bonta want that count stopped unless he was afraid of what that count would uncover?” he added. “We have an extremely politically biased appeals court, so this is going to be interesting.”
Political observers have said that Bianco, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, appears to be vying for attention from Trump, who has called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections, remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.
Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said that Bianco’s investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”
“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”
The sheriff has denied the probe has anything to do with his campaign.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.
Bonta’s office said in a statement Monday evening that it was asking the court to pause the investigation “while we work to understand its basis.”
Bonta’s petition revealed that — in addition to warrants issued on Feb. 9 and 23 — the sheriff obtained a third warrant from the Riverside County Superior Court on March 19 to restart a paused recount of the ballots. The warrants now are under seal.
Bonta’s office called the warrants and the affidavits supporting them legally deficient because “the Sheriff has not identified any particular crime that may have been committed by anyone — a necessary predicate to obtain a criminal search warrant.” Bonta had earlier questioned whether Bianco had concealed important information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants.
In his petition, Bonta wrote that the sheriff’s department had planned to assign “12 employees working four days a week, five to seven hours each day” to count the votes.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed with Bonta’s assessment that the sheriff’s probe is a legally deficient “fishing expedition.” He questioned how Bianco got a judge to sign off on three warrants.
“You can’t use a warrant as a PR tool, as something to help your political campaign,” Becker said. “You have to meet certain standards in order to obtain a warrant, because a warrant is extraordinary. A warrant is saying we believe there is probable cause to seize evidence, and we need it now.”
Bianco said in a news conference Friday that a Riverside County Superior Court judge had ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.
“This isn’t about counting yes and no votes,” Bianco said in his social media video Monday. “This is simply counting the total ballots and comparing that total with the number of votes. … Plain and simple. Common sense.”
President Trump has cast another mail ballot in Florida as he continues to publicly bash the voting method as a source of fraud and push Congress to curtail the practice.
Palm Beach County voter records show the president voted by mail in a Tuesday special election for state legislative seats and that his ballot has been counted. Early in-person voting in the contest ran through Sunday, when Trump was still at his south Florida estate.
The White House said Tuesday that Trump’s ire is at states using universal mail-in voting, not individual instances of voters needing accommodations to vote by mail. A spokeswoman pushed back specifically at the idea that his voting practice contradicts his push for new federal voting rules.
“As President Trump has said, the SAVE America Act has commonsense exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel — but universal mail-in voting should not be allowed because it’s highly susceptible to fraud,” said White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales in a statement.
A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that cases of mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast, or about four cases out of every 10 million mail votes.
Wales added: “As everyone knows, the President is a resident of Palm Beach and participates in Florida elections, but he obviously primarily lives at the White House in Washington, D.C. This is a non-story.”
Nonetheless, Trump has in the last week called mail-in voting “cheating” and “corrupt as hell.” He is urging Congress to pass the SAVE Act. The sweeping bill would bar universal mail ballots and, as Wales noted, limit the options to a select few voters such as those with disabilities, military commitments or who are traveling on Election Day. The measure faces steep odds in the closely divided Senate even with the president’s pressure.
Trump has fixated on mail ballots since he began falsely claiming that his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden was the result of fraud. Multiple U.S. courts and Trump’s own attorney general have found no evidence of fraud that affected the outcome, despite the COVID-19 pandemic increasing the share of the electorate that cast mail ballots that year.
“We’re the only country in the world that does it that way. Corrupt as hell,” Trump said last week at the White House when hosting Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin.
Dozens of countries, including European democracies that are traditional U.S. allies, use some form of mail-in voting.
Trump said last week that the SAVE Act was the “biggest thing” pending in Washington, even as Congress and administration grapple with the Iran war and a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.
Last August, Trump used a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to blast mail voting.
“We’re going to start with an executive order that’s being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they’re corrupt,” Trump said. “And it’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it because the Democrats want it. It’s the only way they can get elected.”
The president, who changed his official personal residence and voter registration from New York to Florida during his first term, does not have a standing vote-by-mail request for all elections, according to the county records. That means he has to request a mail ballot for any individual election.
The ballot today includes Florida state House District 87 and Senate District 14.
Trump offered an endorsement late Monday in the House contest via his Truth Social platform.
“There is a very important Special Election tomorrow, Tuesday, March 24th, for Florida State House District 87 in beautiful Palm Beach County. … TO ALL GREAT PATRIOTS IN FLORIDA STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 87: GET OUT AND VOTE FOR JON MAPLES! Polls are open from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.” Trump wrote, without mentioning that he had voted by mail or at all.
The Florida election comes one day after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Mississippi case questioning whether states can count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but not received until later. Trump has criticized those allowances in 14 states and the District of Columbia.
Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff and a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election as part of an investigation that he called a “fact-finding mission” to determine if they were fraudulently counted.
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement official, has sharply criticized the probe, which he called “unprecedented in both scope and scale.”
In a March 4 letter to the sheriff, Bonta said the seizure of the ballots “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.” He threatened to seek legal recourse if Bianco does not halt his investigation.
Bianco said Friday that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.
Here is what we know.
Why were ballots taken?
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 took about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
Bianco said that it’s his “constitutional duty” to investigate a potential crime and that he is not trying to change the election results.
The investigation includes all of the ballots cast in the county, where Proposition 50 passed with 56% of the vote, a margin of more than 82,000 ballots. Statewide, it passed with 64% of the vote, a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.
Bianco said he had been contacted by “a group of citizen volunteers” that said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast. He did not name the group, but the allegations match those made by a group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team.
In a February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed the group’s allegations and said they were based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes — a variance of 0.016%.
How did the sheriff get the ballots?
Bianco said his department served the registrar with a warrant “approved and signed by a judge” on Feb. 9.
According to Bonta’s office, an additional warrant was issued on Feb. 23. Bianco said the warrants are now sealed.
In the March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general said he had “serious concerns” about whether the sheriff had probable cause to seize the election materials.
Bonta questioned whether Bianco had concealed information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants, including details from the registrar’s analysis of the citizen group’s allegations.
An official from Bonta’s office told The Times that the attorney general “found out in the middle of the week that [Bianco] was going to execute the warrants on a Friday.” Bonta’s office asked the sheriff to slow down and share information about the investigation, but “instead of waiting, he actually moved it up” and seized the ballots sooner than planned, said the official, who would only speak on background.
Bianco said a Riverside County Superior Court judge ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.
The ballots would have soon been destroyed
California law requires county officials to keep election materials — including ballots and voter identification envelopes — for 22 months for elections involving a federal office and for six months for all other contests.
The materials must be sealed and then destroyed at the end of the retention period.
The Proposition 50 election took place on Nov. 4, so the ballots are scheduled to be destroyed in May.
Why investigate now?
Political observers say that Bianco — a leading gubernatorial candidate — appears to be vying for attention from President Trump and his supporters.
Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said the investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”
“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”
Trump has repeatedly called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections. He remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.
In January, the FBI raided the elections office in Fulton County, Ga., seizing 2020 presidential election records. And this month, the Republican leader of Arizona’s state Senate said he had handed over 2020 election records to the FBI, complying with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to a controversial audit of the election in Maricopa County.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.
The top two vote getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November election.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for Proposition 50 and had nothing to do with his campaign for governor.
WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.
That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.
The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.
In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”
California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.
By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.
Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.
But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.
GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.
Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.
The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.
JUNEAU, Alaska — The tiny Alaska Native village of Beaver is about 40 minutes — by plane — from the nearest city. Its roughly 50 residents rely on weekday flights for mail and many of their basic supplies, including groceries and Amazon deliveries of everyday household items.
Air service plays an outsize role in the nation’s most expansive state, where most communities rely on flights for year-round access. Planes also play a crucial role in elections, getting voting materials and ballots to and from rural precincts such as Beaver and delivering ballots for thousands of Alaskans who vote by mail — some in places where in-person voting is not available.
The vast distances and relative isolation of so many communities make Alaska unique and are why its residents have a significant interest in arguments taking place Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many here worry that a case from Mississippi challenging whether ballots received after election day can be counted in federal elections could end Alaska’s practice of accepting late-arriving ballots. Alaska counts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within 10 days, or 15 days for overseas voters in general elections.
“These processes have been in place for a long time just to ensure that our ballots are counted,” said Rhonda Pitka, a poll worker and first chief in Beaver, which sits along the Yukon River 110 miles north of Fairbanks.
If the court decides ballots in all states must be received by election day, she said, “they’ll be disenfranchising thousands of people — thousands of people in these rural communities. It’s just basically saying that their votes don’t count, and that’s a real shame.”
The Supreme Court will hear arguments as the U.S. Senate is debating legislation being pushed by President Trump that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote — an onerous burden for many — and a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Most Republicans argue that the bill is necessary to shore up voting integrity, but Democrats and voting rights advocates — and Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski — contend that it amounts to voter suppression. Studies have consistently shown that voting fraud is exceedingly rare in the U.S., and courts have struck down similar measures after finding they prevented eligible voters from casting ballots.
Some ballots already arrive late
Alaska is one of 14 states that allow all mailed ballots postmarked by election day to arrive days or weeks later and be counted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Voting Rights Lab. An additional 15 provide grace periods for military and overseas ballots.
But Alaska’s geography, weather and great distances between communities — Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, the nation’s second-largest state — raise the stakes for voters. The unusual way the state counts its votes also makes a grace period important, advocates say.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice system for general elections, workers in small rural precincts call in voters’ first choices to a regional election office. All ballots, however, ultimately are flown to the state Division of Elections in the capital, Juneau. There, the races not won outright are tabulated to determine a winner.
Even with Alaska’s current 10-day grace period, ballots from some villages in 2022 were not fully counted because of mail delays. They arrived too late for tabulations in Juneau, 15 days after election day.
If the Supreme Court rules that ballots cannot be counted if they arrive at election offices after election day, many Alaska voters could be affected. About 50,000 Alaskans voted by mail in the 2024 presidential election.
“I think there’s probably no other state where this ruling could have a more detrimental impact than ours,” Murkowski, her state’s senior senator, said in an interview.
Murkowski sees the case — a challenge by the Republican National Committee and others to Mississippi’s allowance of late-arriving ballots — as an effort to end voting by mail nationwide.
‘Seeing a level of voter intimidation’
The RNC argues that such grace periods improperly extend elections for federal office, but Mississippi responded that no voting occurs after election day — only the delivery and counting of already completed ballots.
Taken together, Murkowski said, the Trump-backed voting bill and the Supreme Court case could discourage people from voting.
“I think we’re seeing a level of voter intimidation, I’ll just say it,” she said. “I feel very, very strongly that the effort that we should be making at the federal level is to do all that we can to make our elections accessible, fair and transparent for every lawful voter out there.”
Alaska’s other congressional members, Rep. Nick Begich and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republican allies of Trump who are seeking reelection this year, support the SAVE America Act now before the Senate. But they also said they want to ensure that ballots properly cast on or before election day get counted.
“We’ll see what the courts choose to do on that issue, but I do think that we need to allow for time for ballots to come in from the rural parts of our state,” Begich said during a recent visit to Juneau.
Alaska officials highlight challenges to the court
A court filing in the Mississippi case by Alaska Atty. Gen. Stephen Cox and Solicitor Gen. Jenna Lorence did not take sides but outlined geographic and logistical challenges to holding elections in Alaska.
In Atqasuk, on Alaska’s North Slope, poll workers counted votes on election night in 2024, tallies they would normally relay by phone to election division officials. But the filing said they could not get through and “chose what they saw as the next best solution — they placed the ballots and tally sheets into a secure package and mailed them to the Division, who did not receive them until nine days later.”
The filing seeks clarity from the Supreme Court, particularly around what it means for ballots to be received by election day.
While it is clear when a ballot is cast, “when certain ballots are actually ‘received’ is open to different interpretations, especially given the connectivity challenges for Alaska’s far-flung boroughs,” Cox and Lorence wrote.
Effect on Alaska Native voters
Lawyers with the Native American Rights Fund and Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center said in filings with the court that limited postal service in rural areas means that some ballots might not be postmarked until they reach Anchorage or Juneau, which can take days.
In the 2022 general election, between 55% and 78% of absentee ballots from the state House districts spanning from the Aleutian Islands up the western coast to the vast North Slope arrived at an election office after election day, they wrote. Statewide, about 20% of all absentee ballots in that election were received after election day.
Requiring ballots to be received by election day, they warned, would “disproportionately disenfranchise” Alaska Native voters. The lawyers represent the National Congress of American Indians, Native Vote Washington and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
Michelle Sparck, director of Get Out the Native Vote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group affiliated with the Alaska Federation of Natives, worries about creating confusion and fear among voters.
She sees the case before the Supreme Court and the Republican SAVE Act as “a multipronged attempt to take control or wrest control of elections away from states.” Alaska, she said, already has enough inherent barriers for many voters.
“There is a minute record of election fraud — not at the rate that requires this heavy-handed response through the legislature and the Supreme Court,” she said.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett listen as President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on February 24. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo
March 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Watson vs. Republican Nation Committee, a legal case that could have ramifications on mail-in balloting deadlines in the upcoming mid-term elections, on Monday.
About 30 percent of voters cast their ballots by mail in 2024.
CBS noted that 14 states and the District of Columbia have extended deadlines for counting mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day.
Illinois, for instance, counts ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day, while California has a grace period of seven days.
This week’s case will look at whether extended deadlines violate federal statutes recognizing Election Day as a specific date.
“The longer the period over which the election is conducted, the greater the opportunity for and risk of fraud,” USA Today quoted conservative groups, backing the RNC’s attempt to count only ballots received by Election Day, as saying in the court filing.
Marc Elias, a Democratic elections attorney representing Vet Voices and the Alliance for Retired Americans, told the newspaper eliminating grace periods could disproportionately impact Democrats because they are more likely to vote by mail than Republicans.
“People are being stripped of their voting rights through no fault of their own,” Elias said, noting delays in the U.S. Postal Service might be one reason ballots don’t arrive at their local polling places until after Election Day.
The case will be heard as U.S. President Trump continues to pressure the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with passports or birth certificates.
“THE SAVE AMERICA ACT MUST BE PASSED BY THE SENATE. THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S.A. Voter I.D., Proof of Citizenship, etc. Get it done and watch all of the good things that will happen!!!” Trump wrote on X Friday.
A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that 71 percent of voters support the SAVE Act.
Virginians cast their ballots at Walter Reed Recreation Center in Arlington, Va., on Election Day on November 4, 2025. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.
“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”
That’s a lot of, um, hooey.
There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.
Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.
So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?
Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.
“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”
Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.
Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.
As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.
Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.
After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.
As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.
There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.
First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”
Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:
— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.
— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.
— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.
— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)
The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.
But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.
“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.
The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”
“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.
President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.
Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.
Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.
Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.
A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.
In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.
Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”
The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”
Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.
“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.
In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.
“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”
At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”
A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.
In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”
For months, the senior U.S. senator from Montana pondered his political future.
Or so he said.
Wrapping up his second term and facing a glide path to a third, Steve Daines unexpectedly opted this month against seeking reelection, saying in an aw-shucksy video he planned to spend more time back home in Montana and enjoy more cherished moments with his seven grandkids.
Notably, after long “wrestling with this decision,” Daines announced his intent a scant two minutes after the deadline passed for candidates to put their names on the ballot. March 4 at 5:02 p.m local time, to be precise.
More notable still, Daines’ preferred successor, Republican former U.S. Atty. Kurt Alme, jumped into the race at 4:52 p.m. that very same day.
There are relay runners who might learn a thing or two from their timing and coordination.
As part of the seamless handoff, Alme was swiftly endorsed by President Trump, Montana’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and its other Republican senator, Tim Sheehy, for all intents settling the GOP contest and, quite likely, choosing the state’s next member of the U.S. Senate.
Never mind what voters might have wished, or other prospective candidates might have had in mind.
“There are a lot of Republicans in the state, folks with political ambitions, who are extremely peeved right now,” said Kal Munis, a Montana native and political science professor at Auburn University, who closely tracks politics in his home state.
Moreover, Munis said, with enough notice a heavy-hitting Democrat might have entered the contest, instead of the lowly bunch now running hopeless campaigns.
Montana, which has a rich Democratic history, has become a solidly Republican state, though the makeover took some time to complete.
Still, while Daines’ seat hardly appeared at great risk for the GOP, a fight for the party’s nomination might have been a costly distraction, diverting money and attention that could go elsewhere as Republican prospects for the midterm election grow increasingly dim. (An unpopular war and shaky economy that’s been knee-capped by a sudden spike in oil prices will do that.)
Of all people, Daines certainly appreciates the bigger political picture, having led Republicans’ Senate campaign committee during the 2024 cycle. So he and his allies short-circuited the election process by laying hands on Alme, who stepped down as U.S. attorney to sidle into the Senate.
Seth Bodnar was among those who quite rightly criticized Daines for, as Bodnar put it, having “so little respect for Montana Republicans that he withdrew at the last minute to coronate his handpicked successor instead of giving them a voice at the ballot box.”
It just goes to show, Bodnar suggested, “the disgusting arrogance of Washington politicians and their party bosses who trade power back and forth like candy.”
Bodnar, the former president of the University of Montana, is running for Senate as an independent, conspicuously steering clear of the toxic Democratic brand. There is speculation the high-handed behavior of Daines, Trump and other Republicans might be enough to give Bodnar’s steep-odds candidacy a decent shot in November.
Munis, for one, is doubtful.
“There are a number of activist types who are deeply angered by this,” he said. “But when it comes to tallying votes in an election, that’s just a drop in the bucket.”
Unfortunately, Daines’ scheming, stick-it-to-the-voters approach isn’t just a Montana Republican thing.
Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois announced in the fall that he would not seek a fifth term this year. The last-second move — which came after Garcia had earlier filed paperwork to run for reelection — made it so his chief of staff and preferred successor, Patty Garcia (no relation), was the only major Democrat to appear on the ballot, virtually guaranteeing her election in November.
His actions were “beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution,” said Gluesenkamp Perez, who was jeered and booed by fellow Democrats during the floor debate for having the temerity — heavens to Betsy! — to put principle above knee-jerk partisanship. The measure passed the House, 236 to 183, with only 22 Democrats joining Gluesenkamp Perez in support.
In California, the law prevents incumbents from pulling off the kind of underhanded stunt that Garcia and Daines managed. That’s because the filing deadline is automatically extended for an extra five days whenever a sitting lawmaker opts against seeking another term.
So, for instance, when Rep. Darrell Issa suddenly announced this month he would not run for reelection, he endorsed his favored replacement, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, but couldn’t grease the process to see to it that Desmond takes his place.
Legislators in other states should pass a law like the one in California to prevent the undemocratic shenanigans that in effect neutered voters in Montana and the Chicago area.
That is, if they truly believe elections matter and voters should have a choice and not stand by powerless as their government representatives are anointed from on high.
A series of proposed changes to the city’s charter — essentially its constitution — could give elected leaders in Los Angeles more oversight of the police department and enable the chief to fire problematic officers, reforms long sought by advocates that are likely to once again face fierce opposition.
Among the recommendations approved last week by the city’s Charter Reform Commission was a proposal that would require any LAPD accountability-related motion or ordinance passed by the City Council to automatically become law if not acted on by the Police Commission within 60 days.
Once the language is finalized, the proposals must clear the City Council and its committees before they can be put to voters on November’s ballot.
Another proposal would give city leaders the ability to override the policy decisions by the Police Commission, a board appointed by the mayor that sets the LAPD policies, oversees its budget and serves as a civilian watchdog.
With the police chief taking criticism for a recent rise in shootings by officers, several proposals sought to strengthen accountability for the use deadly force. One recommendation could require the LAPD to purchase “no less than” $1 million of liability insurance for its roughly 8,700 officers. The insurance would be used to cover legal fees if an officer is found liable for a wrongful injury or death, instead of tapping into the city’s General Fund budget.
Another potential change would “clarify and strengthen” the police chief’s ability to “to initiate and pursue the removal of officers with documented, repeated histories of harm or misconduct.”
Under city rules, the chief of police does not have the authority to fire an officer. Instead, they must send officers whose misconduct they deem severe to disciplinary panels, which occasionally lead to lighter penalties. The new proposal would give the City Council the power to override decisions not to fire, still leaving officers the right to appeal through the courts.
Mayor Karen Bass vetoed a similar bid to rework the disciplinary process in 2024.
The latest proposals drew cautious optimism from activists, many of whom claim the Police Commission is too cozy with the LAPD and have pushed for stronger independent oversight.
Godfrey Plata, deputy director of the nonprofit L.A. Forward, called the proposals a “huge victory” in the fight for police accountability.
“Months ago, police reform wasn’t even on the Charter Commission’s to-do list. Today, because community members came together to force conversations that likely never would have happened on their own, we have multiple reforms headed to City Council,” Plata said.
The Police Commission and LAPD issued nearly identical statements that said they are looking forward to working with the City Council on the charter reform process.
An LAPD spokesman declined to say how Chief Jim McDonnell felt about the proposal, saying it wasn’t “in his interests to give his opinion on something like this as long as it’s still with the full council.”
Samantha Stevens, a Los Angeles political consultant and former legislative staffer, said she is worried the proposed changes are a shortsighted solution to address police abuses that will create another layer of bureaucracy.
“If we don’t like how they’re running things, we should replace the commissioners.” she said. “I don’t know that this will be as effective when you’ve got 15 councilmembers now telling LAPD what to do in their own districts. Is that now too many cooks in the kitchen?”
The charter commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommended changes to the City Council by April 2.
A video circulating online appears to show signature collectors paying people to sign initiative petitions under other people’s names, according to officials, and now the state has opened an investigation.
The video, filmed by videographer JJ Smith, shows a long queue leading to a table set up at 6th and Mission streets in San Francisco. A man in line says they are being offered $5 to sign petitions. At the table, where there are lists with the information of apparent registered voters, a woman confirms the payment and — using a highlighter — instructs a person on the name and address that she is supposed to use.
“I get $5 too?” the videographer asks.
“Yeah,” says the woman.
“And what is it?”
“Just sign it,” she says.
Share via
Petitions connected to at least three ballot campaigns — including the billionaire-backed effort to thwart California’s proposed billionaire tax — appear in the video.
“I approached some people and asked them what they were there for,” Smith told The Times. “They told me they didn’t know what they were signing for, that they just wanted the $5.”
Smith said he watched the scene for hours and estimated that a few hundred people cycled through the line over roughly two hours.
Those running the table did not ask for anyone’s identification and gave no explanation of what was actually being signed, he said.
The video showed voter data from San Luis Obispo County that was both visible and, as details were spoken aloud, audible in the footage.
The county acted immediately after becoming aware of the video and initiated an investigation through the fraud unit of the California secretary of state’s office, said Erin Clausen, public information officer for the San Luis Obispo county clerk’s office.
Clausen noted that, although voter registration data can be legally requested from county election offices, the data in this case may have been used inappropriately. The county is also planning on reaching out directly to voters who were specifically mentioned or identified in the video, according to Clausen.
“The activity shown in the video, if verified, would violate California election law,” County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said in a formal statement released Wednesday morning.
The secretary of state’s office confirmed it had opened a formal investigation.
“Under California law, it is illegal to give money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for their signature on an initiative petition,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “ Those who abuse our system will be held accountable.”
The office is working with local officials and encouraged anyone with information to file a complaint.
One political committee, Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, confirmed its petitions were among those whose signature gatherers were allegedly paying people to sign and moved quickly to distance itself from the activity.
“Under no circumstance do we tolerate this type of activity in the signature gathering process,” said spokesperson Molly Weedn. “We’ve taken immediate action and have demanded that the signature gathering firm identify these circulators and reject their petitions.” Weedn said the collectors were subcontractors, not campaign employees, and that attorneys were contacting authorities.
That committee is funded by another group, Building a Better California, which was also among campaigns that appeared in the video. The other was for a proposed initiative called the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026. Representatives for the latter two have not responded to requests for comment.
Smith said this was not the first time he had witnessed this type of activity in the area.
“I saw something similar with ballots three days ago,” he said.
The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information can submit a complaint to the Office of the California Secretary of State or contact their local county elections office.
Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
