california voter

California voters are more inclined to back progressives running for office than mainstream Democrats, a new poll found, though a marked generational divide separates those who favor each camp.

Registered Democratic voters over 65 were overwhelmingly more inclined to support a candidate identified as a mainstream Democrat, whereas more voters under 40 favored those more aligned with the party’s left wing, including democratic socialists.

The results, from a new poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times, illustrate the highly visible midterm-season debates unfolding within the Democratic Party over age, ideology and the party’s future.

“There’s particular frustration among the younger voting population,” said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. “Their views of mainstream Democrats are not that positive, and that’s a long-term problem, I think, for the Democratic Party.”

The poll asked voters about how they perceived candidates described as a progressive, democratic socialist, mainstream Democrat, Republican and MAGA supporter. Voters were asked whether each label made them more inclined or less inclined to back a given candidate, or if they believed there was not much difference or had no opinion.

Among all California voters, a candidate described as “progressive” drew the broadest support — besting both mainstream Democrats and Republicans, as well as democratic socialists and members of President Trump’s MAGA movement. At 40%, support for progressive candidates registered just two percentage points above support for democratic socialists and within the poll’s margin of error, though fewer people felt negatively toward progressives than democratic socialists.

Among registered Democrats, the survey found 60% said they would be inclined to support a candidate identified as progressive; 58% felt the same when asked about a democratic socialist and 48% about a mainstream party member.

The polling offers a glimpse into how California voters feel about democratic socialism, the brand of liberal politics popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

The views among all California voters were split, with 38% saying they would be more inclined to support a candidate labeled as a democratic socialist and 38% saying they would be less inclined. That makes the concept both more polarizing and more popular than the idea of a mainstream Democrat.

“To us, it’s honestly an incredibly good thing to hear that by and large, California voters see democratic socialism as a preferable option,” said Misha Kesselman, who leads membership coordination at the California Democratic Socialists of America.

“Being only two percent behind a progressive Democrat is the perfect place for us to be and for our organization to organize from,” Kesselman added. “I don’t see this as our ceiling; this is a great floor for us to start running from.”

Notably, more voters, 36%, said they were less inclined to support a mainstream Democrat than those who said they’d be more inclined, 29%. Twenty-seven percent showed indifference, however, possibly demonstrating that most voters would be fine supporting them in a general election, said Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California.

The results could reflect a shift in labeling as much as in politics, Grose said, noting that most California Democrats now refer to themselves as progressive, a term that was not as popular 20 years ago, regardless of policy differences.

“Progressive Democrat in California has really in some ways become a mainstream Democrat, and then ‘mainstream’ is often associated with Washington,” Grose said, referring to the more moderate party establishment.

As the two parties compete for control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, the rise of democratic socialist ideas within the Democratic party has set off a debate among left-leaning leaders and voters about how best to counter Trump’s cultural dominance, appeal to disillusioned voters and create a winning presidential strategy for 2028.

The split does not fully fall along generational lines, but it often overlaps with the growing push by some younger candidates to oust veteran lawmakers, a debate over experience and seniority versus fresh blood.

Republicans have used the phenomenon as a key line of attack, as Trump and others have labeled Democrats as communists and extremists. In recent weeks, Trump argued that Democrats want to “destroy the traditional American way of life.”

“Sadly, young people have not been taught the truth about socialism and communism. It’s a dangerous road, and this is one of our efforts to make sure people know that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Saturday on Fox News, after launching a website last week dedicated to the idea that socialism and communism have failed.

Meanwhile, many establishment Democrats fear that a far-left candidate would be unable to win a general presidential election and worry a swing in that direction could jeopardize the party’s chances in 2028. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he does not support the Democratic Socialists of America agenda, further underscoring internal divisions.

Democratic socialism generally centers on an anti-capitalist agenda, including higher taxes for the wealthy and universal healthcare. Many progressive candidates support policy ideas backed by socialists but do not identify themselves as such.

A handful of high-profile progressive primary wins against Democrats backed by the establishment has supercharged the conversation in recent weeks, including this month in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, where progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated a moderate opponent.

But progressives have lost elsewhere, including in Wisconsin, where democratic socialist Francesca Hong last week was defeated in the gubernatorial primary by David Crowley, the more moderate Milwaukee County executive.

California was not host to that type of showdown this year, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, though progressive by national standards, was viewed by many left-leaning voters as a safer or more moderate primary choice. He faces Republican Steve Hilton in November.

In Los Angeles, however, the mayor’s race between incumbent Democrat Karen Bass and democratic socialist Nithya Raman is set to draw national attention. A handful of progressive candidates also advanced in House races, including Randy Villegas, who is challenging Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford); Mai Vang, challenging Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento); and Angela Gonzales-Torres, challenging Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Vang identifies as a democratic socialist.

The new polling also showed a generational divide among Republican voters: A higher share of older voters than younger said they would be more inclined to back a MAGA supporter, though all ages favored the Republican category over MAGA.

Seventy percent of GOP voters said a Republican label would make them more inclined to support a candidate, and 46% said the same of a MAGA label. Sixteen percent said they would be less inclined to vote for a candidate with a MAGA label and 29% said it didn’t make much difference.

Among California voters who eschew both the Democratic and Republican parties, either registered as no party preference or with other parties, a progressive candidate drew the most favorable reaction, but they also showed more support for a democratic socialist than a mainstream Democrat.

Those voters were not positively inclined toward right-leaning candidates, with 15% responding favorably to Republicans and 7% to MAGA.

In California, Democrats account for nearly 45% of all registered voters, compared to 25% who are Republican and almost 23% who don’t belong to either party, according the California Secretary of State’s office.

Whether voters’ shifting preferences for the progressive or democratic socialist labels translate into any different policy action from those who are elected is an open question, Grose said.

“The labels are changing things… but it’s not clear yet if it’s changing the actual ideology of voters and elected officials,” Grose said. “What the elected officials do in office who are Democrats, that remains to be seen.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Tired of budget stalemates, deficits and continuous acrimony in the state Capitol, California voters in 2010 started taking action to temper political gridlock and loosen the grip of entrenched special interests.

They approved statewide ballot measures to create an independent congressional redistricting commission, taking that power away from self-interested Sacramento lawmakers, as well as a new “top-two” primary system intended to stifle the power of the major political parties and provide more representative, less hyperpartisan candidates with a greater chance of victory.

Now, in an era of even more bitter divisions in the state and nation, those reforms face severe threats.

Last month, supporters of a proposal to repeal the state’s current primary system, in which the two candidates in state and congressional elections who receive the most votes move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation, received permission to gather voter signatures to place the measure on the 2028 ballot.

In November, Californians voted to temporarily scrap the congressional districts that were crafted by a voter-approved independent commission and instead replace them by ones approved by Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento. The move, aimed at giving Democrats an edge in the November midterm election, was in response to President Trump urging GOP state leaders, notably in Texas, to alter their districts to boost Republican numbers in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 election.

“In the olden times, California liked to see itself as the epicenter of good-government reform,” said Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

But the sense of optimism when voters approved these reforms has faded, she said, because of the divisiveness cultivated by Trump but also because of polarization that predates him.

“There’s no world in which you can look at California or any other state in 2026 and say it looks like 2010,” Levinson said. “We, the public, speak to each other in different ways. Politicians talk to each other in different ways. … It feels to me like we talk a lot more about triage than we do about building a shining city on a hill. It’s a different universe.”

But others question the effectiveness of the California’s good-government reforms and merits of the self-glorification that followed.

“It’s not clear that any of these reforms helped elect more moderates or limit polarization,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “Reformers may have over-promised in the early 2010s what election reform could actually do to improve the lives of Californians. And Californians did not fully appreciate the unintended consequences of reforms enacted with even the best of intentions.”

The efforts to claw back the 2010 reforms occurs at a time of declining trust in institutions and during a fragile moment in the nation’s democracy. Trump continues to push debunked claims that the 2020 election was rigged, as well as other voting misconduct conspiracies that often focus on California.

In a prime-time speech last month, the president again raised concerns about the length of time it took California elections officials to count ballots in the June 2 primary.

“It took a month to count the votes,” he said. “I wonder what they were doing.”

Lauded by civic groups, the good-government reforms were championed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and funded by major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr.

Both of the state’s major political parties as well as prominent politicians and several labor unions opposed the efforts when they were placed on the 2010 ballot.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former state GOP chairwoman, is among those who believe the temporary pause in independent redistricting that voters approved in November will not be temporary. And she said the top-two primary is a failed experiment.

“Speaking as a Republican, I just don’t feel that it has served us well at all,” she said. “Not only has it locked us out of many general election ballots, but it has also not moderated Sacramento at all.”

California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks, who supported the suspension of independent redistricting, agreed with Millan Patterson about the top-two primary.

“The current top-two system has failed to deliver on what its supporters promised,” he said. “It’s well past time to review, revise and maybe even repeal it.”

Hicks expressed fears earlier this year that the top-two primary would result in two Republican gubernatorial candidates advancing to the November ballot in a strongly Democratic state because of a sprawling and splintered Democratic field.

Hicks’ rare public move urging low-polling Democratic candidates, which included every minority candidate of color in the race, to consider their viability sparked widespread controversy during the primary.

The tension was heightened by a controversial USC debate selection process that would have resulted in no candidates of color taking the stage. (The debate was canceled less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place.)

Ultimately, the June primary resulted in the same outcome Californians have seen since the top-two primary was approved — a gubernatorial general election contest between a Democrat and a Republican. Xavier Becerra, a former Biden Cabinet member, and Steve Hilton, a GOP strategist and television commentator, will face off in November.

Still, a bipartisan coalition is striving to rescind the top-two primary system, which has created many noteworthy intraparty races, such as U.S. Senate contests between Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange in 2016, and incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state Sen. Kevin de León of Los Angeles in 2018, all Democrats.

In Congress, independent redistricting and the top-two primary created a brutal 2012 contest between veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman in the San Fernando Valley. Four years later, veteran Bay Area Rep. Mike Honda was toppled by fellow Democrat Ro Khanna, now viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate.

This year, a combination of the redrawing of the state’s congressional districts and the top-two primary means Republican Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona is battling with Republican Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim Hills.

On July 14, Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced that the proposal by veteran Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio — also backed by Republicans such as former state GOP Chair Ron Nehring — has 180 days to gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters to qualify the effort for the November 2028 ballot. If approved by voters, the top-two primary would be repealed and the system would revert to its prior version, insuring every qualified political party could have a candidate advance in the primary to the general election.

Maviglio argued that the top-two primary has failed to deliver on its promises to reduce partisanship and budget deficits in Sacramento.

“It’s gotten worse, not better,” he said. “I find it’s hard to make that argument if you look at what’s coming out of the Legislature the last 10 years.”

Supporters of the top-two primary repudiated these arguments and vowed to challenge the title of the proposed 2028 ballot measure about the state’s primary, arguing it would disenfranchise 5.4 million Californians who are not registered with either major political party.

“Voters passed Proposition 14 [which created the top-two primary] to take control away from party insiders and put it in the hands of the people,” said Cara McCormick, campaign manager of More Choice California, a group opposing the top-two primary being rescinded. “This initiative does the opposite. It takes away the rights of millions of California voters and gives them back to political parties. The least voters deserve is a ballot title that says so.”

Abel Maldonado, who served as lieutenant governor under Schwarzenegger and backed both 2010 reforms, staunchly supported the top-two primary as a response to a historic state government shutdown because of the failure of lawmakers to approve a balanced budget.

“Some of us thought that a complete open primary top two would create a system [that elects] people who were open-minded, pragmatic and had common sense,” he said. “It has happened in some races, but in other areas it has not.”

Maldonado said that he disagrees with returning to the prior system, in which political parties could opt to allow only voters affiliated with them to cast ballots in their primaries. But he said the current system ought to be tweaked, allowing voters to cast ballots for a candidate of any political party in a primary, with a candidate from each party moving onto the general election.

Schwarzenegger did not respond to a request for comment. But his prior comments, as well his efforts to end gerrymandering across the nation since leaving office, have made clear that his views have not changed.

“Of course the politicians want to undo reform that is good for the people and not for the politicians,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement earlier this year after the “Undo the Top Two” ballot measure was proposed. “They will always choose to move the goal posts instead of performing better.”

After California Democrats sought to redraw the state’s congressional districts last year, Schwarzenegger posted a picture of himself on X working out wearing a T-shirt that said “Terminate Gerrymandering,” a reference to one of his hit films.

Munger said he hoped groups he worked with to pass these reforms such as Common Cause and the California League of Women Voters would stay “true to their principles” and defend them when they “are under assault.”

“It was disappointing they stayed on the sidelines during last year’s fight over independent redistricting, and they should not do so going forward,” said Munger, who spent more than $30 million opposing the November ballot measure to suspend independent redistricting. “In order for the citizens to trust their government, they must have confidence that our elections are fair and free.”

Maldonado, who lauded the work of California’s independent redistricting commission, said he believes California Democrats will make the temporary pause of independent drawing of district boundaries permanent.

“We as Republicans have zero say in redistricting, and as much as I like to say this is what I like to have, the Democrats control supermajorities in both houses, and they get to choose whatever the hell they want,” he said. “The only way they’ll return it is by an initiative process with the will of the voters.”

He said he supports a national effort to create independent redistricting in every state, but believes it has no chance of passage.

“That would be great. It would be a step in the right direction. I think voters would have more confidence in politicians,” Maldonado said. “But, I mean, in this polarized era, this notion — think about it. The fox is building the henhouse for the chickens.”

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

Esther Kim Varet has gotten a lot of questions recently from “depressed” liberals wondering whom they should vote for in November to represent them in the redrawn 40th Congressional District, which covers a large swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The Democratic art gallery owner placed third in last month’s closely watched primary for the seat, behind Republican incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona and Young Kim of Anaheim Hills. Calvert and Kim were pushed into the same district by last year’s Proposition 50 and will be the only two candidates facing off for the seat in November.

Kim Varet said her supporters have “obviously put a lot of thought into” which of the incumbents to support, but they have had a hard time swallowing the idea of voting for either. So she tells them why, “if we’re playing a kind of longer game,” they should vote for Kim.

She says Calvert is favored to win, so supporting Kim will “force both sides to spend more on this race” and reduce Republican spending on other races where Democrats still have a shot at beating a GOP incumbent. She says Calvert is “much more senior” than Kim, so ousting him would be “more significant.” And Calvert, as chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has funded Trump’s war in Iran and would be “morally the better target.”

In last month’s primary, Kim Varet and other Democratic candidates collectively won 42.9% of the district vote, compared with Calvert’s 34.9% and Kim’s 20.6%. If enough of those Democratic voters coalesced behind Kim, they could end Calvert’s 33-year run in Congress.

Whether they will, however, is unclear. Such “orphaned” voters — those left without a candidate of their party in a general election — are historically just as likely to abstain from voting or to vote based on far less strategic considerations. Californians created that dilemma more than a decade ago when they approved the top-two primary system that puts all candidates on the same ballot and only allows the top-two finishers to advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map under Proposition 50, said the backers of California’s primary system sold it years ago as a moderating force, where those orphaned voters would be encouraged to select the least partisan general election candidate.

But in reality, Mitchell said, “it doesn’t work that way.”

Voter decisions

Mitchell said intraparty matchups in the past have shown 35% of orphaned voters or more simply abstain from voting in that race.

A recent analysis Mitchell conducted of races, including for seats in the state Legislature, showed such undervoting among orphaned voters in every intraparty race for a state Senate seat in 2024 — one clear example being the competitive and costly battle between two Democrats, Laura Richardson and Michelle Chambers, in South Los Angeles.

Many others vote based on “tertiary things,” he said, such as a candidate’s race or gender, or whether they seem local or a Washington insider.

“Traditionally, it isn’t so much about somebody being more moderate,” he said, in part because voters can’t always discern moderation among candidates of an opposing party. “Republicans might be able to tell the difference between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican, but Democrats can’t tell the difference.”

Incumbency can also be a drag on a candidate if orphaned voters dislike their track record, even if their opponent is even further from those voters politically. As one example, Mitchell pointed to rural, more conservative parts of the state going for Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein when he challenged her in 2018, despite his running to her left.

“You’re like, how in the hell did these rural counties vote for Kevin de León? And it was because there were a lot of Republicans who, if they were going to vote in the U.S. Senate race, just wanted to vote against Feinstein,” Mitchell said.

Katelyn Stauffer, an associate politics professor at University of Georgia who has studied voter behavior in top-two races in California, said people “like to make decisions that are easy,” and “for most people, the ultimate cue is, does this person share my party?”

When party doesn’t differentiate candidates, voters tend to rely on other “simple cues or heuristics,” Stauffer said.

For example, based on her research, she said, women regardless of party and Democrats regardless of gender are more likely to vote for a woman in such scenarios.

Candidate messaging

Candidates could consider moderating their message to attract orphaned voters, though that can be perilous.

In a statement to The Times, Calvert accused Kim of trying to woo orphaned voters with a more bipartisan message, as evidence she is untrustworthy.

“Young Kim has bragged to some voters that she’s a moderate who censured President Trump. She’s then claimed to others that she [is] a 100% Trump Republican. It’s obvious Young Kim will say anything to try and hold on to her job, which is why voters from every party just can’t trust her,” Calvert said.

He said he has “been a consistent conservative in Congress for many years and that’s not going to change.” He also claimed to be “one of the most effective members of Congress,” saying he has secured funding to reduce traffic congestion, fight fires and improve water infrastructure in his district — things “voters from all parties want.”

Chris Pack, a spokesman for Kim, denied that Kim is changing her tune depending on her audience, and dismissed Calvert’s claims of serving his constituents well, calling him a “do-nothing dinosaur” who has failed to improve his constituents’ lives for decades.

“The truth is he’s had more than enough time to deliver for the people of California, and he hasn’t,” Pack said.

Similar intraparty battles are playing out in other congressional races between Democrats.

In the 4th Congressional District, which stretches through the Napa and Sacramento valleys, Republican voters could help decide between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Thompson — who has been in Congress since 1999 and sits on the powerful Ways and Means Committee — won 41% of the vote in the primary, while Jones won 22.2%. A slate of six Republican candidates collectively won 36.1%.

Jones, who backs progressive measures to expand Medicare and cut working-class taxes, said he hopes voters of all stripes look beyond political labels and see that he is the only candidate in the race who will take on big utilities, healthcare lobbyists and other big-business interests who fund Thompson’s campaigns.

“I want voters to realize that there’s a real choice in front of them,” he said.

Thompson said he is focused on doing his job, introducing himself to voters in the new parts of his district, reconfigured under Proposition 50, and “figuring out how I can work with them” to address their concerns. He said there is “a lot of commonality” among voters of all parties who want “good roads, clean air, water, strong [agriculture], safe communities,” and that he’s been endorsed by local Republicans and Democrats alike.

Thompson also rejected Jones’ criticism of his fundraising, saying he has “done a lot of good work that’s not necessarily in the interests” of those who have contributed to his campaign. He also said fundraising is necessary in a race against a wealthy opponent like Jones, who donated millions of dollars to his own campaign.

In the 7th Congressional District, Republican voters will help decide between incumbent Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) — who has been in Congress since replacing her late husband there in 2005 — and her challenger from the left, progressive Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang.

Vang won 31.2% of the primary vote. Matsui won 29.1%. Two Republican candidates together won 37%.

In a statement to The Times, Matsui said November’s general election “will be a significantly different race because there will be many more voters that didn’t vote in the primary,” and that she will “work harder to court voters by meeting them where they are and informing them how I’ve delivered on my promises,” including on healthcare, public safety and jobs.

Vang did not respond to a request for comment but has previously accused Matsui of not delivering on her promises for decades.

“After 20 years, families are living paycheck to paycheck, people of my generation are no closer to owning a home, and you still can’t afford a doctor visit,” Vang said last month.

Party involvement

Political parties have traditionally shunned meddling in races where they lack a candidate of their own, experts said. They sometimes endorse in races where two members of their own party are facing off against each other, but not always.

Nick Poche, a Republican National Committee spokesperson, said his organization is largely focused on three races in which Republicans are either looking to hold or win seats from Democrats: the 13th Congressional District, where Republican Kevin Lincoln is challenging Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced); the 22nd Congressional District, where Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is trying to fend off Democrat Randy Villegas; and the 48th Congressional District, where Republican Jim Desmond is facing off against Democrat Marni von Wilpert for the seat of retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall).

He called the Democrats in those races “radical socialists and emblematic of California’s far-left failures,” and said his party would be campaigning against them. But he declined to speak to the Calvert-Kim race, or the races in which two Democrats are facing off.

The California Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said his party is focused on “fulfilling the promise of Proposition 50” to flip five seats to help his party win control of the House, and is also focused on three competitive races: those for Valadao’s and Issa’s seats, and one in the 6th Congressional District, where Democrat Richard Pan is taking on Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin.

Hicks said the party will not endorse Calvert or Kim, whom he called “two rotten choices,” but has endorsed incumbents Matsui and Thompson in their races against fellow Democrats because they have “been leading” on issues of affordability and access to healthcare and “are best positioned to be reelected.”

Jones scoffed at his party endorsing his opponent. “Are we really excited that the Democratic machine keeps trying to choose our electeds for us?” he said.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders of the California Legislature plan to approve a proposed constitutional amendment this week that would ask voters to give them more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The proposal 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.

“Putting money aside to protect ourselves from future uncertainties isn’t just good government; it’s common sense,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is strong and resilient, but we’re not immune to economic headwinds. At a time when our essential services are under pressure, we have a responsibility to safeguard the programs and investments that Californians rely on.”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20, which Democrats are calling the “Save for California’s Future Act,” could receive push back from taxpayer advocates.

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 into consideration annual tax proceeds and changes to the population and cost of living. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

With few exceptions, the limit applies to most appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the rainy day fund and other reserves. California voters have also capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund to 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

Since taking office, Newsom has argued that it doesn’t make sense for savings to count as spending under state law.

State budget revenue is subject to dramatic swings from year to year based on stock market activity. The law, Newsom has said, prevents the state from saving more money in good years to stave off cuts to programs in bad years.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short term reserve, called the “Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account,” from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

“Californians live by a simple, bipartisan truth: set money aside when times are good so you’re ready when they’re not,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said in a statement. “The Save For California’s Future Act is what responsible leadership looks like — and future taxpayers will thank us for it.”

The measure could incentivize Democrats 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 would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

The measure is slated for a vote Thursday. If approved by two-thirds of lawmakers, voters will consider the proposal on the November ballot.

Today, we discuss political jockeying, litigation and Hail Mary passes.

There’s so much going on these days …

Indeed.

Between the war with Iran, the World Cup and President Trump slapping his filigreed (emphasis greed) name on everything in sight, I’ve completely lost track of the fight for control of Congress.

Well, now that the California gubernatorial primary is in the rear view, let’s catch up. The midterm election is not until November, of course. But a fierce political competition, aimed at skewing the result, has been underway since last summer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It started in Texas, where Trump strong-armed Republican lawmakers into redrawing their congressional map in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House. That led California voters to pass an eye-for-an-eye measure aimed at boosting Democratic prospects.

Other states joined the skirmishing, capped by Virginia, where voters in April approved new political lines aimed at netting Democrats as many as four additional seats.

For a short time, it looked as though Trump’s move had backfired and Democrats might actually come out ahead, at least on paper, by a seat or two.

And then?

And then the courts stepped in.

In a 4-3 decision in May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s new congressional map, ruling that the Democratic-run legislature had violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional measure on the ballot.

But the more significant legal decision came a week prior, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act, freeing several Southern states to hastily redraw a number of congressional districts to Republicans’ advantage.

What’s the bottom line?

It looks as though the GOP has come out ahead, but not by more than a handful of seats, give or take. It’s important to note that all that cartographic competition offers no guarantee of success.

“Cartographic competition?”

Those gerrymandered maps were drawn for the express purpose of helping out one party or the other, but the partisan manipulation doesn’t make all those redrawn districts a lock come November.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation calling for a special election to redraw the state’s congressional map

(Godofredo A. Vasquez / Associated Press)

In California, for instance, the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao — a perennial Democratic target — remains highly competitive. In Texas, GOP lawmakers redrew their map assuming the substantial Latino support that Trump enjoyed in 2024 would carry over to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm election. That seems increasingly less likely, given shifting Latino attitudes, which means at least two of those redrawn Texas seats are more competitive than Republicans would like.

Bottom line, where does that leave things in the fight for control of the House?

There are no certainties …

… Beyond death and taxes. Understood.

It still seems more likely than not that Democrats will win the House in November.

They just need to gain three seats. Going back more than half a century, the out party (which is to say the one not in the White House) has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in the midterm election. So Democrats have that going for them.

President Trump kicked off a redistricting battle by strong-arming Texas into redrawing its congressional map.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Also, more significantly, Trump’s approval ratings — in a word — stink. There’s a very strong correlation between a president’s standing in polls and his party’s performance, given midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House. Since disgruntled voters are more likely to turn out, that means the out party typically gains seats.

“It would be one thing if Republicans were trying to buck a historical trend and they were doing so strengthened by a popular Republican president,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the authoritative nonpartisan political guide Inside Elections. “But that’s simply not the case. … [Trump] is less popular than any president heading into a midterm election in a very long time.”

What about control of the Senate?

Advantage Republicans.

How so?

Part of it is straight-up math. Democrats need to flip four seats. There are 35 Senate races being decided this fall, but only 10 or so are even remotely competitive. Nearly all are in states that Trump carried.

That said, things are looking up considerably for Democrats from where they were a few months ago.

Oh?

There’s much less correlation between presidential approval and the outcome of Senate races. Still, Trump is putting up some pretty strong headwinds that Republicans will have to overcome this fall, including in battleground states such as Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. (His gaseous effusions — “I love the inflation,” “Affordability is a con job” — are not helpful, to put it mildly, when gasoline and hamburger are costing hard-pressed voters an arm and a leg, respectively.)

And Democrats have done about as well as they could have hoped in landing their preferred candidates in the Republican-leaning states of Alaska, Ohio and Iowa, making those contests far more competitive than they would have been.

What about Maine?

That started out as Democrats’ top target this election cycle. Five-term incumbent Susan Collins has the distinction of being the only Republican senator running in a state that Kamala Harris won. The race is still considered a toss-up.

But the nomination of Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran with a history that is, um, problematic — a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol he did or did not apprehend; extramarital sexting; coarse online commentary — could turn the race into more of a referendum on the Democrat than either Trump or Collins.

And Texas?

You mean the boneyard of Democratic dreams?

It’s been decades since the party won a statewide race in Texas, despite all manner of attempts. (The “dream team” of a white/Black/Latino slate; the streaking-comet candidacies of Beto O’Rourke and Wendy Davis, who both flamed out short of victory.)

Democrats are giddy again, this time over 37-year-old state Sen. James Talarico, who’s built a national following with his telegenic, Christian-infused progressive platform. More pertinent, he’s running against a singularly flawed Republican nominee, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose dubious resume is muddied with a felony indictment, impeachment by the GOP-run Texas House and allegations of repeated adultery.

Still, it’s Texas. Electing Talarico would be like connecting on one of those last-second, desperation, alley-oop passes in the end zone. Not impossible.

But don’t bet the ranch.

SACRAMENTO — Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a major advantage over Republican Steve Hilton as the race for California governor heads toward the November election, a new poll shows.

The two candidates topped a crowded field of gubernatorial hopefuls in the June 2 primary, earning them the opportunity to face-off in the general election.

Among registered voters in the state, 52% supported Becerra in a head-to-head matchup against Hilton, who was backed by 31%, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll which was co-sponsored by The Los Angeles Times. The remainder were undecided.

“It looks very much like a traditional, partisan-based general election, with most of the Democrats, over 80%, behind Becerra as the campaign starts,” said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “Even though Hilton has over 80% of the Republicans, the Democrats outnumber Republicans by 20 points in the state, and that gives the Democratic candidates a huge advantage, which Becerra is clearly taking advantage of in this election.”

The survey of California voters was conducted before the primary, from May 19-24.

The poll found that Democratic and Republican voters were extremely loyal to their party’s candidate. Among Democrats, 82% said they would support Becerra in the general election, while 84% of Republicans said the same about Hilton.

Becerra also had an edge among voters registered as no party preference or registered with other parties — who make up almost a third of the state electorate. Among those voters, 43% backed Becerra, 28% supported Hilton and 29% were undecided, the poll showed.

Along age, gender, racial and geographic lines, voters preferred Becerra to Hilton nearly across the board. The only geographic region where voters preferred Hilton to Becerra are those in the North Coast/Sierra region, which makes up about 2% of the electorate, DiCamillo said.

Hilton, who served as an advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron before immigrating to the United States, in April secured the endorsement of President Trump, which helped him gain enough support among Republican voters to outpace his GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

More than a third of Republicans, 37%, said Trump’s endorsement made them more likely to support Hilton. But while it helped Hilton consolidate the Republican vote in the primary, helping him finish in second place, it will likely hurt him in the general election, DiCamillo said. Trump remains deeply unpopular in California; the poll released Thursday showed 69% of voters disapprove of the president’s performance while 29% approve.

“A majority of Californians have a very strong negative view of the president, so Hilton’s backing by the president will not be nearly as beneficial to him in the general as it was in the primary,” he said.

A former Biden Cabinet secretary, state attorney general and longtime congressman from Los Angeles, Becerra had been wallowing in the low single-digits in public opinion polls less than three months ago. His fortunes changed when former Rep. Eric Swalwell, one of the Democratic front-runners, dropped out of the governor’s race after he was accused of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies.

Democratic voters and interest groups quickly coalesced behind Becerra, who was seen as a steady candidate with a long resume in California politics and a record of fighting the Trump administration. In two months, he went from polling at 5% in a March IGS poll to 25% in a late May poll and finishing first in the unofficial primary vote count.

With 91% of ballots tallied as of Wednesday afternoon, Becerra led with 27.9% of the vote compared to 25% for Hilton, according to the Associated Press, which declared Becerra and Hilton the two winners. Billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmentalist Tom Steyer was in third place with 22.5% — knocking the Democrat out of contention for the November election.

DiCamillo said Swalwell’s dropping out of the race “really gave Becerra an opening and he capitalized on it.”

The poll also showed that in the end, “Becerra was the only one of the major candidates who ended the primary race with a favorable image among the overall electorate, even in the face of all the negative ads that Steyer was running” against him, DiCamillo said.

Just before the primary election, 44% of likely primary voters surveyed had a favorable view of Becerra compared to 38% who viewed him unfavorably.

Hilton and Steyer were upside down — 31% had a favorable opinion of Hilton compared to 38% unfavorable, and 39% had a favorable view of Steyer while 43% saw him unfavorably.

Though Steyer had aggressively courted progressive voters and secured the backing of left-wing individuals and groups like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-San Jose) and Our Revolution, a group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the final IGS poll before the election showed more progressive voters ended up backing Becerra.

Among those who self-identified as progressive, 39% said they would support Becerra while 29% preferred Steyer, according to the late May survey.

“It’s really one of the factors that was responsible for Steyer’s campaign not being successful,” DiCamillo said. Progressive voters were “a target audience for Steyer, but Becerra was able to have an advantage there.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish among 8,578 registered California voters. The survey has a margin of error of 2% in either direction.

After the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral primary, developer Rick Caruso looked to have a surprising, and sizable, lead over then-U.S. Rep. Karen Bass.

The morning after the polls closed, Caruso was ahead by 5 percentage points — 42% to Bass’ 37% — and the former Republican called the early results “a victory story.”

But that lead did not last as the vote count continued. By the time all votes were tabulated two weeks after election day, Bass had come out on top, with 43% of the vote compared with Caruso’s 36%.

Welcome to the postelection vote-count slog in California, where tight races are often impossible to call even when the initial results seem clear-cut.

The California governor’s race still has not been called even though Republican Steve Hilton has been the top voter-getter and Democrat Xavier Becerra has been in second place since election night. The same is true in the battle over who will face Bass in the mayoral election: reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, who is now in second place, or L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is in third place.

At this point in the vote tally, “everybody has an opinion and very few facts” about what the results will be, said Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist.

“Nobody in politics wants to be patient,” Murphy said, adding that California has “adopted a system that’s slow and deliberate.”

It’s not just the L.A. mayor’s race where mail-in ballots have swung election outcomes. Other contests, including those for highly competitive Orange County congressional districts and L.A. City Council seats, have come down to extremely narrow margins that have shifted long after election day.

On election night in November 2024, just over 1,000 votes separated Democrat Dave Min and Republican Scott Baugh in their bid for the 47th Congressional District, with Baugh enjoying a slight lead.

But, ultimately, as more ballots were counted, Min pulled ahead. He ended up winning by about 10,000 votes.

Similarly, in the race between Democrat Derek Tran and then-incumbent Michelle Steel to represent Congressional District 45, it took until Nov. 27 to determine that Tran had won the contest by just over 650 votes.

In 2022, the race between then-incumbent Gil Cedillo and community activist Eunisses Hernandez for L.A. City Council was similarly unsettled. On election day, Cedillo had a comfortable lead with 56% of the vote. But two weeks later, Hernandez ended up in the lead with 54% of the vote to Cedillo’s 46%.

Experts say confirming the final spot in the mayor’s race could still take several more days, depending on how close the contest becomes and how many ballots still need to be counted. Only an estimated 62% of ballots from the city of Los Angeles had been counted as of Thursday morning.

“Of the 40% remaining, or outstanding, there could still be a chance that there would be a significant return of more left-leaning votes, which would certainly benefit Raman,” said Pete Peterson, dean of the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University.

Late results tend to favor Democrats — as seen in the 2022 Bass-Caruso contest — as Democrats tend to be more likely to vote by mail, a system that accepts ballots up to seven days after election day as long as they are postmarked by that Tuesday. And this year, Democratic voters held on to their ballots longer amid an unsettled governor’s race, which could further boost that phenomenon.

“The major difference between ’26 and ‘22, you had two candidates versus three,” Peterson said. “Mathematically, it’s a different situation.”

Three experts The Times interviewed said Raman still had a chance to pass Pratt, but it seemed more likely at this point that Pratt would survive and challenge Bass in November.

The remaining ballots to count, even if they are overwhelmingly left-leaning, will probably be split between Raman and Bass, which means Raman needs to outperform not just Pratt but Bass to make such a comeback possible, Peterson said.

He called her chances of ousting Pratt “dastardly remote … but it’s not impossible.”

In L.A. County, the registrar of voters reported late Wednesday that officials estimate they still have about 713,000 ballots to process and count, which primarily includes vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by election day but not yet received, as well as ballots returned to drop boxes and vote centers on election day. The registrar only made countywide estimations, which includes a much larger pool than L.A. city voters who will decide the mayor’s race.

Kamy Akhavan, the managing director at the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, said there’s a theory circulating among pundits that ballots submitted later are going to break more progressive, meaning they’ll be more friendly to Raman.

“Whether there is enough of them to tilt the outcome in favor of Raman taking a second place position, right now, it seems unlikely,” he said.

Pratt is pulling from the same electorate in Los Angeles that voted for President Trump and could snag a few more voters who are angry about the state of the city. But his lead very well could shrink a bit as more Democrats’ ballots are counted, Murphy said.

“Nithya, she’ll probably go up because there’s going to be a fair amount of Democratic votes and she’ll get her chunk, but will she catch Pratt? You can extrapolate it either way,” Murphy said.

A similar left-leaning shift also occurred as more ballots were counted in November 2022 when Bass and Caruso faced off in the general election. Results on election night wavered between the two candidates, but by the following morning Caruso had a thin lead with 51.25% of the counted votes. Bass sat at 48.75%.

Caruso remained in the lead — though it continued to shrink — as the week dragged on, but by Saturday, Bass had pulled ahead with 50.78% of the counted vote. Caruso had fallen to 49.22%.

Her momentum continued to grow as more ballots were processed. Eight days after polls closed the following week, the Associated Press called the race for Bass. At that point, she led Caruso by six points with 53% of the vote.

The final tally would have her winning almost 55% of the vote.

California officials have worked to dispel rumors and falsehoods about slow election results — explaining that it’s part of the process to accurately count and confirm ballots, especially those mailed in — though there has been a growing push to expedite results to build voter trust.

The process has been particularly slow in L.A. County, though experts say that is mostly a result of the county’s massive voter base. Mail-in ballots are also heavily scrutinized with workers verifying signatures and giving voters a chance to remedy the situation if their signature doesn’t match, a process that takes time.

“They’re using that level of care because they’re supposed to — that’s their protocol — and also because it could make a big difference,” Akhavan said. “We’ve seen some elections in Southern California decided by single digits. And that just means this is going to take time. That can be very frustrating, even annoying, to Angelenos.”

California voters are deeply divided over the trustworthiness of state elections heading into Tuesday’s primary, with most Democrats but less than half of Republicans expressing confidence in the electoral process, according to a new poll.

The polarized view follows a years-long campaign by President Trump and his Republican allies to question the legitimacy of American elections, especially in California and other blue states. It also follows robust efforts from liberal leaders, elections officials and voting rights experts to denounce Trump’s claims as baseless.

Overall, registered voters in the state — which skews heavily Democratic — expressed confidence in local election officials by a 2-to-1 margin, with 65% expressing confidence and 31% expressing a lack of confidence, according to the poll released Tuesday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

However, those figures shift dramatically when sorted by political party, and even more when parsed by partisan leaning.

For example, 79% of Democratic voters expressed confidence in local officials running a secure and fair election, compared to 62% of independent voters and 42% of Republican voters, the poll found.

While 82% of voters who identified as strongly liberal expressed confidence, just 38% of voters who identified as strongly conservative did so.

A volunteer assists Melani Hurwitz at a polling location Monday at the Cal State Long Beach Walter Pyramid.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

“It’s clearly a partisan issue, and it is being promoted by the president and others who are his followers,” said Mark DiCamillo, the director of Berkeley IGS polls. “Strong conservatives and the Republicans are the least confident, and a lot of them are saying [they are] not at all confident. That’s a pretty extreme statement.”

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said he expected Republican confidence to be even lower given Trump’s decade of undermining trust in elections, especially in liberal, diverse states such as California. But he said neither Trump’s narrative nor public sentiment about election security — which generally shows voters are more confident “when their side wins” — reflects reality, which is that “our elections are administered well.”

“There’s very little evidence of manipulation or of fraud or even of incompetence,” Hasen said. “Anyone who looks objectively would see that there are numerous safeguards to ensure we have free and fair elections in California.”

Trump has long contended without evidence that voter fraud is pervasive among undocumented immigrants and in states, such as California, that use mail ballots, and blamed his 2020 loss to Joe Biden on such fraud despite experts rejecting the claim and Trump’s own allies and lawyers being unable to prove it.

A voter casts their vote inside the Westchester Family YMCA Annex on Monday.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Since returning to the White House last year, Trump has tried to implement strict new requirements for voter ID and proof of citizenship and to limit or bar mail-in voting, and called for greater federal or Republican Party control over state-run elections. In February, he said that “Republicans ought to nationalize the voting” in “at least 15 places” where they lose.

On Saturday, Trump falsely claimed that California doesn’t have any voting booths and only accepts mail ballots.

Democratic leaders, elections experts and voting rights advocates have all pushed back. They’ve backed their assurances that the state’s elections are safe with lawsuits to block Trump’s efforts to assert federal control. They also warn that his administration may try to intervene anyway, including by sending federal immigration agents to polling locations or intercepting or invalidating mailed ballots.

When Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 purporting to require voters to provide proof of citizenship, California sued, with a court blocking the policy while the litigation continues. When the Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber in September for refusing to hand over the state’s voter rolls, California won a dismissal in court. When Trump issued another executive order this March directing the U.S. Postal Service to take control of mail balloting, California sued again. That litigation is ongoing.

Last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill barring federal agents and other law enforcement from interfering with local and state elections officials or confiscating ballots, voter rolls or voting machines without a warrant. Newsom said California voters were experiencing “legitimate anxiety” over election integrity given the threats from the Trump administration and the recent actions of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — a MAGA-backed Republican candidate for governor who recently seized hundreds of thousands of ballots as part of what he said was an investigation into potential fraud in last year’s election.

An election worker collects extracted vote by mail ballots to be tallied at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Ballot Processing Center in City of Industry.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Newsom said he expects Trump to interfere with the upcoming election as well because “every single thing that Donald Trump is saying only suggests that he will do more, not less, to intimidate and to impact the outcome of this election,” but that the state stands ready to respond.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta last week said that his office is preparing for “all different types of scenarios” involving federal interference, from ballots being seized to immigration agents showing up at polling locations.

“We are currently monitoring any potential risks or threats, and we’re ready for any possibility,” he said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) last week blasted the U.S. Postal Service for issuing a proposed rule to implement Trump’s mail ballot changes, despite the ongoing litigation. In April, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) helped convene a pair of “shadow hearings” in California where fellow House Democrats and a panel of experts shot down Trump’s claims about widespread fraud and expressed confidence in state elections.

A Berkeley IGS Poll from a year ago found that California voters support requiring first-time voters to show ID to prove citizenship in order to register, and that most supported requiring a government ID every time a voter casts a ballot. However, another Berkeley IGS Poll from last month found that strong majorities of California voters believe American democracy is under attack or being “tested.”

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said that overall confidence, “despite a sometimes volatile state and national narrative,” was “gratifying.”

“Election officials take connection to their community seriously. We recognize that our job is to facilitate their voting experience, and that voter participation is key to election security,” Logan said. “Regardless of party affiliation, our role as election officials focuses on the function and process of ensuring the voice of the electorate is heard and that compliance with the election laws adopted in our state is achieved.”

Jesse Salinas, president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Elections Officials and the registrar of voters in Yolo County, said local elections officials are “proud to be a steady source of trust at a consequential moment,” and stand ready to “open our doors to any voter who wants to see firsthand how our elections work and to answer any questions they may have.”

Times staff writer Iris Kwok contributed to this report.

Corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes and other special interests have donated a record-shattering $79.6 million to independent committees focused on swaying the volatile California governor’s race ahead of the June 2 primary.

Many of the largest backers to these committees will have significant business interests in front of the state’s next governor and state agencies, with hopes of either strengthening a candidate aligned with their political priorities or undercutting those who oppose them.

“This is the first time I’ve ever seen IEs [or independent expenditures] have this kind of an impact on a governor’s race,” said veteran GOP strategist Martin Wilson, who has worked on every California gubernatorial contest since 1978 and worked on an outside effort backing San José Mayor Matt Mahan’s 2026 bid for governor. “It’s totally unprecedented.”

Election laws bar independent expenditure committees from communicating or coordinating with campaigns, allowing candidates to emphasize that they have no control over the money that pours into these outside groups. The wall between the two has long been viewed as performative and penetrable.

The greatest amount of outside spending has been directed at attacking billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, a leading Democrat in the race.

Nearly $32.3 million had been donated to opposing his candidacy as of Monday, according to the California Target Book, a nonpartisan political almanac, which tracks independent expenditure committees. Among the major donors are utility giant PG&E, a political action committee sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Assn. of Realtors’ independent expenditure committee, which combined have utility, business, property tax and building issues affected by lawmakers and regulators in the state capital.

Independent expenditures supporting Steyer’s bid for governor have been minimal compared with the record-breaking $212 million Steyer has donated to his own campaign as of Monday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Still, more than $1.4 million of outside money has been spent supporting his bid, largely by the California Nurses Assn., which shares his goal of creating single-payer healthcare.

Expenditure committees linked to Uber, the California Medical Assn., the kidney dialysis company DaVita and the California Dental Assn. contributed nearly $7.3 million to independent efforts backing former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) before he dropped out of the gubernatorial race in April because of sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

Several of those donors then coalesced behind former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra, who was struggling to connect with California voters before he surged to become a front-runner, recent opininon polls show. More than $13 million has been contributed to outside groups backing the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

The outside money has led to flashpoints in the race. Steyer points to corporations backing Becerra, such as a $500,000 Chevron donation to a group supporting him that was reported to state election officials on Thursday.

“The Becerra campaign was running out of gas until the latest half-million dollar influx from Chevron,” said Steyer spokesman Anthony York.

The message echoes a Steyer theme on the campaign trail — that candidates ought to be judged by who is supporting them and who is opposing them.

Becerra accused Steyer of misleading voters because the $500,000 from Chevron went to an independent expenditure committee supporting him that he has no control over. However, Becerra did receive a direct $39,200 contribution from the oil company to his campaign committee in June 2025.

“For him to say that I took the [$500,000] … that’s just an outright lie,” he said in a television interview this weekend. “It pains me to see that candidates for office believe that they have to descend to telling lies in order to gain favor with voters. If that’s what you do as a candidate, what will you do when you’re in the office?”

Steyer’s campaign, which used the Memorial Day weekend to attack Becerra with billboards highlighting high gas prices in Los Angeles and Fresno, said it was disingenuous for Becerra to feign ignorance of how the political system works.

“Chevron is charging Californians record gas prices on one hand and turning right around to spend $500,000 to elect Xavier Becerra with the other,” said Steyer spokesperson Danni Wang. “Now Becerra is playing semantic gymnastics trying to pretend voters are too stupid to understand how dark money in politics works. Californians aren’t buying it.”

Becerra’s campaign argued that such comments are the height of hypocrisy coming from a billionaire whose campaign is funded by his profits from a hedge fund that made investments that are opposed by many voters. Becerra said he continually took on oil companies when he served as California’s attorney general.

“Tom Steyer made his billions off fossil fuels and private prisons, then decided that qualified him to run California,” said Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland. “He’s now attacking the only candidate in this race who actually held Big Oil’s feet to the fire and beat [President] Trump 100 times as [state attorney general]. The irony would be funny if Tom’s checkbook weren’t so thick.”

Mahan, a moderate Democrat, has benefited from $21.7 million in spending by outside groups backing him, while $570,000 has been spent by independent committees opposing him, according to the Target Book. The donors who supported his bid are a who’s who of Silicon Valley, including venture capitalists Michael Moritz and L. John Doerr, Stripe Chief Executive Patrick Collinson and Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla. Other notable donors include billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran for Los Angeles mayor in 2022, as well as Griff Harsh V, the son of billionaire Meg Whitman, the unsuccessful 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee turned Democrat who once led EBay.

Despite that generous support, Mahan remains mired in the single digits in the polls. On Wednesday, billionaire Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings received a refund of $1 million he had donated to one of the independent expenditure committees supporting Mahan’s bid.

Hastings said he had not requested the money to be returned to him.

“I’m voting for Matt Mahan. I didn’t ask for any refund and they shouldn’t have done it,” he posted on X on Saturday. “Go Matt.”

Matt Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Back to Basics committee backing Mahan, said that he believes Mahan’s standing in the race is a reflection of a number of factors — an underwhelming contest as well as Mahan’s January entry into it and the fact that he was not well known statewide.

“He got in a little bit late and it was a big climb … with an apathetic electorate,” Rodriguez said. “Politics is all about money and timing — both the amount of time and being there at the right time.”

Mahan’s priorities, such as housing and homelessness improvements he oversaw in San José, had an impact on the campaign, the Democratic strategist said.

“Democrats have to perform, and if we are going to perform, we have to have results,” he said.

The only other candidate who saw seven figures in independent expenditure spending was Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who has been endorsed by Trump and is the leading GOP candidate in the race. More than $1.8 million has been spent opposing Hilton and $13,750 was spent supporting him.

SEIU California donated $250,000 to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Oscar Lopez, the union’s political director, said it has opposed Hilton, Mahan and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

“Each of these candidates represents a serious threat to the wages, rights and dignity of California’s working people,” Lopez said.

Hilton said the spending against him represents Democratic recognition of him as a threat.

“They know that they’re vulnerable. The Democratic machine understands they’ve got weak candidates and a terrible record,” he said in an interview. “They see me as outsider and change agent. The only argument they have — if you can call it an argument — is to endlessly repeat the words Trump and MAGA.”

Outside spending has grown exponentially after a voter-approved 2000 California ballot measure limited how much donors can contribute directly to candidates. For the current election, it’s $78,400 for the primary and the general election in the governor’s race.

But donors can contribute unlimited amounts to outside groups, which are formally called independent expenditure committees. Though such donations were already legal in California, they greatly increased in the state and across the nation after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that said limits on independent political spending by corporations, unions and other entities violated 1st Amendment free speech protections.

“It has been a steady increase in the amount of money going to outside groups,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA.

In California, independent expenditure groups set a record in 2010 when they spent about $25 million supporting then-gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. Largely union money, it was spent in the summer after the primary and was viewed as critical to stalling self-funding Republican billionaire Meg Whitman’s campaign. Brown ultimately won the race by 13 percentage points.

In the 2018 gubernatorial primary, records were once again broken by more than $26 million of outside spending, with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa being the biggest beneficiary. Charter school backers spent nearly $16 million on unsuccessful efforts to boost his campaign.

In addition to an enormous financial advantage over campaign committees, outside groups have the ability to trumpet highly provocative adversarial attacks without the candidate they support being blamed for the often controversial messaging.

“IEs are as free to go as negative as they want without that negativity boomeranging back to hurt the candidate,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

While communication between candidate campaigns and independent committees is forbidden, these rules are commonly circumvented using legal but obvious methods. One called “red boxing,” which Becerra employed earlier this year, literally puts messages inside red-lined boxes on candidate websites that their campaign strategists would like to see outside groups highlight.

“There are technical rules that prevent certain types of communication, but it’s easy enough to communicate in public and be on the same page on messaging,” Hasen said.

Among the major donors in the 2026 campaign are the California Chamber of Commerce, PG&E, the California Assn. of Realtors, the Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition PAC, the Pechanga Band of Indians, the California Nurses Assn., and corporations and leaders or founders of companies such as Meta, Google and Uber.

Californians for the People, an outside committee that has spent nearly $32.3 million opposing Steyer, is the most well-funded independent expenditure committee this year. Among it’s largest donors is JOBSPAC, a group sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, that has donated nearly $11.8 million to the effort.

“CalChamber is participating in an independent expenditure campaign because voters deserve to know more about Mr. Steyer,” said John Myers, a spokesman for the chamber. “His policy promises will cost billions, driving investment out of California and worsening the state’s affordability crisis.”

The Pechanga Band of Indians has spent $1.5 million on pro-Becerra efforts.

“Secretary Becerra has stood with Indian Country for decades and understands Tribal sovereignty,” said Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro. “When tribal healthcare was on the line, he was there. This experience comes from a lifetime of public service, not a checkbook.”