ballot

One of California’s most influential labor organizations endorsed redrawing the state’s congressional maps to counter President Trump’s effort to push Republican states, notably Texas, to increase his party’s numbers in Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The California Federation of Labor Unions voted unanimously Tuesday to support putting a measure on the ballot in November. The proposal, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and many of the state’s Democratic leaders, would ask voters to temporarily change congressional district boundaries that were drawn by an independent redistricting commission four years ago, with some conditions.

Republicans could potentially lose up to a half dozen seats in California’s 52-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. After it returns for its summer recess on Aug. 18, the California Legislature is expected to vote to place the measure on the statewide ballot in a special election.

“President Trump has said that Republicans are ‘entitled’ to five more congressional votes in Texas. Well, they aren’t entitled to steal the 2026 election. California’s unions refuse to stand by as democracy is tested,” Lorena Gonzalez, president of the federation, said in a statement. “California Labor is unified in our resolve to fight back against President Trump’s anti-worker agenda.”

Redistricting — the esoteric redrawing of the nation’s 435 congressional districts — typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. census tallies the population across the nation. Population shifts can result in changes in a state’s allocation of congressional seats, such as when California lost a seat after the 2020 census the first time in the state’s history.

The political redistricting process had long been crafted by elected officials to give their political parties an edge or to protect incumbents — sometimes in brazen, bizarrely shaped districts. Californians voted in 2010 to create an independent commission to draw congressional maps based on communities of interest, logical geography and ensuring representation of minority communities.

The ballot measure being pushed by Newsom and others would allow state lawmakers to help determine district boundaries for the next three election cycles if Texas approves a pending measure to reconfigure districts to increase Republican-held congressional seats in that state. Line-drawing would return to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

The California Federation of Labor is committed to spending several million dollars supporting a mid-decade redistricting ballot measure, on top of what it already planned to spend on competitive congressional races next year, according to a person familiar with the plans who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy.

A spokesperson for several organizations devoted to fighting any effort to change the state’s redistricting process said that Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire, and who bankrolled the ballot measure to create the independent commission, is committed to making sure it is not weakened.

“While Charles Munger has been out of politics since 2016, he has said he will vigorously defend the reforms he helped pass, including nonpartisan redistricting,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition. “His previous success in passing ballot measures in California means he knows exactly what is needed to be successful. We will have the resources necessary to make our coalition heard.”

WASHINGTON — A last-ditch effort by California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional map for the 2026 election, countering a similar push by Texas Republicans, is now up against the clock.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that Democrats are moving forward with a plan to put a rare mid-decade redistricting plan before voters on Nov. 4. But state lawmakers will craft a “trigger,” he said, meaning California voters would only vote on the measure if Texas moved forward with its own plans to redraw Congressional boundaries to add five more Republican seats.

“It’s cause and effect, triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Newsom said. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”

Democratic lawmakers in Texas on Monday left the state to deprive Republicans of the quorum needed to pass the new maps. Republican lawmakers voted 85 to 6 to send state troopers to arrest them and bring them back to the Capitol, a move that is largely symbolic, since the lawmakers won’t face criminal or civil charges.

The outcome of the dueling efforts between Texas and California could determine which party controls the House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections, which Democrats see as the last bulwark to President Trump’s actions in his second term. Trump has pushed Republicans to add more GOP seats in Texas, hoping to stave off a midterm defeat.

Democrats hold 43 of California’s 52 congressional seats. Early discussions among California politicians and strategists suggest that redrawn lines could shore up some vulnerable incumbent Democrats by making their purple districts more blue, while forcing five or six of the state’s nine Republican members into tougher reelection fights.

But nothing official can be done until state lawmakers return from recess to Sacramento on Aug. 18.

Democrats, who hold a supermajority in the Legislature, would have less than a month to draw a new map, hold hearings and negotiate the language of a bill calling for the special November election, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

Democratic lawmakers and operatives said Monday that the timeline is doable, but they would have to act quickly.

California’s Democratic congressional delegation expressed consensus during a video meeting Monday with moving forward with a ballot measure that would allow mid-decade redistricting only if another state moves forward with it, according to a person familiar with the virtual meeting, and that the change would be temporary. They expressed their support for the independent commission.

California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the Democratic caucus met Sunday night “to discuss the urgent threat of a continued, blatant Trumpian power grab — a coordinated effort to undermine our democracy and silence Californians.”

Democrats in the California Senate and Assembly held separate meetings to discuss redistricting. David Binder, a pollster who works with Newsom, presented internal polling that showed tepid early support among voters for temporarily changing state laws to allow the Legislature to draw new maps for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030.

“Our voters must be empowered to push back,” Rivas said. “California has never backed down — and we won’t start now.”

Texas Democrats resist

Democratic lawmakers’ exodus from Austin on Monday denied Republicans the quorum necessary to proceed with a vote on a redrawn state map that could net Republicans five congressional seats.

Democratic lawmakers balked at threats from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The Texas House Democratic Caucus put out a statement riffing on a slogan made famous during the Texas Revolution: “Come and take it.” One member of the caucus noted that being absent was not a crime and that Texas warrants can’t be served in Illinois or New York, where many lawmakers have gone.

“There is no felony in the Texas penal code for what he says,” said Rep. Jolanda Jones, a Democrat. “He’s trying to get soundbites, and he has no legal mechanism.”

The Texas House Republican speaker, Dustin Burrows, said that Democrats leaving does not “stop this House from doing its work. It only delays it.”

But Abbott’s legal options to get his redistricting bill passed, by expelling Democrats or compelling their return, appear narrow, likely forcing the governor’s office to make challenges in courtrooms based in Democratic districts. Abbott has until the end of the year to secure new maps for them to be used in the state’s March 3 primaries.

At a news conference last week in Sacramento, Newsom compared Trump’s pressure on Abbott to add five Republican congressional seats as akin to his efforts to “find” 12,000 votes to win Georgia after the 2020 election.

“We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” he said. “We’re here to provide a pathway in ’26, ’28 and in 2030 for congressional maps on the basis of a response to the rigging of the system by the president of the United States. It won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger.”

Escalation on a deadline

For decades, redrawing California’s electoral maps amounted to political warfare. In 1971, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan vetoed a redistricting plan that he called “a mockery of good government.” The California Supreme Court ultimately drew the lines, and did so again in 1991, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson rejected maps drawn by Democrats.

California’s state lawmakers last drew their own district lines in 2001, after members of both parties signed off on a plan drawn up to protect incumbents.

In 2008, California voters stripped state lawmakers of the power to draw their own districts by passing Proposition 11, which created an independent redistricting commission. Two years later, voters handed the power to redraw congressional district maps to the same panel by passing Proposition 20. That group drew the lines before the 2012 elections, and again after the 2020 census.

California set the date for its last statewide special election — the 2021 attempted recall of Newsom — 75 days in advance. County election officials would need at least that much time to find voting locations and prepare ballots for overseas and military voters, which must be mailed 45 days before election day, one elections official said.

“We need at least a similar timeline and calendar to what took place in 2021 for the gubernatorial recall election,” said Dean Logan, the top elections official in Los Angeles County.

Similarly, he said, counties will “need the funding provided upfront by the state to conduct this election, and the funding to do the redistricting associated with it, because counties are not prepared financially.”

The 2021 recall election cost California taxpayers about $200 million. The preliminary estimate for Los Angeles County to administer the redistricting election is about $60 million.

National fight over state lines

Republican strategist Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, said Republicans nationally need to take state Democrats’ efforts to redraw the maps seriously — by pulling out their checkbooks.

“Our statewide Republican fundraising has atrophied because it has been over a generation since we had a viable statewide candidate in California,” he said. “The kind of money that it would take to battle this — it would have to be national funding effort.”

While Texas prompted California Democrats to take action, Fleischman said, the issue has enough momentum here that it ultimately doesn’t matter what Texas does.

“If Gavin Newsom places this on the ballot, it means he’s already done his polling and has figured out that it will pass because he cares more running for president that redistricting in California,” Fleischman said. “And he knows he can’t afford to make this play and lose.”

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission, has not weighed in on the mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas and California. But a spokesperson for the former governor made clear that he vehemently opposes both.

Since leaving office, Schwarzenegger has fought for independent map-drawing across the nation. Redistricting is among the political reforms that are the focus of the Schwarzenegger Institute at USC.

“His take on all of this is everyone learned in preschool or kindergarten that two wrongs don’t make a right. He thinks gerrymandering is evil,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger. “It takes power from the people and gives it to politicians. He thinks it’s evil, no matter where they do it.”

Wilner reported from Washington, Nelson and Mehta from Los Angeles and Luna from Sacramento.

L.A.’s plan to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games was already facing a thorny set of challenges, including the scramble to secure lucrative sponsorships and the search for buses to shuttle athletes and spectators across the region.

Now, organizers could soon be faced with yet another threat: a proposed ballot measure that, according to city officials, could force at least five Olympic venues to go before voters for approval.

Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel and restaurant workers, filed paperwork in June for a ballot measure requiring L.A. voters to sign off on the development or expansion of major “event centers” such as sports arenas, concert halls, hotels and convention facilities. The measure takes aim not just at permanent projects but also temporary structures, including those that add more than 50,000 square feet of space or 1,000 seats.

Former City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass’ Office of Special Events, identified five Olympic venues that could be subjected to a citywide election, including the Los Angeles Convention Center, the John C. Argue Swim Stadium in Exposition Park and the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area in the San Fernando Valley, which is set to host skateboarding, 3-on-3 basketball and other competitions.

“The proposed measure would make vital projects essential for our city and these Games potentially impossible to complete,” Krekorian said in a statement to The Times. “It would also require costly special elections before even relatively small projects could begin.”

A representative for LA28, the nonprofit organizing the Games, declined to confirm whether any Olympic venues would be affected by the proposal, saying only that it is monitoring the situation.

Unite Here has billed the proposal as one of its responses to a business group that is seeking to overturn the so-called Olympic Wage passed by the City Council in May, which hikes the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour in 2028.

The union has not begun gathering signatures for the proposal, which is under review by the City Clerk’s office. If it qualifies, it likely wouldn’t appear on a ballot until June 2026. Nevertheless, it has already raised alarms at City Hall, where some elected officials have portrayed it as irresponsible.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents coastal neighborhoods, said she fears the measure will force a citywide vote on an Olympic venue planned at Venice Beach, which is set to host road cycling, the marathon and the triathlon. She said it would also be more difficult for the city to attract new hotels and possibly expand its Convention Center.

“This is an absolute assault on our local economy. It’s spiteful and politically motivated,” she said.

Park, who voted against the $30 tourism minimum wage, has been at odds with Unite Here for more than a year. Councilmember Tim McOsker, whose 2022 election was backed by Unite Here and who supported the minimum wage hike, also voiced concerns, calling the proposed ballot measure “an attack on workers.”

McOsker, whose district includes the Port of Los Angeles, said he believes the proposal would force a vote on a plan to create a temporary viewing area for Olympic sailing at Berth 46 in San Pedro. He also fears it would trigger a citywide election for a 6,200-seat amphitheater planned in San Pedro’s West Harbor, a project that is not connected to the Games.

“This is bad for people who build things, bad for people who operate things, bad for people who work in buildings like these,” he said. “[The proposal] harms real people and it harms the economy.”

Ada Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 and also a candidate for state Assembly, declined to answer questions about the criticism of the proposal. Two other Unite Here representatives did not respond to The Times’ inquiries.

The union’s proposal, titled “Ordinance to Require Voter Approval of Major Development Projects,” argues that sports arenas and other major event venues “do not always justify their cost.”

Unite Here spokesperson Maria Hernandez told The Times earlier this year that the proposal would apply to Olympic venues that reach a certain size, but declined to give specifics. She said it was not clear whether the ballot proposal would impede efforts to expand the Convention Center, saying in an email that “it depends on the timing.”

The ballot proposal would not apply to athletic venues planned by LA28 in other nearby cities, such as Long Beach, Carson, Inglewood, Anaheim and El Monte. As a result, L.A. could face the potentially humiliating prospect of hosting a Games where only a handful of venues are within city limits.

“If it makes it on the ballot, there are projects and events that will be moved out of the city of Los Angeles rather than trying to win at the ballot box,” said Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., a business group.

The city’s future economic health could depend on the success or failure of LA28. Under its host agreement, the city would be on the hook for the first $270 million in losses if the Olympics end up in the red.

Critics have also voiced concern that the quadrennial athletic event could displace low-income tenants, particularly those who live near Olympic venues.

Voters should have been given the opportunity to decide whether L.A. should host the Olympics from the very beginning, said Eric Sheehan, spokesperson for NOlympics, which opposes the 2028 Games. Nevertheless, Sheehan voiced little enthusiasm for the union proposal, saying it doesn’t go far enough.

“What would be stronger would be the chance for Angelenos to vote on whether or not we want the Olympics at all,” he said.

The proposed ballot measure from Unite Here states that hotels can have harmful effects on a city, impeding the construction of new housing and creating a burden on social services. It goes on to offer similar warnings about large-scale development projects, saying they “often involve significant expenditures of taxpayer money” — an argument disputed by some city officials.

Those projects “may take the place of other projects that otherwise could have more directly benefited city residents,” the measure states.

Times staff writer Thuc Nhi Nguyen contributed to this report.

Los Angeles County leaders are scrambling to restore a sweeping racial justice initiative that voters accidentally repealed, a mistake that could threaten hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to reducing the number of people in jail.

County supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to ask their lawyers to find a way to bring back the ballot measure known as Measure J, which required the county to put a significant portion of its budget toward anti-incarceration services.

Voters learned last week that they had unwittingly repealed the landmark criminal justice reform, passed in 2020 in the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, when they voted for a completely unrelated measure to overhaul the county government last November.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the county overhaul — known as Measure G — along with Supervisor Janice Hahn, called it a “colossal fiasco.”

“This situation that has unfolded is enraging and unacceptable at every level. What has transpired is sloppy,” Horvath said Tuesday. “It’s a bureaucratic disaster with real consequences.”

The county says it’s looking at multiple options to try to get Measure J permanently back in the charter — which dictates how the county is governed — including a change in state law, a court judgment or a ballot measure for 2026.

“We cannot and we won’t let this mistake invalidate the will of the voters,” Hahn said.

County lawyers say the mistake stems from a recently discovered “administrative error.”

Last November, voters approved Measure G, which expands the five-person Board of Supervisors to nine members and brings on an elected chief executive, among other overhauls.

What no one seemed to realize — including the county lawyers who write the ballot measures — is that one measure would wipe out the other.

Measure G rewrote a chunk of the charter with no mention of anti-incarceration funding, effectively wiping out the county’s promise to put hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail and support them when they leave.

The repeal will take effect in 2028, giving the county three years to fix it.

“I do agree that there’s all kinds of reasons to be outraged, but the sky is not falling. Even if you think the sky is falling, it won’t fall until December 2028,” said Rob Quan, who leads a transparency-focused good-government advocacy group. “We’ve got multiple opportunities to fix this.”

The mistake was first spotted last month by former Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana, who sits on a task force in charge of implementing the county government overhaul. The county confirmed the mistake to The Times last week, a day after Fasana publicly raised the issue to his unsuspecting fellow task force members.

The measure’s critics say the mistake adds credence to their arguments that the county overhaul was put together too hastily.

“It seems to be that if one has to go back on the ballot, it ought to be [Measure] G,” said Fasana, noting it passed by a narrower margin.

Otherwise, he says, the county has set an unnerving precedent.

“It’s almost like setting a blueprint to steal an election,” said Fasana, who opposed both the anti-incarceration funding and the government overhaul measures. “You’ve got this way to basically nullify something that was passed by voters.”

Some worry that putting either measure back on the ballot runs the risk of voters rejecting it this time around.

Measure G faced significant opposition — including from two sitting supervisors — who argued an elected chief executive would be too powerful and the measure left too much of this new government ill-defined. It narrowly passed with just over 51% of the vote.

The anti-incarceration measure also faced heavy opposition in 2020, particularly from the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media. The measure passed with 57% of the vote.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional after a group of labor unions — including the sheriff’s deputies union — argued it hampered politicians’ ability to manage taxpayer money as they see fit. An appellate court later reversed the decision.

Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money be spent on social services such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. That’s equivalent to roughly $288 million this fiscal year. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.

Derek Hsieh, the head of the sheriff’s deputies union and a member of the governance reform task force, said the union had consulted with lawyers and believed the county would be successful if it tried to resolve the issue through a court judgment.

“A change in state law or running another ballot measure — it’s kind of like swimming upstream,” he said. “Those are the most expensive difficult things.”

Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA coalition, which pushed for the anti-incarceration measure, said if the group has to go back to the ballot, it will try to slash the language that it feels gives the county too much wiggle room on how funding is allocated. The coalition has clashed repeatedly with county leadership over just how much money is actually meant to be set aside under Measure J.

“If we do have to go to the ballot box, we’re going to be asking for more,” she said.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who helped get the anti-incarceration measure on the ballot, said she felt suspicious of the error by county lawyers, some of whom she believed were never fully on board with the measure in the first place.

“I just feel like they’re too good at their jobs for this error to occur,” said Hernandez, who said the news landed like a “slap in the face.”

County leaders have emphasized that the error was purely accidental and brushed aside concerns that the repeal would have any tangible difference on what gets funded.

When Measure J was temporarily overturned by the court, the board promised to carry on with both the “spirit and letter” of the measure, reserving a chunk of the budget for services that keep people out of jail and support those returning. That will still apply, they say, even if Measure J is not reinstated.

The motion passed Tuesday directs the county to work on an ordinance to ensure “the continued implementation of measure J” beyond 2028.

Last November, voters approved a sprawling overhaul to L.A. County’s government.

They didn’t realize they were also repealing the county’s landmark criminal justice reform.

Eight months later, county officials are just now realizing they unwittingly committed an administrative screw-up for the ages.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn co-authored Measure G, which changed the county charter to expand the five-person board and elect a new county executive, among other momentous shifts.

But nobody seemed to realize the new charter language would repeal Measure J, which voters approved in 2020 to dedicate hundreds of millions towards services that offer alternatives to incarceration.

“We can confirm that due to an inadvertent administrative error by a prior Executive Officer administration, Measure J was not placed in the County’s Charter after its passage in 2020,” said County Counsel in a statement. “As a result, when the voters passed Measure G, they repealed Measure J effective December 2028.”

The mistake appears to stem from a failure by the county’s executive office to update the county charter with Measure J after it passed in 2020. County lawyers then failed to include the Measure J language when they drafted the 2024 ballot measure.

So when voters approved Measure G, they accidentally repealed Measure J, according to the county.

The screw-up was first discovered by John Fasana, a former Duarte Councilmember who sits on the county’s governance reform task force, which is tasked with implementing the government overhaul. He said he first raised the issue with the county in early June.

“Someone goofed,” said Fasana, who was appointed to the taskforce by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA Coalition, which pushed Measure J to the ballot in 2020, said she was disturbed to learn last week that the fruit of years of advocacy would soon be wiped away accidentally.

“It shouldn’t be undermined just because folks rushed policy making,” said Castillo. “We know more voters were for Measure J than Measure G. It’s disrespectful to the will of the people to find this could unintentionally happen.”

Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on social services, such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.

Castillo said she was worried the repeal would result in a “deep economic fallout” for these programs with county money potentially diverted to costs required by Measure G, like the salaries of new politicians and their staff. Measure G bars the county from raising taxes meaning this money will have to come from elsewhere in the county budget.

Castillo said she first brought the issue to the attention to deputies for Hahn and Horvath last week.

“They are shocked as well,” said Castillo.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the charge on Measure G, said in a statement a proposal was coming to correct the “County bureaucracy’s error related to Measure J.”

“This measure was the result of a hard-fought, community-led effort that I wholeheartedly supported—and remain deeply committed to upholding,” said Horvath. “This situation makes clear why Measure G is so urgently needed. … When five people are in charge, no one is in charge, and this is a quintessential example of what that means.”

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposed the overhaul of the county charter, saw it a little differently.

“It also reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start. When major changes to the County Charter are pushed forward without sufficient time for analysis, public input, and transparency, mistakes become more likely. Oversights like this are exactly what can happen,” Barger said in a statement. “This error could–and should–have been caught before voters were asked to make a decision.”

Supervisor Hilda Solis said she was “surprised and concerned” to learn about the error but was confident the funding envisioned by Measure J would “continue unaffected.”

The Times reached out to the other two supervisors and has yet to receive their responses.

County attorneys said in a statement they were working with the executive office to “address this situation” and ensure the executive office “timely codified” charter amendments going forward. They emphasized that, despite the looming repeal of Measure J, the county will continue to align its budget with the goals of the measure.

Derek Hsieh, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and a member of the governance reform taskforce member, called the mistake a “cluster—.”

“I think the voters and county employees would like to know when the Board of Supervisors knew about this mistake and what they plan on doing to fix it,” said Hsieh, who was an outspoken opponent of both Measure G and Measure J.

The union, which represents sheriff‘s deputies, had spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media to fight Measure J. The union had also joined other county labor unions to challenge the measure in court.

“There’s absolutely no question both by the will of the voters and a decision by the California Supreme Court that Measure J is the law of the land,” said Hsieh.

The screw-up became public Wednesday night at the task force’s second-ever meeting. Fasana told his fellow members who had gatherered at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall downtown he had found “a major issue.”

The news created something of an uproar in meeting that was supposed to focus on more mundane bureaucratic matters. Some members said they wanted to wait to discuss it until everyone had been briefed on what exactly he was talking about.

Others said they didn’t understand how they could talk about anything else.

“To me all the work we’re trying to move forward with stops because there’s a problem —a significant, fundamental one,” said Derek Steele, who was appointed by Supervisor Holly Mitchell.

“We may actually need to take Measure G back to the people,” said Steele. “ We need to make sure we have a solve for this.”

Both Mitchell and Barger opposed Measure G, arguing it had been put together too hastily and gave too much power to an ill-defined county executive.

Sara Sadhwani, who was appointed to the task force by Horvath, said she found the accidental repeal of Measure J “incredibly concerning,” but found the way the news had been delivered to the task force “obstructive.”

“It raises so many questions for me and raises concerns about who is operating in good faith on this task forcem,” said Sadhwani. “If this was a good faith effort, wouldn’t we have agendized this issue, instead of dropping a bomb that people have no knowledge of.”

The taskforce has asked for a report from the county’s attorneys for their next meeting.

Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this story.

ATLANTA — President Trump and other Republicans have long criticized states that take weeks to count their ballots after election day. This year has seen a flurry of activity to address it.

Part of Trump’s executive order on elections, signed in March but held up by lawsuits, takes aim at one of the main reasons for late vote counts: Many states allow mailed ballots to be counted even if they arrive after election day.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month said it would consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an election day deadline for mail ballots.

At least three states — Kansas, North Dakota and Utah — passed legislation this year that eliminated a grace period for receiving mailed ballots, saying they now need to be in by election day.

Even in California, where weekslong vote counting is a frequent source of frustration and a target of Republican criticism, a bill attempting to speed up the process is moving through the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Order asserts federal law prohibits counting late ballots

The ballot deadline section of Trump’s wide-ranging executive order relies on an interpretation of federal law that establishes election day for federal elections. He argues this means all ballots must be received by that date.

“This is like allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd,” the executive order states.

It follows a pattern for the president, who has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of such ballots even though there is no evidence they are the source of widespread fraud. The issue is tied closely to his complaints about how long it takes to count ballots, his desire for results on election night and his false claims that overnight “dumps” of vote counts point to a rigged election in 2020, when he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

But ballots received after election day, in addition to being signed and dated by the voter, must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service indicating they were completed and dropped off on or before the final day of voting.

Accepting late-arriving ballots has not been a partisan issue historically. States as different as California and Mississippi allow them, while Colorado and Indiana do not.

“There is nothing unreliable or insecure about a ballot that comes back after election day,” said Steve Simon, the chief election official in Minnesota, which has an election day deadline.

In his executive order, most of which is paused by the courts, Trump directs the attorney general to “take all necessary action” to enforce federal law against states that include late-arriving ballots in their final counts for federal elections. He also directs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to condition federal funding on compliance.

Trump’s rhetoric motivates Republican states

Republicans in five states have passed legislation since the 2020 election moving the mail ballot deadline to election day, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks election legislation.

Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers in Kansas ended the state’s practice of accepting mail ballots up to three days after election day, a change that will take effect for next year’s midterms. Problems with mail delivery had prompted Kansas to add the grace period in 2017.

Kansas state Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican who chairs the committee that handles election legislation, compared the grace period to giving a football team extra chances to score after the game clock expires.

“We need this uniform end to the election just so that we know that all voters are operating on the same time frame,” he said.

A history of complaints in California

California has long been a source of complaints about the amount of time it takes for ballots to be counted and winners declared.

“The rest of the country shouldn’t have to wait on California to know the results of the elections,” U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Committee on House Administration, said during an April hearing.

He said California’s “lax election laws” were to blame for the delays.

The nation’s most populous state has the largest number of registered voters in the country, some 22.9 million, which is roughly equivalent to the number of voters in Florida and Georgia combined.

California also has embraced universal mail voting, which means every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. The deadline for election offices to receive completed ballots is seven days after election day as long as they are postmarked by election day.

A survey of some 35,000 Los Angeles County voters during last fall’s election found that 40% waited until election day to return their ballot.

Election officials say the exhaustive process for reviewing and counting mail ballots combined with a large percentage of voters waiting until the last minute makes it impossible for all results to be available on election night.

California Democrats consider changes to speed the count

Under state law, election officials in California have 30 days to count ballots, conduct a post-election review and certify the results.

Dean Logan, Los Angeles County’s chief election official, told Congress in May that his team counted nearly 97% of the 3.8 million ballots cast within a week of election day in 2024. Jesse Salinas, president of the state clerks’ association, said his staff in Yolo County, near Sacramento, already works 16-hour days, seven days a week before and after an election.

Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced legislation that would keep the state’s 30-day certification period but require county election officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days after the election. They would be required to notify the state if they weren’t going to meet that deadline and give a reason.

“I don’t think that we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend like these conspiracies aren’t out there and that this lack of confidence doesn’t exist, in particular among Republican voters in California,” said Berman. “There are certain good government things that we can do to strengthen our election system.”

He acknowledged that many counties already meet the 13-day deadline in his bill, which awaits consideration in the state Senate.

“My hope is that this will strengthen people’s confidence in their election system and their democracy by having some of those benchmarks and just making it very clear for folks when different results will be available,” Berman said.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, contributed to this report.

Emmy nominations voting ends tonight at 10 p.m. PT. Still need help with your ballot?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. Still time to bite into a “Jaws” doughnut and peruse my picks for this year’s Emmy races. (An ordinary bagel will do.)

My personal picks in 15 Emmy categories

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

For me, simply filling out the following 15 categories — five each for comedy, drama and limited series — left me exhausted and in need of a sweet treat. And I already finished my “Jaws” doughnut. Maybe this cherries jubilee? Paul Giamatti would approve.

Without further ado, here are my picks and 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.

Bridget Everett in “Somebody Somewhere.”

(Sandy Morris / HBO)

COMEDY SERIES
“Abbott Elementary”
“The Bear”
“Hacks”
“A Man on the Inside”
“Only Murders in the Building”
“The Rehearsal”
“Somebody Somewhere”
“The Studio”

Yes, “The Rehearsal” is a comedy.

COMEDY ACTRESS
Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”
Ayo Edebiri, “The Bear”
Bridget Everett, “Somebody Somewhere”
Natasha Lyonne, “Poker Face”
Jean Smart, “Hacks”

Last call on nominating Everett (and her magical series), which has won a Peabody.

COMEDY ACTOR
Ted Danson, “A Man on the Inside”
Steve Martin, “Only Murders in the Building”
Seth Rogen, “The Studio”
Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”
Jeremy Allen White, “The Bear”

Best Netflix comedy: “A Man on the Inside,” anchored by Danson, still a master of light laughs.

COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Liza Colón-Zayas, “The Bear”
Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”
Kathryn Hahn, “The Studio”
Linda Lavin, “Mid-Century Modern”
Jane Lynch, “Only Murders in the Building”
Catherine O’Hara, “The Studio”
Sheryl Lee Ralph, “Abbott Elementary”

Colón-Zayas won last year, probably for the episode that she submitted this year. It’s weird when shows drop their new seasons in June.

COMEDY SUPPORTING ACTOR
Ike Barinholtz, “The Studio”
Colman Domingo, “The Four Seasons”
Paul Downs, “Hacks”
Harrison Ford, “Shrinking”
Ebon Moss-Bachrach, “The Bear”
Tyler James Williams, “Abbott Elementary”
Bowen Yang, “Saturday Night Live”

Thank you, Sal Saperstein!

Tramell Tillman in “Severance.”

(Apple TV+)

DRAMA SERIES
“Andor”
“The Last of Us”
“Paradise”
“The Pitt”
“Severance”
“Slow Horses”
“The White Lotus”
“Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light”

Voting for “Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light” checks a couple of boxes.

DRAMA ACTRESS
Kathy Bates, “Matlock”
Britt Lower, “Severance”
Elisabeth Moss, “The Handmaid’s Tale”
Kaitlin Olson, “High Potential”
Bella Ramsey, “The Last of Us”

Moss won this Emmy eight years ago. With the show ending, she has earned a parting gift.

DRAMA ACTOR
Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise”
Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses”
Pedro Pascal, “The Last of Us”
Adam Scott, “Severance”
Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

“Why don’t you say whatever speech you’ve got rehearsed and get this over with.” Godspeed, old friend. Also: Joel’s parting words should flash onscreen any time an Emmy winner goes long at the podium.

DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Carrie Coon, “The White Lotus”
Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt”
Fiona Dourif, “The Pitt”
Tracy Ifeachor, “The Pitt”
Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”
Julianne Nicholson, “Paradise”
Parker Posey, “The White Lotus”

Women of “The Pitt” > Women of “The White Lotus”

DRAMA SUPPORTING ACTOR
Patrick Ball, “The Pitt”
Gerran Howell, “The Pitt”
Jason Isaacs, “The White Lotus”
Damian Lewis, “Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light”
Jack Lowden, “Slow Horses”
Tramell Tillman, “Severance”
John Turturro, “Severance”

I don’t know. Tillman might deserve the Emmy for this alone.

Christine Tremarco and Stephen Graham in “Adolescence.”

(Netflix )

LIMITED SERIES
“Adolescence”
“Dope Thief”
“Dying for Sex”
“The Penguin”
“Say Nothing”

“Adolescence” should win everything.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE ACTRESS
Kaitlyn Dever, “Apple Cider Vinegar”
Cristin Milioti, “The Penguin”
Lola Petticrew, “Say Nothing”
Michelle Williams, “Dying for Sex”
Renée Zellweger, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

OK, maybe not everything, as “Adolescence” doesn’t have a submission here. Zellweger probably won’t win because comic acting rarely does, even though it most definitely should.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE ACTOR
Colin Farrell, “The Penguin”
Stephen Graham, “Adolescence”
Brian Tyree Henry, “Dope Thief”
Kevin Kline, “Disclaimer”
Cooper Koch, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”

Farrell has already won so many awards for “The Penguin,” it feels like either A) he must have won the Emmy too or B) he hasn’t, and good God, let somebody else have a prize. (Like Graham.)

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Erin Doherty, “Adolescence”
Ruth Negga, “Presumed Innocent”
Deirde O’Connell, “The Penguin”
Imogen Faith Reid, “Good American Family”
Jenny Slate, “Dying for Sex”
Christine Tremarco, “Adolescence”

Doherty will likely win for the series’ third episode, the taut two-hander with Owen Cooper. But the fourth episode is just as good — maybe even better — featuring a heart-rending turn from Tremarco as the mom trying to hold it together.

LIMITED SERIES/MOVIE SUPPORTING ACTOR
Javier Bardem, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”
Owen Cooper, “Adolescence”
Rob Delaney, “Dying for Sex”
Rhenzy Feliz, “The Penguin”
Hugh Grant, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”
Ashley Walters, “Adolescence”

Cooper will soon become the fifth teen actor to win a Primetime Emmy.

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani declared victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday night after Andrew Cuomo conceded the race in a stunning upset, as the young, progressive upstart who was virtually unknown when the contest began built a substantial lead over the more experienced but scandal-scarred former governor.

Though the race’s ultimate outcome will still be decided by a ranked choice count, Mamdani took a commanding position just hours after the polls closed.

With victory all but assured, Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist who ran an energetic campaign centered on the cost of living, told supporters, “I will be your Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City.”

“I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Governor Cuomo, or felt too disillusioned by a long-broken political system to vote at all,” he said. “I will work to be a mayor you will be proud to call your own.”

Cuomo, who had been the front-runner throughout a race that was his comeback bid from a sexual harassment scandal, conceded the election, telling a crowd that he had called Mamdani to congratulate him.

“Tonight is his night. He deserved it. He won,” Cuomo told supporters.

Cuomo trailed Mamdani by a significant margin in the first choice ballots and faced an exceedingly difficult pathway to catching up when ballots are redistributed in New York City’s ranked choice voting process.

Mamdani, a member of the state Assembly since 2021, would be the city’s first Muslim and Indian American mayor if elected. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams skipped the primary. He’s running as an independent in the general election. Cuomo also has the option of running in the general election.

“We are going to take a look and make some decisions,” Cuomo said.

Cuomo and Mamdani were a study in political contrasts and could have played stand-ins for the larger Democratic Party’s ideological divide, with one candidate a fresh-faced progressive and the other an older moderate.

Cuomo characterized the city as a threatening, out-of-control place desperate for an experienced leader who could restore order. He brought the power of a political dynasty to the race, securing an impressive array of endorsements from important local leaders and labor groups, all while political action committees created to support his campaign pulled in staggering sums of cash.

Mamdani, meanwhile, offered an optimistic message that life in the city could improve under his agenda, which was laser-focused on the idea that a mayor has the power to do things that lower the cost of living. The party’s progressive wing coalesced behind him and he secured endorsements from two of the country’s foremost progressives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Unofficial results from the New York City’s Board of Elections showed that Mamdani was ranked on more ballots than Cuomo. Mamdani was listed as the second choice by tens of thousands of more voters than Cuomo. And the number of votes that will factor into ranked choice voting is sure to shrink. More than 200,000 voters only listed a first choice, the Board of Elections results show, meaning that Mamdani’s performance in the first round may ultimately be enough to clear the 50% threshold.

The race’s ultimate outcome could say something about what kind of leader Democrats are looking for during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The primary winner will go on to face incumbent Adams, a Democrat who decided to run as an independent amid a public uproar over his indictment on corruption charges and the subsequent abandonment of the case by Trump’s Justice Department. Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, will be on the ballot in the fall’s general election.

The rest of the pack has struggled to gain recognition in a race where nearly every candidate has cast themselves as the person best positioned to challenge Trump’s agenda.

Comptroller Brad Lander, a liberal city government stalwart, made a splash last week when he was arrested after linking arms with a man federal agents were trying to detain at an immigration court in Manhattan. In the final weeks of the race, Lander and Mamdani cross endorsed one another in an attempt to boost their collective support and damage Cuomo’s bid under the ranked choice voting system.

Among the other candidates are City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, hedge fund executive Whitney Tilson and former city Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Mamdani’s grassroots run has been hard not to notice.

His army of young canvassers relentlessly knocked on doors throughout the city seeking support. Posters of his grinning mug were up on shop windows. You couldn’t get on social media without seeing one of his well-produced videos pitching his vision — free buses, free child care, new apartments, a higher minimum wage and more, paid for by new taxes on rich people.

That youthful energy was apparent Tuesday evening, as both cautiously optimistic canvassers and ecstatic supporters lined the streets of Central Brooklyn on a sizzling hot summer day, creating a party-like atmosphere that spread from poll sites into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Outside his family’s Caribbean apothecary, Amani Kojo, a 23-year-old first-time voter, passed out iced tea to Mamdani canvassers, encouraging them to stay hydrated.

“It’s 100 degrees outside and it’s a vibe. New York City feels alive again,” Kojo said, raising a pile of Mamdani pamphlets. “It feels very electric seeing all the people around, the flyers, all the posts on my Instagram all day.”

Cuomo and some other Democrats have cast Mamdani as unqualified. They say he doesn’t have the management chops to wrangle the city’s sprawling bureaucracy or handle crises. Critics have also taken aim at Mamdani’s support for Palestinian human rights.

In response, Mamdani has slammed Cuomo over his sexual harassment scandal and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cuomo resigned in 2021 after a report commissioned by the state attorney general concluded that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women. He has always maintained that he didn’t intentionally harass the women, saying he had simply fallen behind what was considered appropriate workplace conduct.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jake Offenhartz contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — The vast majority of California voters support expanding access to translated ballots for people who speak limited English, an effort that would likely increase turnout, a new poll found.

That finding comes from a poll released Monday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which conducted the survey in five languages — English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese — to capture voter sentiment in a state where more than a quarter of residents are foreign born.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that about 70% of California’s registered voters agreed that eligible voters who speak limited English should be provided with ballots translated into their preferred language. Support was strong among all age groups, races and ethnicities, as well as among Democrats and independent voters. Republicans were closely divided.

“I think in the country as a whole there’s a lot of debate and struggle over how inclusive a democracy we’re going to be and a lot of controversy over immigration, immigrant rights, immigrant inclusion,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies. “It’s timely just thinking about the question of inclusion of different groups — who feels fully American and is allowed to feel fully American in our political system.”

Schickler and others said that, according to the latest estimates, more than 3 million registered voters in California self-identify as limited-English proficient. As of February, just under 23 million Californians were registered to vote.

Under state and federal law, California is required to provide bilingual voting assistance to Spanish speakers. Nine counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara — must provide voting materials in at least one language other than English or Spanish.

Translated sample ballots and other assistance also must be made available in Spanish or other languages in counties or precincts where the state has determined at least 3% of the voting-age residents are members of a single-language minority and don’t understand English well enough to vote without assistance.

The Berkeley survey found that 82% of Democrats supported providing translated ballot materials to limited-English voters, as did 72% of voters registered as “no party preference.” Among Republicans, 45% supported providing the translated ballots, while 42% did not.

According to the poll, most California voters also favored a proposal that recently went before the state Legislature that would have allowed all limited-English-speaking communities that meet a minimum threshold in a county to receive translated versions of all voting materials.

Legislation to that effect, SB 266, proposed by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside), failed to pass out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. A more ambitious bill to expand access to translated ballots and materials, AB 884, passed the Legislature in 2024, but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor stated that while he supported expanding ballot access, the bill would have cost tens of millions of dollars not included in the budget.

Providing translated ballots to California voters with limited English proficiency is critical in a state that is home to such a diverse electorate — and is known for its complex state and local ballot measures, said Rosalind Gold of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

“Even folks who are very educated and native-born English speakers find trying to decipher the description of a ballot measure and what it means to be challenging,” Gold said.

Providing translated sample ballots and other election materials to voters does not go far enough, she said: The official ballots themselves, whether for Californians who vote by mail or those who vote at polling stations, should be provided in a voter’s preferred language.

“It is difficult to basically, kind of go back and forth between the ballot you’re going to be marking your choices on and a sample ballot or a facsimile ballot that’s in your native language,” Gold said. “When people can directly vote on a ballot that is in a language that they are more familiar with, it just demystifies the whole process.”

The Berkeley survey found that, among limited-English speakers who lacked access to translated election materials or were unsure if it was provided, 87% said they would be more likely to vote in future elections if they received a ballot in their preferred language. A similar number said receiving those translated ballots would make it easier for them to vote.

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has urged doctors in England to “vote no” in a ballot on industrial action which gets under way on Tuesday.

In a BBC interview, he urged resident doctors, the new name for junior doctors, to “work with the government” and warned strikes risked hampering the progress being made in the NHS.

He said it was in no-one’s interests for strikes to take place.

Last week it was announced resident doctors would be getting a 5.4% average pay rise this year – more than other doctors, nurses and teachers.

But resident doctors, who took part in 11 strikes in 2023 and 2024, said it was not enough to make up for below-inflation pay awards since 2008.

The union is urging members to vote for industrial action, with sources saying strikes would be the likely action taken.

This year’s pay rise comes after resident doctors were awarded rises worth 22% over the previous two years.

Streeting agreed to that deal shortly after coming into office, ending a dispute which had lasted more than a year.

Taking account of this year’s pay rise, it means the starting salary for a doctor fresh out of university has risen by £9,500 over the past three years to around £38,800, the government said.

But the British Medical Association (BMA) said even after the latest pay rise another 20% was needed to bring wages back to where they were in 2008.

Resident doctors’ committee co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt said: “We are urging doctors to vote yes to strike action.

“By voting yes they will be telling the government there is no alternative to fixing pay – this cannot wait for different fiscal circumstances and a healthier NHS. The answer is to fix it today.”

The vote on industrial action runs until 7 July.

Streeting said his door was always open but added there was no more money to increase salaries above the latest award.

And he said a fresh bout of strikes would put attempts to rebuild the NHS at risk.

Speaking to the BBC, Streeting said: ” I don’t think strikes are in their interests, in patients interests and I certainly don’t think it’s in the interest of the NHS overall.”

Streeting has often cited the deal he reached last year to end the previous round of strikes as evidence of the government’s ability to reform the health service and cut waiting lists.

Meanwhile, BMA sources said consultants were likely to start a dispute process over their 4% rise – the first step towards moving to an industrial action ballot.

Other staff including nurses, midwives and physios have been given a 3.6% increase. The Royal College of Nursing said it was “grotesque” nurses were getting less than doctors for the second year in a row.

The Scottish government has agreed a deal worth 8% over two years with health unions representing all staff apart from doctors and dentists. There have been no strikes by health workers in Scotland.