ballot

Thirty years ago this fall, a Republican politician cried electoral fraud after losing a close race.

Orange County Rep. Bob Dornan couldn’t accept the most logical explanations for why Loretta Sanchez beat him in a historic upset: that voters had tired of his polarizing politics. That his Latino-majority district wanted one of their own to represent them. That he was an ideologue who never brought anything back from D.C. for his constituents.

Instead, Dornan and his supporters settled on the craziest excuse of them all: Illegal immigrants.

California voters were passing anti-immigrant laws by the boatful, so Dornan’s fevered tales about nonprofits registering noncitizens to vote and take him down landed with Republicans. A compliant Congress investigated Dornan’s claims, while local lawmakers proposed bills that would force voters to show government-issued identification every time they cast a ballot — a voter suppression tactic going back to the segregationist South.

The congressional investigation flopped like a soccer player fishing to draw a red card, finally concluding in 1998. Yes, noncitizens did vote for Sanchez, but only an infinitesimal number — less than 1% of the total votes tallied and not enough to overturn the results. No one was charged for illegally voting on purpose or improperly registering noncitizens to vote.

When Dornan ran again in 1998, with volunteers vowing to pursue any election irregularities, Sanchez walloped him, and he was swept into the dustbin of political history.

I teach this episode in my O.C. history college classes as a case study in what happens when political parties succumb to the spell of a vindictive demagogue who blames everyone for their failures except themselves. I also point out that Dornan had the last laugh: the idea that illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections, throwing them toward Democrats, has become gospel for many Republicans.

And here we are.

Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Bob Dornan speaks to a group of young adults at the Orange County Conservation Corps. in Anaheim, California in 1998. He was seeking to regain his old seat from Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez, who beat him in a historic 1996 upset.

(John Hayes/Associated Press)

On Thursday, President Trump’s obsession over losing to Joe Biden in 2020 reached a phlegmatic nadir with a speech on debunked election fraud theories that weaved in everything from communist China to deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to — who else? — alleged noncitizen voters.

The tirade was so pathetic and noneventful that most networks didn’t bother to air it. Even Fox News host Sean Hannity — whose tongue is probably two parts shoe polish after spending the last decade as Trump’s personal spit shine — moved on just minutes after Trump finished.

The president insisted that the U.S. Senate pass a bill ahead of this November’s midterms, mandating in the name of election integrity that voters show proof of citizenship before casting a ballot.

In California, a clown car of MAGA loyalists — state Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, state Senator Tony Strickland, wannabe Southern California U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — are pushing something similar. Proposition 39 would require California election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters and require voters to show government-issued identification when they cast a ballot.

By law, voters in federal elections must be U.S. citizens. Only a handful of municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Despite Trump’s trumpeting of supposed evidence that 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada, actual instances of them casting a ballot are as rare today as in Dornan’s time.

That hasn’t stopped Trump and his lackeys from claiming, as Dornan and his supporters did, that they are trying to restore faith in a system corrupted by liberals and their undocumented puppets. But, just like back then, this amounts to a dog whistle for people freaked out about changing demographics and massive GOP midterm losses.

It’s the last, most dangerous gasp of a wheezing political movement whose supporters are clinging to power at all costs and just can’t understand why more and more voters are tired of Trump’s flailing foreign policy and failing economy.

These people are so delusional that they point to last month’s California primaries as proof of election fraud, arguing that the results in two prominent races should have been different.

No Republican has won a statewide election in 20 years, so it’s not surprising that Republican Steve Hilton finished second to Democrat Xavier Becerra in the gubernatorial primary, with both advancing to the general election. Nor was it a shock that in the primary for Los Angeles mayor, progressive incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman finished first and second over Republican reality television star Spencer Pratt.

That didn’t stop Trump from insisting that both Republicans should have won outright and crying conspiracy when they didn’t. The president continued his laughable tune in his White House speech.

“Took a month to count the votes,” he whined about California’s sloth-like approach to counting ballots. “I wonder what they were doing. This is worse than any third world country. There’s no third world country that has elections like we have.”

Actually, many third world countries elect despots like Trump — but that’s neither here nor there.

A May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop. 39 was in a statistical dead heat, with 49% of voters favoring it and 51% opposed. All Prop. 39’s opponents have to do is cite Trump’s stark-raving mad comments about electoral fraud, and support for the ballot initiative will melt faster than the Sierra snowpack.

The Republican crusade against imaginary noncitizen voters may pay off in the short run but will inevitably, spectacularly backfire.

Look at what happened in my native Orange County. Sanchez’s victory was the first ripple in a blue wave that eventually turned O.C. purple. Our once-mighty GOP is now increasingly isolated to wealthier pockets of the county and no longer commands national attention — hell, they couldn’t even deliver O.C. to Trump in any of his elections.

The crazy thing is, when Republicans put in the work to appeal to immigrant and Latino voters instead of obsessing about how they’re supposedly anti-democracy invaders, it pays off. Just look at 2024, when a record number of Latino GOP legislators won seats in California and Trump won a larger share of the national Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had.

That happened because the party largely stayed quiet on noncitizen voting and focused on what swing voters wanted to hear: a promise to clamp down on unchecked migration and too much wokeness, while fattening average Americans’ pocketbooks.

Trump’s success with Latino voters seemed to represent a tectonic shift in American politics. Now, it feels like an aberration.

Trump still doesn’t seem to get how desperate the situation is for Republicans, just four months before Election Day, and how much of it is of his own making.

Near the end of his speech, he sputtered, “The only reason you wouldn’t do [mandated voter ID] is you want to cheat because your policies are so bad, and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get away or can’t get elected any other way.”

Paging Bob Dornan …

In a speech to the nation Thursday evening, President Trump said Americans deserve secure elections, and he claimed to be using federal authority to prevent them from being “stolen.”

In fact, one of the strongest security features of U.S. elections is the fact that they aren’t conducted at the federal level. America votes in more than 10,000 different election jurisdictions, each with different rules set by state and sometimes local governments.

That structure makes the nation’s elections extraordinarily complicated — and also safe from widespread fraud. And when misconduct does happen — rarely — security protocols frequently catch it.

Decentralized elections date back to the nation’s founding

America’s highly decentralized system of voting exists because the nation’s Founding Fathers gave authority over elections to the states, rather than the federal government. While Congress has the power to regulate elections — and has used that authority to pass such laws as the Voting Rights Act — the Constitution makes clear that states have primary authority to set the “times, places and manner” for elections.

There also is no national election agency that administers the presidential contest, something that’s different from many other countries. And when it comes to doing the day-to-day work of running an election, the responsibility falls to officials at the local level — usually a clerk or election supervisor — with help from staff and volunteers.

While differences in election laws can get confusing, election security experts say this structure is a strength. That’s because to pull off stealing a presidential election — as Trump falsely claims was done to him in 2020 — it would require large numbers of election workers in the most competitive counties across the country who are willing to risk prosecution, prison time and fines while working with officials from both parties willing to look the other way. And everyone somehow would have to keep quiet — a highly unlikely scenario.

There are also shared practices and security measures in place across the country that together work to ensure that only eligible voters can cast a ballot and only one ballot is counted for each.

Voter fraud can happen, but it’s rare and there are safeguards to catch it

Most Americans by now have probably heard stories about someone casting multiple ballots, or voting in the name of dead relatives, or stealing mail ballots from mailboxes.

When these incidents happen, they are often caught and prosecuted.

Voting more than once, tampering with ballots, lying about your residence to vote somewhere else or casting someone else’s ballot are crimes that can be punished with hefty fines and prison time. Non-U.S. citizens who break election laws can be deported.

For anyone still motivated to cheat, election systems in the United States are designed with multiple layers of protection and transparency intended to stand in the way.

For example, for in-person voting, most states either require or request voters provide some sort of identification at the polls. Others require voters to verify who they are in another way, such as stating their name and address, signing a poll book or signing an affidavit.

For absentee voting, all states require a voter’s signature, and many states have further precautions, such as having bipartisan teams compare the signature with other signatures on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.

That means even if a ballot is erroneously sent to someone’s past address and the current resident mails it in, there are checks to alert election workers to the foul play.

AP review found there was too little voter fraud to tip the 2020 election

Trump has spent six years insisting he won the 2020 election, a campaign he lost to former President Joe Biden.

An Associated Press review in 2021 dug into every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states that Trump disputed. It found fewer than 475 cases — a number that would have made no difference in that race.

Allegations from Trump of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, told the AP that no proof of widespread voter fraud had been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said at the time.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.

Confused?

That may be the point.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.

Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?

That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.

When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.

(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)

Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.

“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”

The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.

For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.

“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.

After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in 2025.

(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)

But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.

Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)

Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.

The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.

Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”

Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being far in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.

It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.

Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.

Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.

But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.

WASHINGTON — President Trump dismissed all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission this week, his latest move to assert control over national elections in the final months before midterm voting.

The White House defended the move as justified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision handing the president greater authority to reshape independent government agencies, including by replacing appointed leaders.

Democrats and some independent elections experts blasted it as politically motivated, counter to the interests of voters and foolhardy with the November election so close.

“Purging commissioners just months before the midterm elections and further gutting support for our state and local elections officials is a blatant part of his plan to politicize our elections and enable more unlawful and dangerous election interference,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections.

Padilla alleged the dismissals are an attempt by Trump “to dismantle yet another independent guardrail of our democracy designed to keep elections fair and secure.”

A White House official framed the dismissals in starkly different terms, saying the departing commissioners were “not totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.” It did not say when the president planned to appoint new commissioners.

The four-member commission was created by Congress in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act to help states improve their voting systems and voter access. By law, no more than two commissioners may belong to the same political party.

Historically, it has provided voluntary guidance and best practices for voting systems, and served as a sort of clearinghouse for election performance around the country — so that states and localities can learn from each other.

Since 2018, the panel has also disbursed more than $1 billion in election security grants, according to a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Those grants are then used to protect IT systems from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, update voting systems, ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and protect the integrity of ballots after they are cast.

Without leadership, the panel cannot take any official action until new members are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Benjamin W. Hovland, one of the Democratic commissioners removed by Trump, told NBC News that taking away a key federal agency designed to help state and local election administrators will have a negative effect on already strained elections officials.

“When you’re asking more and more of people without giving them the necessary resources, you know, mistakes happen,” he said.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in a statement to The Times, said Trump was “injecting unnecessary chaos, confusion and instability into the very systems that Americans rely on to make their voices heard,” but that California “will not be intimidated or deterred” from maintaining elections “in which everyone can fairly and securely participate.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said on X that “Newsom’s election protection efforts become more important by the day” — a reference to his recent push for state legislation that would make it a felony in California for anyone to seize ballots before a vote has been certified.

Newsom had said Thursday that Trump’s efforts to seize control over elections represented a “five-alarm fire” that must be confronted.

“We will lose this country unless we are vigilant about what’s going on in terms of election security,” he said.

Trump’s dismantling of the commission comes as he wages a much broader campaign to rewrite voting rules. He has sought to place new restrictions on mail ballots, to enhance voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements for voters, to subject state voter rolls to federal oversight and purges, and to assert federal control over how and whether the U.S. Postal Service delivers mail ballots.

Much of that agenda, pushed through executive orders and other administrative actions, has been stymied by the courts, while stalling out in Congress, where it lacks support.

Whether Trump’s move to dismantle and reconstitute the commission will prove an effective path to instituting his election agenda — or will face its own court challenges — remains unclear, experts said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, wrote that Trump could try to illegally direct the commission to “do his bidding” by amending the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

“If he tries anything like this, it will be high profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer,” Hasen wrote.

Michael Waldman, president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said in a statement that Trump’s terminations were “deeply concerning” in light of his “relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections.”

But he also said that the “guardrails” Congress put on the commission remain intact, require it to be made up of a bipartisan group and preclude Trump from directing it to enforce his voting agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump’s firing of the commissioners was part of a broader effort by the president to “sow distrust in our voting system so he can contest the results if they are not to his liking.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the very name of the commission makes it clear that it was “designed to assist states and localities, not dictate what states and localities must do” with elections. She said California has “the most robust standards” for elections in the country, which won’t change with the removal of the commissioners.

Still, she said word of the firings rocketed around a conference of county elections officials in San Diego on Thursday — with some wondering whether the dismissals would threaten federal funding for election administration moving forward, and others lamenting the loss of the current commissioners’ deep experience.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that “any sudden change to the support structure for elections in the middle of an election cycle is concerning,” but that California “has a strong local and state foundation for election administration and voting systems support, and that will minimize any potential disruption caused by this action.”

In recent months, Trump has leveraged federal agencies to overhaul the nation’s voting rules in ways no previous president has attempted. He has repeatedly pressured Republican lawmakers to pass a federal law that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, show identification when casting a ballot and force states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

Republican leaders have said the proposed SAVE America Act does not have enough votes to pass in the Senate. The GOP resistance has angered Trump, who on Friday said he was refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill in protest.

The housing bill, which Trump called a “yawn” this month, would become law at midnight Friday without Trump’s signature.

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — More than half of the WNBA ‘s 180 players didn’t submit their ballots for All-Star starters ahead of this month’s game in Chicago, a person familiar with the balloting told the Associated Press on Friday.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the voting. It’s unclear why so many players didn’t cast their votes. However, the Sparks were one of the teams that didn’t have all of its players vote due to some operational errors.

“Players were sent ballots via email,” the Sparks said in a statement. “Some players indicated that they didn’t receive the email or weren’t aware of it until after the voting period had closed. That’s something we take responsibility for as an organization, and we’ll have a more robust process going forward.”

Fan vote accounts for 50% of the overall vote while players and a media panel each are 25%. It’s been that way since 2017.

New York Liberty guard Sabrina Ionescu said her team has never had an issue getting players to submit their ballots.

“We always vote. But I do think especially if they’re weighed as much as they are, like teams should be making sure that their players are voting like it is important. There should never just be a team that like, doesn’t get the ballot. …That’s something that every player should be getting the opportunity. And if the player doesn’t want to vote, then that’s on them.”

The league announced the All-Star starters on Thursday.

ESPN was the first to report the lack of ballots.

Like the media, each player is given a link to a voting site as well as an individual username and password. Those are supplied by the league to the teams who distribute them to the players.

Sparks guard Kelsey Plum was lower in the player balloting than she was from the media and fans. She is second in the WNBA in scoring, but has only played in a dozen games because of injuries. She was 12th among players votes after ranking sixth by the fans and fifth by media.

She finished seventh in the voting overall for the guards. Even if the Sparks had all voted, it wouldn’t have been a guarantee that Plum moved up to the top four spots. In the past, players have said that they have either voted for their entire team on the ballot or for friends or college teammates, which has led to some skewed results. Some do take it seriously and pick who they think are the best players.

Fever star Caitlin Clark finished 11th in player balloting. She was named an All-Star starter because she placed second in the fan vote and third in the media rankings.

Feinberg writes for the Associated Press.

Sacramento — New spending on school construction tends to be reliably popular when proposed in California ballot measures.

According to the League of California Cities, voters approve about 80% of bond measures for local school districts — even though state rules require 55% support on a measure for it to pass. The last four statewide school bond measures were approved by voters. And nearly 6 out of 10 likely voters back the idea of a new school bond on the ballot, according to an October poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Yet Proposition 51, the $9-billion school bond measure on next week’s ballot, is struggling, according to PPIC polls from the last two months. In both polls, Proposition 51 stood below majority support, and such numbers put the measure at risk of a rare failure, said Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO.

“It’s not where we would expect it would be,” Baldassare said.

Beyond the general popularity of schools, Proposition 51 has many of the advantages that come alongside successful campaigns.

The state Democratic and Republican parties, business and labor groups and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other major politicians are part of a broad coalition in favor. Those supporters, primarily developers, contractors and others who regularly promote school facility construction, have raised $12 million for the campaign, compared with nothing for opponents.

And schools across the state need more money. Schools should be spending between $4 billion and $8 billion a year on building replacement and upgrades, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, and the state pot of money to pay for these fixes has run dry.

Still, there are plenty of explanations for Proposition 51’s troubles. Most notably, unlike the past, support isn’t universal among major interests. Lawmakers put the four previous statewide school bonds on the ballot themselves. This time, after negotiations with Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators failed, backers gathered signatures for an initiative. Brown hasn’t spent much time campaigning against Proposition 51, but when asked, he’s criticized it as too large and inefficient.

“This has been a funding area that has had very strong bipartisan support for decades,” said Jeff Vincent, deputy director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools. “We are now at a place in California where that is not the case.”

Brown and others have questioned how state school bond money gets spent. They argue that the program unfairly benefits larger, more affluent districts. The cash is available to local districts that already have funding to match the state dollars and is distributed on a first-come, first-served basis.

Last month, outgoing state Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) urged her Facebook followers to vote against Proposition 51, saying that voters should hold out for a better measure sponsored by the Legislature in coming years. Hancock served on the board that hands out the bond money and, in an interview, described the spending process as overly complex and cumbersome. She said she had to fight those rules to get a school in her district funds for earthquake safety.

“I think we can do a better bond with more money going in a simple, direct way for our schools,” Hancock said.

PPIC’s polls show similar drops across voters of all income and education levels and ethnicities when asked about Proposition 51 compared with the generic school bond measure. Proposition 51’s official summary, which appears on voters’ ballots, states that the measure will raise $9 billion and cost $17.6 billion to pay off over 35 years. Those big numbers could be keeping Proposition 51’s polling low, Baldassare said.

“I would have to think it has something to do with the size of the bond and the impact on the budget,” he said.

Erin Shaw, spokeswoman for the Yes on 51 campaign, said aspects of the PPIC polls look good for her side. The October poll has the measure leading — 46% to 41% — and there are plenty of undecided voters.

Shaw said the campaign expects the results could track with previous state school bond measures, the lowest of which passed with just 50.9% of the vote in 2004.

“We have had a strong campaign in which we have been able to garner a significant amount of broad and bipartisan support for the measure,” Shaw said.

She noted that local districts have bond measures of their own on ballots — 184 of them that aim to raise $25 billion statewide — and believed voters ultimately will link their desire to repair their local schools with money from the state.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter

ALSO

What you need to know about the $9-billion school bond on the ballot

Gov. Jerry Brown opposes $9-billion school bond measure

School bonds used to be as controversial as mom and apple pie. Not anymore under Gov. Jerry Brown

Updates on California politics

President Donald Trump has sought to limit mail-in voting and has ordered his administration to impose limits on the practice.

A federal judge in the United States has blocked proposed restrictions on mail-in voting that were championed by President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday in Washington, DC, District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the NAACP, a civil rights organisation, in its case against the US Postal Service (USPS).

Sullivan found that the restrictions would likely violate a 2021 settlement requiring expedited handling for mail-in ballots.

He therefore granted the NAACP’s motion to enforce compliance with the settlement, dealing another setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the US voting landscape.

“NAACP has plausibly suggested — and the Postal Service has not disputed — that the Proposed Rule is already having a ‘real impact on present day affairs’,” Sullivan wrote in his ruling.

The case revolves around a rule the Postal Service put forward in May that would require states to provide lists of absentee and mail-in voters. Ballots that do not conform to the list would be returned.

The proposed rule would also require a new envelope design for mail-in ballots, governing logos and barcode placements. Failure to comply would result in the Postal Service refusing to deliver the ballots.

The NAACP argued that the proposal would run afoul of a 2021 legal settlement that forces Postal Service officials to take “extraordinary measures” to ensure timely delivery of ballot mail.

The settlement “stipulated that the Postal Service agreed ‘to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail’”, Sullivan wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

The decision comes less than five months before the November 3 midterm elections, which will decide whether Trump’s Republican Party retains control over both chambers of Congress.

Trump has expressed fears that he may be subject to a third impeachment if Democrats flip the legislature.

He has also spread unfounded theories that US elections are vulnerable to “vote rigging”, pointing to commonplace election tools like mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.

Elections are administered by state and local election officials, as established in the US Constitution. But the Postal Service’s proposed rule came as the result of efforts under the Trump administration to impose new limits on voting.

In March, Trump issued an executive order called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. In it, he directed the Department of Justice to take action against states that “fail to comply” with certain standards for mail-in ballots.

He also accused states that accepted absentee or mail-in ballots after Election Day of violating the law.

But in another blow to Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted even if they were received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked on or before that date. The president’s executive order has also been blocked by lower courts.

Civil rights advocates applauded the court’s Wednesday decision and warned against Trump’s efforts to limit mail-in voting.

“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’s plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” said Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which argued on behalf of the NAACP.

“USPS’s plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”

Sam Spital, the associate director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, which also argued for the NAACP, called the Postal Service’s proposed plan “a blatant attempt” to disenfranchise voters who rely on mailed ballots.

“Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” Spital said.

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to pull a measure from the Nov. 3 ballot that would have created a pathway to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council, on a unanimous vote, sent the draft ballot language to a committee for additional study after several councilmembers said it had not been properly vetted.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not done enough outreach on the proposal, and had received letters from members of the Black community voicing concerns.

“I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don’t want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as a negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles,” he said.

Soto-Martínez said he would keep pursuing the proposal in a future election so that when it passes, the city can have a “big celebration.”

The noncitizen voting proposal was not the only one dropped by the council at the 11th hour.

In a separate vote, the council scrapped plans for a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would have given council members power over policy at the Los Angeles Police Department. The Board of Los Angeles Police Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the mayor, currently have that responsibility.

The council voted 8-6 to further study the ballot proposal after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file members, threatened to sue the city, saying labor negotiators failed to meet and confer with them over the proposal.

The plan for expanding voting rights for noncitizens was unveiled by Soto-Martínez two months ago, It would have authorized the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing noncitizens to cast ballots in L.A. city and school board elections.

But many of the details had not yet been worked out, such as which groups would receive the franchise and whether Los Angeles County election officials would be capable of adopting such a system.

These questions were raised again Tuesday by Councilmember Traci Park, who voted “yes” on the proposal two weeks ago, but said this time that too much is still unknown about how it would work. She voiced fears about the city’s ability to protect noncitizen voters if federal immigration agents show up at polling places.

“My concern here is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won’t really know what they’re voting for, because we don’t really know either,” she said. “These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all.”

Councilmember John Lee held up a print-out of a warning on the San Francisco elections website. San Francisco allows noncitizens to vote in school board elections, and the website includes a notice stating: “Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, organizations, and individuals.”

“Given the experience of the only California city that currently allows noncitizen voting, it is not fear mongering to raise these concerns,” he said. “They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system.

Soto-Martínez said he viewed the warnings from Lee and Park as fear mongering, noting that immigrant rights groups were ready to move forward with his proposal.

“This country was created by people taking courage and pushing so that everyone can have the right to vote,” he said.

ATLANTA — President Trump has tried many ways to tighten his grip on U.S. elections, from signing executive orders to pushing restrictive legislation in Congress. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling siding with states that accept late-arriving mail ballots was the latest example showing the limits of his reach.

It followed back-to-back rulings last week that barred his two sweeping executive orders seeking to change national election rules, more court rulings preventing his Department of Justice from obtaining detailed state voter data and his stalled attempts to get the Senate to pass the SAVE Act. That measure would eliminate nearly all absentee voting, require citizenship documents to register to vote and impose photo identification requirements nationwide right before the midterm elections.

“It’s been a mixed bag for Republicans,” said University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. But the president, he added, “has come up mostly empty-handed.”

Trump’s efforts have not been entirely fruitless. Republican-run states have satisfied his demands to redraw congressional district lines, efforts buoyed by the Supreme Court striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, and he has been directing his Department of Justice to investigate voting and election operations, which Democrats see as a possible prelude to their involvement in November.

All the activity around how the nation votes and runs its elections is a reflection of the Republican president’s long fixation on his false claim that his 2020 election defeat was rigged. He has been so frustrated by the inability of the Senate to pass the SAVE Act that he has refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill.

He weighed in again Monday after the Supreme Court’s decision in the mail ballot deadline case, saying on his social media account that he is trying to “save America from crooked elections.” Voting rights groups and Democrats see him abusing power and attempting to suppress legal voters to gain an advantage in the midterms, when control of Congress is at stake.

Regardless, Muller said Trump faces legal and political realities: The Constitution gives the states and Congress authority over elections while providing no such role for the president.

“That’s how federalism works,” Muller said.

Here’s a look at Trump’s efforts to reshape election rules and what options he might have left for the November midterms.

Focus on noncitizens and voter data has met roadblocks

The president has repeatedly said U.S. elections are riddled with fraud in part because of noncitizen voting. Research shows the problem to be rare, accounting for a minuscule percentage of fraud cases. Convictions are measured in the hundreds over periods in which tens of millions of ballots are cast.

Trump’s view resulted in a multiagency push to nationalize voter data and use federal resources to help states remove voters from the rolls. The Department of Justice has sought detailed voter files from multiple states, data that would include dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers. Democratic and some Republican secretaries of state balked, and federal lawsuits followed. The administration has lost every case so far.

Homeland Security citizenship check rejected in court

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, with help from the DOGE effort led by Elon Musk, revamped a government tool called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). The program has been a key pillar of his efforts to cull potentially ineligible voters from state rolls.

Last week, a federal judge blocked its use as a mass citizenship check.

The administration, according to its own news releases, had allowed local election administrators to search users by the thousands, using a wider range of metrics rather than DHS-issued identification numbers. At least 67 million registrations, primarily in Republican-controlled states, were analyzed. Tens of thousands were flagged as potential noncitizens or people who have died, but some voters were wrongly identified as ineligible.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled that Trump’s changes aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from the rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in her order.

Executive orders used in place of legislation

As presidents before him, Trump signed executive orders when Congress would not enact his policy preferences.

Trump’s first order reflected his emphasis on noncitizens. Like the SAVE Act pending on Capitol Hill, it sought to require would-be voters to document their citizenship to be able to register to vote.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper put a temporary block on the order last year as she considered the case and last week made her decision permanent. The Constitution, Casper wrote, “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Trump issued a second order in March, as the SAVE Act’s rough path in Congress became obvious. He called for a national voter list using data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. Further, the order would have empowered the U.S. Postal Service to determine who gets an absentee ballot and threatened local elections officials with prosecution.

Absentee voting is a staple of U.S. elections, but Trump describes the practice, incorrectly, as allowing fraud — even as he has used it himself. A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast.

Democratic secretaries of state sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani made the same legal assessment as Casper. The provisions, she wrote last week, “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

The White House has indicated it will appeal.

Even Trump says the SAVE Act has long odds

Trump on Monday called the Senate logjam “crazy” and one of the holdouts, Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Trump-deranged.”

It’s the latest legislative tussle that prompted Trump to demand Republicans scrap the filibuster, which requires most major legislation to get support from 60 of the 100 senators. But that likely wouldn’t matter in this case, with four of the Senate’s 53 Republicans declaring their opposition to the bill itself: Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

The president acknowledged Monday that the SAVE Act is “probably not going to happen.”

Trump still has options for the November elections

Both major parties have national operations to monitor elections, including legal teams ready to file challenges.

Despite the Republican National Committee losing the mail ballot case, Chairman Joe Gruters on Monday alluded to those efforts: “We are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day,” he said.

Meanwhile, Trump has been developing a possible roadmap for more aggressive actions.

His U.S. attorney in Los Angeles said in June that he had opened multiple election fraud investigations, and he sent a prosecutor to the county’s vote-tabulation center after California’s June primary. Six months earlier, FBI agents executed a warrant and seized ballots and other records from the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.

Muller, the law professor, said local elections officials “already are having conversations about chain of custody disputes” for ballots as they are cast, collected, counted and stored.

He and UCLA law professor Rick Hasen noted that judicial warrants are required for the kinds of actions that happened in Fulton County. Muller predicted “the bar would be even higher” for any warrant the administration requests during a live election.

Hasen added that he’s working to educate judges around the country on the importance of chain of custody for ballots.

“Republicans believe him when he says the election is rigged. And then when Republicans try to change voting rules to tighten things up, that causes Democrats to also think that the election system is being rigged,” Hasen said. “So, if what he’s trying to achieve is undermine voters’ confidence in the election process, he seems to have succeeded spectacularly.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

California officials cheered a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that allows states to continue counting mail ballots postmarked by election day but received in the days after — calling it a win for voter participation and access, including in the upcoming November midterm.

They also acknowledged delays in recent vote counting have spurred frustration, and promised to speed the process through other solutions — including by investing millions into new election infrastructure and vote processing capabilities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom — who called the court ruling a “win for voters, plain and simple” — has previously said the state should be able to count ballots faster, and his latest budget includes $29 million for “increased staffing, technology and equipment upgrades and purchases for counties,” $10 million for voter education and outreach at the state and county levels and $750,000 for combating election misinformation.

The court decision, a loss for President Trump and other critics who contend such policies contribute to unacceptable delays in vote counting, specifically upheld a Mississippi policy to accept mail ballots received within five business days of an election.

But it also lets stand similar policies in other states — including California, which counts ballots postmarked by and received within seven days of an election.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who has long prioritized voter participation over a speedy count, called the high court’s ruling a “win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.”

She said that she will “keep working to ensure every eligible Californian has the opportunity to be heard, because our democracy is strongest when every voice and vote count.”

Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that the ruling “affirms what Los Angeles County voters deserve: the assurance that a ballot cast by Election Day will be counted if received within the legal timeframe established in State Law.”

“Our office will continue to provide voter education, multilingual outreach, and leverage available resources to ensure voting access for our 5.8 million registered voters,” Logan said.

Many voting rights experts agree California’s vote counting should and could be faster, but disagree with the Trump administration’s efforts to step in with policies such as election day deadlines.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total. Experts say California’s delayed results have far more to do with the massive influx of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said the court’s decision was a “symbolic loss” for Trump, in that the court rejected his preferred policy on mail ballots, but “doesn’t appreciably change how long it takes to count ballots” because late-arriving ballots were never the problem.

In a report published Thursday, the California Voter Foundation recommended statewide adoption of “sign, scan, and go” programs that allow elections officials to immediately process mail ballots that voters submit in person at polling centers or drop boxes.

The foundation recommended ballot curing programs that speed up the process by utilizing a secure text platform when double checking whether a ballot is legitimate when a voter’s signature doesn’t match state records.

It also urged the state to invest $35 million in a voter education campaign to encourage early ballot returns, and more than $55 million in improving counting capacity and efficiency in county elections facilities.

Trump and other conservatives had called for an end to state policies allowing late-arriving mail ballots to be counted as an overdue fix to a voting system that often can’t produce election results in close races for days after polls close, as was the case in California’s recent primary races for governor and L.A. mayor.

Trump has pointed to California’s time-consuming count as proof of widespread fraud to undermine Republican candidates, though he has never produced evidence to support that claim and Democrats have fiercely denied it.

On Monday, Trump called the high court’s decision to uphold such state policies a “tremendous loss,” and more reason to pass the Save America Act — a bill he has backed that would enforce new voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements and ban mail ballots except for military personnel, individuals suffering from illness, disability, and in other rare circumstances.

He said politicians have “no excuse” other than “CHEATING!” to oppose such measures, especially at “a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th.”

But California leaders rejected that — saying the criticisms of mail ballots are baseless and an attempt by Trump and his allies to undermine elections in which they are poised to lose, particularly in big blue states such as California, by attempting to wrest control over voting processes that have always been the purview of states, not the federal government.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that states have been “primarily responsible for regulating elections” since the nation’s founding, and his office was “pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has respected that authority.”

“Today’s decision recognizes a basic reality: Mail delays happen. When people vote by election day, their ballots should not be discarded because of those delays,” he said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, praised the high court Monday for acknowledging that nothing in federal law precludes states from counting mail ballots in the days after an election.

“Today’s decision is a victory for voting rights and a rejection of Trump’s attacks on mail and absentee voters,” Padilla said.

Liberal groups and many voting rights experts also hailed the ruling as a win for voters.

Moving up deadlines for mail ballots is just one effort in a much broader political war over voting and the rules that govern it. The U.S. Constitution generally gives states the authority to run their own elections, but the Trump administration has been trying to assert greater federal control — especially around mail ballots.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to assert control over mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that would allow the federal government to ensure ballots only go to and get returned by eligible voters. The order prompted the Postal Service to propose new rules requiring states to hand over their voter mailing lists so it could implement Trump’s directive.

In a letter to U.S. Postmaster ‌General David Steiner on Wednesday, Democratic senators denounced the proposed rule as an “unconstitutional and illegal attempt to transform [USPS] into an election administration agency controlled by the White House and President Trump.”

In a Senate hearing the same day, Steiner said that under the new rule, the USPS would not mail the ballots of a state that refused to turn over its voter lists, but also that his agency would adhere to any court orders curtailing its implementation.

On Thursday, just such an order came down in a federal case in which California and other Democrat-led states challenged Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the Constitution does not grant the president “any specific powers over elections,” and blocked his order as unlawful.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who is chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said states such as California were right to focus on increasing investment in their own election infrastructure rather than accepting the Trump administration’s “bad policy ideas” for speeding things up.

Newsom’s office on Monday said that is exactly what California has been doing. It pointed to laws passed by the state Legislature last year that allow election officials to begin processing mail ballots earlier and require them to finish counting ballots sooner.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the Division of Elections decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday’s ruling. Jeffrey Robinson, Dan J. Sullivan’s attorney, said in an email he expects the division to appeal the ruling and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to regain the majority.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican.

She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state disputed suggestions that the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” Rachel Witty, an attorney with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate — age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Thursday to crack down on inflated profits stemming from car crash lawsuits, blessing a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the state’s trial attorneys that averts a November showdown between two of California’s most powerful and moneyed lobbying forces.

The deal, the fruit of months of negotiations, takes aim at the lucrative way doctors can charge for procedures on patients referred to them by personal injury lawyers.

If a law firm has a client who was hurt in a car accident, the lawyer will often send them to a doctor who will perform surgery on a “lien” basis, meaning the doctor will be paid from money that comes from a lawsuit settlement rather than through insurance.

Uber contends this arrangement has created an incentive for doctors and attorneys to collude to dramatically inflate medical bills. The more expensive the bill, they say, the bigger the resulting payout.

The law, SB 623, caps how much these doctors can charge when their patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company, which are frequent targets of litigation due to their top-of-the-line insurance policies. The new law will also require Uber to ramp up background checks of its drivers.

“We’re going to have a much safer state both for medical patients and passengers in Ubers,” said Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations.

The law only applies to cases that involve ride-share accidents that take place after Jan. 1, 2027.

“This legislation puts meaningful guardrails in place to better protect accident victims, increase transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthen safety,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for the Western U.S., in a statement.

For months, Uber and lawyers from across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to devastate the profits of whichever side lost.

Uber fired the first shot with a ballot measure that sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in lawsuits involving auto accidents. The company argued attorneys were swindling their own clients, inflating medical bills of car crash victims to increase the value of the settlement and then pocketing a hefty chunk of the payouts.

The state’s trial attorneys countered that the fee cap would make small or difficult cases a money-losing endeavor and block scores of accident victims from the courts. They shot back with their own ballot measure that would increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride, seizing on investigative reporting that highlighted assaults in Ubers.

“They were waiting for us to blink and we didn’t,” said Douglas Saeltzer, the head of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure against Uber. “Their starting place, I don’t believe, was in the interest of protecting victims — it was in the interest of protecting Uber.”

With the passage of Thursday’s law, both sides have agreed to pull their respective measures from the November ballot, halting campaigns that had both parties amassing tens of millions in funding and blanketing the airwaves with ads.

“Now we can stop seeing all the commercials,” said Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey) at a Tuesday hearing.

The law, put forward by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana), also caps the amount that can be earned by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies will purchase a doctor’s stake in the case at a reduced rate, then pocket a share of the payout if the case settles.

“Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount,” Saeltzer said at a Tuesday hearing on the bill. “That’s money flowing to Wall Street investors, not patients.”

The law will require annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expand the list of offenses that disqualify someone from the job.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA’s most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim. The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing Uber had failed to prove fraud. Both firms have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has put the plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of playing defense. Listening in the audience at Wednesday’s hearings were the partners of Downtown L.A. Law Group and Jacob Emrani.

“Let’s be clear about what this Uber case really is,” said John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani. “It’s brought by a $150 billion dollar company … to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources and chill the suits that hold Uber accountable.”

Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, countered that the case is “not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar.”

“We have brought suit against the two in this state … that are engaged in naked fraud,” he said.

Proponents of a tax on California billionaires vowed on Thursday to move forward with their November ballot measure despite mounting opposition from many of the state’s most powerful political forces.

A labor union spent $31 million gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot in an effort to offset federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. A representative for the campaign supporting the ballot measure pushed back at opposition to the effort as self-entitled wealthy Californians and entrenched Sacramento interests.

“While a few morally bankrupt billionaires and their buddies in Sacramento want to see California’s hospitals close, and tax breaks for billionaires protected — I assure you, the vast majority of voters do not,” said Debru Carthan, a spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, which is funded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of the proposal.

The California secretary of state is expected to officially certify the measure for the Nov. 3 ballot on Thursday evening.

Carthan said their effort has support in public opinion polls, and from lawmakers, unions, community organizations and volunteers across the state, “something the billionaires and their buddies will never have.”

However, a coalition of healthcare, education, public safety, housing, business and labor leaders opposed to the proposal warned that it would make the state’s notoriously unstable budget even more unpredictable.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the leaders of the California Medical Assn., the California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. said in a statement. “That’s why so many leaders – both Democrats and Republicans – are joining us and saying NO. We look forward to ensuring voters have the facts, know the stakes, and resoundingly reject this reckless experiment in November.”

Supporters of the one-time proposed 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents pitched the effort as a stop-gap measure to offset devastating federal healthcare funding cuts passed by the GOP-led Congress and signed by President Trump nearly one year ago. The federal legislation is expected to result in $100 billion in cuts that would affect California’s most vulnerable residents.

The proposed tax, which would be retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, drew predictable opposition from the wealthy, notably Silicon Valley tech leaders.

But it notably divided liberals. While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) supported the proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom was among the Democrats who opposed it because of fears about the potential impact on the state’s volatile budget.

Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world — the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — California’s budget is extremely dependent on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Newsom and others who generally support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans also argued that the proposed billionaire tax in California was poorly crafted and that any such levies ought to be enacted nationally, because varying state policies would be ineffective.

Opponents also argued that the political priority in the 2026 midterm election should be squarely focused on efforts to make sure Democrats regain control of Congress to serve as a counter balance during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

“It’s disappointing. This is a critical election where we need to concentrate on flipping the house and undoing the damage that was done” by Trump’s legislation that led to the healthcare funding cuts, said Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. The wealth tax “is short term and doesn’t address what is the long-term problem. And I’m not even sure the policy is a viable solution. It’s so critical to be sending the right message — holding Congress accountable and how we need to find long-term solutions to make sure Californians have access to healthcare.”

Rob Lapsley, co-chair of Californians Against Tax Increases and president of the California Business Roundtable, argued that the proposed wealth tax would ultimately affect every Californian.

“Strip away the spin, and this measure forces every California taxpayer, not just billionaires, to file a sworn declaration of their net worth with the Franchise Tax Board under penalty of perjury,” Lapsley said in a statement. “And it hands the Legislature the power to extend the wealth tax to all Californians and every kind of property, including home equity, retirement savings without ever returning to the voters – effectively gutting” voter-approved caps on property tax increases.

Supporters of the tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures in April to qualify the proposal for the ballot, roughly double the number required. However, support for the effort has grown increasingly shaky. Newsom’s team created a broad coalition of opponents, including healthcare and education activists, that undercut the foundational argument for the tax.

The union that crafted the proposal responded last week by proposing a legislative alternative that would create a 2% tax on billionaire’s assets. It was flatly refused by the Newsom administration. No deal was reached by the Thursday evening deadline for the union to withdraw the proposal from the November ballot.

Two efforts that were crafted to sink the proposed billionaire tax — dubbed as poison pills — also qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. One would bar new state taxes on personal property, while the other prohibits any new taxes being exempted from existing state spending rules and to be regularly audited. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but either of the other proposals receives more votes, the tax measure would be voided.

The proposed billionaire tax would apply to more than 200 Californians, some of whom proactively left the state or moved their companies out of California because of the proposal.

The prospect of the wealthy fleeing the state is among the reasons that prominent Democrats such as Newsom opposed it, given California’s budget being so reliant on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, is among the billionaires who have reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to an organization that is funding efforts to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax.

Ballot measure proponents had a Thursday evening deadline to withdraw their proposals.

Other policy proposals that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot include:

• Requiring government-issued voter identification to cast ballots in elections.
• Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, once a third-rail in Democratic politics that has become increasingly scrutinized in the rebuilding in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton wildfire.
• Creating a $11.3-billion affordable housing bond.

Two notable proposals were pulled off the ballot after negotiations between the California Hospital Assn. and labor unions:

• An effort to limit healthcare executives’ compensation.
• A union proposal by the same union backing the billionaire tax that would have required many healthcare clinics to spend 90% of their revenue to serve low-income and underserved residents.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Monday challenged a decision by a top state elections official to disqualify his candidacy and remove him from the August primary ballot.

A court filing, on behalf of the challenger Sullivan by his attorneys, said the decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualifying him violates state and federal law. It asks that he be placed on the ballot. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, has maintained that he’s a qualified candidate for U.S. Senate and that election officials lacked a legal basis to boot him from the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing age, citizenship and residency, his attorneys wrote.

“Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office,” the filing by attorneys Jeffrey Robinson, Bryn Pallesen and Zoe Eisberg states.

Sullivan’s entrance into the race, days before the June 1 filing deadline, drew condemnation from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They called the challenger a sham candidate and alleged he was working with Democrats to boost Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola’s chances in the race. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile contenders in a race with more than a dozen candidates. It’s one of the most prominent U.S. Senate races in this year’s midterm elections — one both parties consider crucial to their efforts to control the chamber.

Steve Kirch, a spokesperson for the division, said the agency had no comment and does not discuss “ongoing reviews, investigations or related proceedings.” Beecher has previously noted that ballots are due to be printed on Sunday.

Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the agency will defend the division’s finding and looked forward to a swift ruling from the court.

On June 15, a week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger Sullivan’s run, Beecher disqualified him. She concluded that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

In announcing an investigation, Dahlstrom cited “credible allegations” that Sullivan declared his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with an intent to confuse and “manipulate” voters. But in removing the challenger from the ballot, Beecher did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination with Peltola or Democratic Party officials.

The challenger Sullivan, when asked in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month if he’d had any contact with Peltola’s campaign, responded ”zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said she based her decision on factors including that he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats.

The form congressional candidates in Alaska complete asks them how they would like to be referred to on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted in line with a regulation that says a candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot with academic or professional titles or “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”

In response to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire last week said the regulation cited by Beecher does not forbid placing Sullivan’s name on the ballot. He said the elections division could comply with it by designing the ballot in a way that allows voters to distinguish between both Sullivans.

It’s a position echoed by the attorneys for the challenger Sullivan.

The challenger initially had been certified and listed on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan and denoted as the incumbent.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — Legislation to keep Georgia’s embattled vote-counting method in place for this year’s midterm elections faced strong opposition from state Democrats on Monday after Republicans in the Georgia Senate approved an amendment that would require a hand recount of ballots.

Georgia’s governor, Republican Brian Kemp, had called lawmakers into a special session in part to address a July 1 deadline that was set to ban the QR codes used for the official vote count. Legislators passed a law two years ago that set that deadline, but then failed to find a replacement for tabulating votes.

Some voting rights activists had warned that any changes so close to the midterm elections could create confusion at polling sites. Georgia is a political swing state where voters will decide high-profile races for U.S. Senate and governor in the fall.

State lawmakers last week appeared to have reached a deal on a bill to push the July 1 deadline back to 2028. But Republicans in the Senate approved an amendment over the weekend that would require a full hand recount of the two races at the top of ballot. In November, that would be the governor’s contest and a U.S. Senate election.

The amended bill passed the Senate on a party line vote, but the House did not immediately schedule it for a vote on Monday.

Georgia Democrats say a hand recount in November would create chaos that could sow doubt about the results. Research has shown that hand-counting is more prone to error, costlier and likely to delay results. It has gained traction, however, with Republican lawmakers in some states amid President Trump’s repeated false claims about a stolen 2020 election.

“What we are experiencing is a Republican Senate who’s acting extraordinarily irresponsibly with Georgia’s elections and people’s votes,” state Rep. Saira Draper, a Democrat, said Monday.

Republican state Sen. Max Burns defended the Senate bill, saying hand counts and machine counts can “coexist and confirm each other’s ultimate results.”

“This amendment to a good bill is to strengthen it so that the voters have confidence in election security,” he said.

Georgia’s current election system uses a QR code printed on ballots to tally the votes. It has drawn the ire of Trump, who claimed without evidence that voting machines in Georgia deleted or switched votes in the 2020 election. He narrowly lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden that year.

Georgia voting machines have been the subject of conspiracy theories, which manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems fought vigorously in court. But election integrity advocates also have raised concerns about the machines, arguing that they are vulnerable to hacking and that voters cannot be sure their selections are accurately reflected because people can’t read QR codes.

The Georgia Senate bill would extend the July 1 deadline to Jan. 1, 2028. It also would create a committee to recommend requirements for a new voting system. The committee would have until Jan. 31, 2027, to report its findings. State lawmakers would be responsible for funding, buying and implementing the new system for the 2028 election cycle.

The special session also was supposed to redraw Georgia’s congressional and legislative districts for the 2028 election, but state lawmakers postponed those plans.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

The National Election Commission’s (NEC) fact-finding committee investigating ballot shortages during the recent local elections called for a criminal probe into the commission’s former chief Friday, citing systemic failures in the election management system.

Cho Hyun-wook, chairperson of the committee, made the announcement during a briefing at the NEC headquarters in Gwacheon, south of Seoul, as the panel wrapped up a weeklong investigation conducted to determine the cause of the ballot shortages.

The committee recommended that former NEC Chairman Roh Tae-ak, who stepped down from his post over the debacle, and other key officials be referred for criminal investigation.

Cho also stressed that the NEC requires a sweeping overhaul tantamount to dismantling the organization.

“Given the systemic failures in the election management system exposed by the ballot shortage incident, the NEC requires sweeping reforms akin to dismantlement,” she said.

According to the committee, 140 of the country’s 14,288 polling stations requested and received additional ballot papers after anticipating shortages on election day. Of those, 91 used the additional ballots they received, while voting was at least temporarily disrupted at 26 polling stations due to ballot shortages.

The committee, launched on June 10, consisted of six members recommended by civic organizations, media, legal and academic communities.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

A controversial proposal to tax California billionaires to fund healthcare has tenatively qualified for the November ballot, setting the stage for a more intense and expensive battle over whether the state should squeeze the ultra-rich.

Supporters say the proposed tax is crucial to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts, approved by President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, that will harm millions of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

In April, supporters of the billionaire tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures, roughly double the number needed to qualify. The California secretary of state’s office on Wednesday declared that enough valid signatures were submitted. The initiative will officially qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot on June 25 unless the proponents withdraw it beforehand.

The initiative would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exceptions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would destroy California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The proposal already triggered a fierce debate, accentuating the divide between the rich and poor in a state that’s expensive to live in.

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and other supporters of the billionaire tax say that it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare as well as funding education and state food assistance.

But supporters face strong opposition from billionaires with deep pockets. Tech executives and other business leaders oppose the idea and have threatened to move to other states. Opponents say taxing billionaires would harm California’s economy while not addressing underlying financial issues.

The proposal also has divided politicians within the Democratic Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against the billionaire tax, expressing fears that billionaires would move out of the state. But U.S. lawmakers such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed a billionaire tax, saying the rich should pay their fair share to fund essential services.

Business executives have already poured millions of dollars into groups that oppose the billionaire tax or are promoting alternative solutions to wealth inequality.

Tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $118 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. Most of the funding comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has given more than $82 million to the group. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies also have contributed.

The group says it supports policies such as expanding access to affordable housing, protecting innovation, requiring government transparency and securing more stable education funding.

PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel has contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which opposes the tax. Former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group as well.

California would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax if it passed, but it could also lose other tax revenue, a December letter from the state legislative analyst’s office said. The office also mentioned that it’s tough to predict the exact amount the state would collect because of factors that can affect a billionaire’s wealth such as fluctuating stock prices.

California billionaires who were residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be affected by the ballot measure if it passes. Some wealthy residents announced plans to moves out of state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day Thiel publicized his firm had opened a new office in Miami.

The rival parties agreed Tuesday to conduct a 45-day parliamentary investigation into the National Election Commission (NEC) over ballot shortages reported during the recent local elections, party officials said.

In a meeting of their deputy floor leaders at the National Assembly, the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) agreed to put the plan to a vote at a parliamentary plenary session on Thursday.

“We agreed to launch the parliamentary probe to swiftly uncover the truth behind the alleged infringement of voting rights of the citizens caused by the ballot shortages and to lay the groundwork for sweeping reforms of the NEC,” Rep. Cheon Jun-ho of the DP told reporters after the meeting.

According to officials from both parties, the special parliamentary committee will be chaired by the PPP and comprise 18 members — nine from the ruling party, seven from the PPP and two from non-negotiating parties.

Rep. Kim Seung-soo of the main opposition PPP said the rival parties agreed to set the investigation period at 45 days in an effort to conduct the probe as swiftly as possible, while leaving open the possibility of an extension if further investigation becomes necessary.

Ballot shortages were reported at more than a dozen polling stations in Seoul during the June 3 local elections, temporarily disrupting voting and prompting protests.

Last week, the DP and the PPP separately submitted requests for a parliamentary probe, though they differed over the scope of the investigation and the number of seats to be allotted to each party on the committee.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

There are more than 100 Emmy categories, and if you scroll through each and every one of them on the Television Academy’s website, you’re probably one of those people who read the terms and conditions on a document before signing your name.

This hasn’t been the greatest year for television, which has had the converse effect of prompting me to sample more shows than ever in a quest to unearth that one hidden gem that merits a place on my mock Emmy ballot. Truth be told, I’m still looking. I’m sure I’ve missed something. And I’m sure you’ll let me know.

In the meantime, here are my picks for the top 15 categories — five each for comedy, drama and limited series — along with a brief line of reasoning for each. And if it’s predictions you’re after, you can find our full BuzzMeter panel’s choices here. Emmy nominations will be announced July 8.

Comedy series

“Abbott Elementary”
“The Bear”
“The Comeback”
“Hacks”
“The Lowdown”
“Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
“The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins”
“Shrinking”

Sterlin Harjo’s “The Lowdown” feels like it’s on the same trajectory as his last series, “Reservation Dogs,” an under-the-radar charmer that grows in estimation as its audience builds. Noir crime stories don’t come more delightful.

Comedy actress

Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”
Rose Byrne, “Platonic”
Ayo Edebiri, “The Bear”
Elle Fanning, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Lisa Kudrow, “The Comeback”
Jean Smart, “Hacks”

“Platonic” heightened the chaos and conflict in its second season, affording the gifted Byrne additional room to flex her comic chops. How do you sleep on a show starring a newly minted Oscar nominee?

Comedy actor

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, “Wonder Man”
Ethan Hawke, “The Lowdown”
Tracy Morgan, “The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins”
Jason Segel, “Shrinking”
Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”
Jeremy Allen White, “The Bear”

Morgan acting oblivious is one of the funniest things ever.

Comedy supporting actress

Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”
Janelle James, “Abbott Elementary”
Ashley Padilla, “Saturday Night Live”
Michelle Pfeiffer, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Sheryl Lee Ralph, “Abbott Elementary”
Jeanne Tripplehorn, “The Lowdown”
Jessica Williams, “Shrinking”

The Padilla Pause is one reason I’m watching “Saturday Night Live” again.

Comedy supporting actor

Harrison Ford, “Shrinking”
Marcello Hernández, “Saturday Night Live”
Ben Kingsley, “Wonder Man”
Ebon Moss-Bachrach, “The Bear”
Nick Offerman, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Stephen Root, “Widow’s Bay”
Tyler James Williams, “Abbott Elementary”

Hernández’s charisma and physical comedy is another.

Drama series

“Industry”
“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”
“The Night Manager”
“Paradise”
“The Pitt”
“Pluribus”
“Slow Horses”
“Task”

How many Emmy voters finally caught up on “Industry,” the fast-paced drama about a group of cutthroat Gen Zers? Four seasons in, it’s more addictive than ever.

Drama actress

Caitriona Balfe, “Outlander”
Myha’la, “Industry”
Chase Infiniti, “The Testaments”
Michelle Pfeiffer, “The Madison”
Rhea Seehorn, “Pluribus”
Zendaya, “Euphoria”

Now that “Outlander” is over, it’s time to pour one out for Balfe. Over the course of eight seasons, she hopscotched through time, enduring and overcoming numerous assaults and kidnappings, dealing with grief and trauma and enjoying lots of emotionally grounded sex. Balfe has earned a final reward.

Drama actor

Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise”
Peter Claffey, “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”
Tom Hiddleston, “The Night Manager”
Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses”
Mark Ruffalo, “Task”
Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

Claffey turned bumbling into art.

Drama supporting actress

Isa Briones, “The Pitt”
Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt”
Fiona Dourif, “The Pitt”
Supriya Ganesh, “The Pitt”
Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”
Sepideh Moafi, “The Pitt”
Karolina Wydra, “Pluribus”

LaNasa should have bumped herself up to lead. As Whitaker explains to Langdon in Season 2’s penultimate episode, Robby’s the Professor of the ER and LaNasa’s Dana is the Skipper. And the Skipper should be lead.

Drama supporting actor

Patrick Ball, “The Pitt”
Diego Calva, “The Night Manager”
Shawn Hatosy, “The Pitt”
Gerran Howell, “The Pitt”
Ken Leung, “Industry”
Tom Pelphrey, “Task”
Carlos-Manuel Vesga, “Pluribus”

Pelphrey has called his desperate single dad on “Task” the role of a lifetime. No argument here.

Limited series

“Bait”
“Beef”
“DTF St. Louis”
“Death by Lightning”
“Half Man”

I put off watching the finale of the punishing “Half Man” for weeks. Does that mean the show worked?

Limited series/TV movie actress

Sally Field, “Remarkably Bright Creatures”
Camila Morrone, “Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen”
Carey Mulligan, “Beef”
Sarah Pidgeon, “Love Story”
Robin Wright, “The Girlfriend”

I like her! Right now (and always), I like her!

Limited series/TV movie actor

Riz Ahmed, “Bait”
Charlie Hunnam, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story”
Matthew Macfadyen, “Death by Lightning”
Mitchell Robertson, “Half Man”
Michael Shannon, “Death by Lightning”

The young actors on “Half Man” — Robertson and Stuart Campbell — outshone their well-known counterparts.

Limited series/TV movie supporting actress

Linda Cardellini, “DTF St. Louis”
Grace Gummer, “Love Story”
Laurie Metcalf, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story”
Cailee Spaeny, “Beef”
Joy Sunday, “DTF St. Louis”
Constance Zimmer, “Love Story”

Both Cardellini and Sunday for “DTF St. Louis”? No way, José, you say? Yes way, I say. All the way!

Limited series/TV movie supporting actor

(Larry Horricks / Netflix)

Jason Bateman, “DTF St. Louis”
Stuart Campbell, “Half Man”
Richard Gadd, “Half Man”
David Harbour, “DTF St. Louis”
Charles Melton, “Beef”
Nick Offerman, “Death by Lightning”

The mutton-chopped Chester A. Arthur joins Ron Swanson’s ’stache in television’s facial hair hall of fame.

Over the last decade, California became a national leader in voter accessibility and security, expanding options for when and how ballots can be cast while also strengthening election safeguards.

But those reforms came at a cost: speed. And in a political climate where unsupported conspiracies about election fraud can run rampant on social media — pushed, at times, by top political leaders — some fear the slow vote count is becoming a liability.

Election outcomes in recent years have become more drawn out in California, most recently taking about a week to determine the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral candidates advancing to November’s runoff after hotly contested primaries. And in prior years, it’s taken even longer to determine tight U.S. House or state Senate seats.

That trade-off — election accessibility and security over quick results — has long been defended as a byproduct of California’s desire to make it as easy as possible to cast a ballot while ensuring accuracy and integrity, something backers say remains vital to a thriving democracy.

But some experts say the increasing backlash over the slow vote count sows distrust.

“We’ve allowed the long count to be normalized, … but that doesn’t mean it’s normal,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, who has become an advocate for accelerating the state’s vote count. “There’s no question that voter confidence is eroding.”

A slower vote count does not signal any indication of fraud, despite unfounded claims over the last week by President Trump and others. Election officials and nonpartisan groups make clear that voter fraud remains extremely rare in the U.S., and there’s been no evidence of any such issues in California’s latest primary count.

But studies have found that voter trust slides as results lag, and this primary made clear that disinformation gains more traction the longer contests drag on, especially with lead changes.

That came to pass this primary, particularly as reality TV personality Spencer Pratt slowly lost his initial second-place ranking in the L.A. mayor’s race, before later batches of votes bumped him from the runoff — fueling an onslaught of social media hysteria: claims of so-called corruption and vote dumping, misinformed examples of alleged fraud and right-wing disinformation campaigns.

But making any substantive changes — particularly before November’s general election — would be an uphill battle, especially in deep-blue California, where Democrats tend to resist limits to voter access. And some are urging restraint.

“We should never drive policy based on conspiracy theories and lies,” said David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “That said, are there things California can do?”

Some suggestions, such as increased funding for county election offices and more education about early voting, would probably make some difference.

But the crux of the slow count comes from a flood of last-minute mail-in ballots — in a state with about one-eighth of the U.S. population. When a large percentage of California’s voters mail or drop off these ballots on or just before election day — as they tend to — it creates what Alexander calls the “pig in the python” effect: a major backlog of labor-intensive ballots to process, in a state that already handles the largest-volume ballot counts.

While verification occurs simultaneously during in-person voting, election officials in California are required to confirm a voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere for each vote-by-mail ballot. Becker called it an “intensively human process” that cannot be sped through — but could be spread out by more early voting.

“It is a lot easier to report results out faster when ballots come in sooner,” Becker said.

Altering that process significantly enough to ease that bottleneck would likely come with other trade-offs, experts said, such as earlier deadlines to turn in certain ballots or more time-consuming ballot drop-offs — either of which might dissuade some voters from showing up. Mail-in ballots have overwhelmingly become Californians favorite way to vote, with more than 80% of voters using that method in every election since 2020.

But California didn’t become known for slow ballot counting overnight. Since the turn of the millennium, the state has taken several steps to increase voter access by expanding options for how, when and where voters can cast their ballot, while also strengthening its processes to become what the secretary of state’s office calls “the strongest voting security standards in the country.”

Those changes have included same-day voter registration, more early voting options, replacing neighborhood-specific polling places with vote centers, and most notably, universal vote-by-mail, which in 2021 required that all registered voters be mailed their ballot, which can be mailed back, returned to a secure drop box or vote center or ignored if the voter opts to vote in person.

Many Democratic voters this year waited to turn in their ballots due to the crowded pool of gubernatorial candidates, which probably exacerbated the already-slow process.

Still, that was expected. Election watchdogs and party officials from both parties tried to temper Californians’ expectations about the timing of results from the primary, reminding voters that it would likely take days if not weeks to call close races.

But when that exact process began to play out — particularly in the extremely tight contests for California governor and Los Angeles mayor — it almost immediately brought criticism and concern.

“None of the optics are good,” complained Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party. “None of this is designed to inspire confidence.”

As Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office tried to dispel misinformation about California’s ballot tabulation process, the statement also said, “For the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too.”

Not only would a speedier election count improve voter trust, which can often increase participation, Alexander said, it would also decrease harassment of election workers and help newly elected candidates step into their new roles faster — and eliminate a long limbo period for the losing candidate.

“We can get it right and do it faster, and we should,” Alexander said.

A 2023 law allowed counties to provide voters an opportunity to cast their vote-by-mail ballot as an in-person ballot, by submitting it sans envelope and signing for it at a vote center, which reduces the verification process required by election workers. About half of California counties have adopted some option of this expedited process, according to the California Voter Foundation, some calling it “Sign, scan and go!” or the “naked ballot” option, but more widespread implementation of this could help speed up the count, Alexander said. Los Angeles County, which processes more ballots than many states, has not yet implemented this time-saving option.

California also allows ballots, if postmarked by election day, to be accepted up to a week after polls close — though that policy may soon be forced to change depending how the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging ballots arriving after election day. Still, these late-arriving ballots don’t account for a large share of the delays in California: in 2024, only about 2.5% of all ballots arrived in the mail after election day.

But some election observers point out that even when compared with states with similarly run elections, California still lags behind.

“California simply counts the ballots it has too slowly and its elections offices are underfunded,” election analysts Eli McKown-Dawson and Nate Silver recently wrote in a Substack piece. “If you want people to be confident in your electoral system, a good first step is to build one that works properly.”

And while seven other states also automatically mail voters ballots, experts say it’s hard to make direct comparisons with California. Some critics often point to Colorado as an example of a state with similarly ubiquitous mail-in voting, yet a much faster count than California. But the scale of states’ elections are so different: In 2024, California processed about 13 million vote-by-mail ballots; not even 3 million were counted in Colorado.

Some have also pointed out that despite all the ways California has worked to expand voter accessibility, turnout hasn’t dramatically changed. California remains relatively in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout across the U.S., and while the state has seen some spikes in turnout during certain election years, there’s been no noticeable uptick over the last 15 years, according to a review of data from 2008 to 2024.

But Becker contended that there are many factors that can influence voter turnout, in particular, California’s strong blue tilt.

“Perceived competitiveness” — or lack thereof — often keeps voters from the polls, as can uninspiring campaigns or even the weather, Becker said, but he was adamant that shouldn’t be a reason to make it harder for people to vote.

“Accessibility is always worth it,” Becker said.

Hoge, the GOP chair, had a different take, highlighting concerns about the voter registration process as well as the slow count — though she has been clear that the latter doesn’t necessarily signal fraud.

She has continued to push a more tempered narrative to many Republican leaders, including from the White House. On X, she shared a post that fact-checked a photo of vote tabulations from L.A. County, which appeared to — erroneously — show reality TV personality Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes in a daily vote count. And she boosted a video that dispelled rumors about Democrats stealing votes and ones about widespread fraud in California’s process.

“It’s a horrible roller coaster,” Hoge said about California’s election results. “It doesn’t make sense, and the fact that you’re just noticing it today doesn’t mean that it’s newly not making sense. … But until we win, we can’t change it.”

No matter what California might change or improve, Becker said he is confident it won’t stop the criticism or campaigns of misinformation. He also said that most elections in California are called relatively quickly — take the state’s pick for president, which is usually confirmed on election night — but it’s a small share of extremely tight races that take longer, because they require a more complete count to call a winner.

“It doesn’t matter how fast California counts its ballots, … we would be seeing similar conspiracy theories, maybe just with a different framing,” Becker said. “California ends up being a very effective bogeyman.”

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.