california

California is about to enter the “Becerra era,” though the governor-elect who coined that phrase has dropped few hints about what will define it.

After a decisive Tuesday night victory in the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunities: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games, implementing voter-approved housing bonds and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But a long list of challenges awaits: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless fires, floods and other natural disasters.

The optimistic 68-year-old told supporters gathered for his campaign party in West Sacramento that his mission is to “deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

“Here’s the good news,” Becerra, a Democrat, told the packed and cheering crowd. “Californians don’t expect a miracle from government; they just want government that works. A government that can build things. A government that keeps our streets clean and schools safe. Basic services delivered on time and on budget.”

Easier said than done.

“With billion-dollar deficits on the horizon … he’s going to be limited in his ability to break new ground,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked for former Gov. Gray Davis. “He’d be playing catchup on a lot of things.”

Becerra’s victory arrived during a monumental night for Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Senate and House in a stunning rebuke of the Trump administration.

California’s first directly elected Latino governor joined a wave of historic gubernatorial firsts, including Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, who will become the nation’s first Black female governor, and New Mexico Democrat Deb Haaland, the first Native American woman elected to lead a state. Voters in Florida, Nevada and Wisconsin also picked their first Black governors while Texans selected their first Latina.

After a surprising emergence from a brutal top-two primary in June, and with Republican Steve Hilton placing second, Becerra sailed to election as Newsom’s successor. In a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the matchup nearly guaranteed the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary would win.

By the time former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race following sexual assault allegations (which he has denied), many of California’s liberal kingmakers had already made their picks in the governor’s race — and they weren’t Becerra, who was not even included in a four-way endorsement from the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Newsom won his 2018 gubernatorial primary with the help of the California Nurses Assn. He also secured backing from the powerful California Teachers Assn. after pledging to pause new charter schools and strengthen oversight.

Though Democrats flocked to support Becerra as he rapidly ascended in the primary election polls, he won largely without help from unions or influential organizations such as the California Medical Assn.

“A lot of those constituencies didn’t support him until he looked inevitable,” said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an alumnus of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. “So he doesn’t owe a lot of people anything for any role they played in his campaign.”

Still, Becerra, who grew up in a working-class immigrant family, has shown a personal interest in allying with organized labor. He gave shout-outs to union locals at campaign events and has credited his father’s union construction job for giving his family of six access to healthcare while he was growing up in Sacramento.

Governors can’t please everyone, particularly when state funding is limited. Lobbyists, lawmakers and special-interest leaders will watch closely how the affable Becerra prioritizes his first budget proposal — due days after he takes office on Jan. 4 — for hints about his agenda.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton concedes the race Tuesday evening to Xavier Becerra at the Hyatt Regency Orange County in Garden Grove.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Though light on specifics, Becerra made his priorities clear during his campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction. He will take the baton from Newsom on the thorny question of who is financially responsible when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), a Becerra ally, said he has had “ongoing conversations” throughout the campaign about the incoming governor’s agenda, though he declined to elaborate.

“He certainly asked a lot of questions. He’s come to the Assembly Democratic Caucus already, engaged with members to begin that conversation and build those relations,” Rivas said. “We’ve been laser-focused on affordability and we’re going to continue to do more work in that space.”

Becerra said he would look closely at regulatory reform to lower housing and business costs.

It could be a small needle for the governor-elect to thread. Regulatory reform could mean easing some environmental protections.

Environmentalists flex considerable muscle in the state and found an ally in Newsom, though the outgoing governor’s aggressive climate agenda ran into affordability and federal challenges in recent years.

Becerra may also be sympathetic to environmental justice communities — poorer neighborhoods, often of color — that have experienced disproportionately negative effects from extraction industries such as oil drilling and mining.

He vigorously defended the state’s environmental rules as attorney general and has credited them with improving air quality and the coasts. During the only debate of the general election, Becerra criticized Hilton for proposing to unleash new oil drilling in the state.

“He wants to, he said it himself, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’” he said during a September CNN debate. “Steve, you weren’t living here in California at the time. You weren’t living in America at the time. We went through that experience. We don’t want to see our coastline damaged.”

“For it to be meaningful, there would have to be substantial regulatory resets, recalculating — I would say even updating and modernizing — some of the climate policies to make sure that they’re affordable,” said Stutzman. Schwarzenegger, his former boss, ushered in the state’s landmark cap-and-invest program, which aims to reduce planet-warming emissions.

Hilton conceded the race to Becerra but told supporters gathered at his party that he would work to break the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority in 2028. His team issued this statement in advance of a news conference scheduled for Thursday: “The election is over, but the desire for change is not.”

Becerra is expected to bring a much different governing style than Newsom. In an interview with KQED days before his election, Becerra named Govs. Pat and Jerry Brown as inspirations, citing the younger Brown’s fiscal expertise and the elder’s work to build infrastructure and grow the University of California.

“After eight years of showmanship, it will be refreshing to have a governor who actually focuses on the issues facing the state instead of his own ambition,” Maviglio said.

California Democrats dominated in pivotal congressional races in Tuesday’s election, soundly defeating or holding commanding leads over Republican candidates from the state’s northern redwood forests to the Mexican border.

The election marked the first test of California’s new congressional district lines approved under Proposition 50 in 2025, a counterpunch to President Trump’s push to get Republican-led states to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives — a GOP effort that flopped in spectacular fashion Tuesday.

“We fought fire with fire,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Wednesday. “And won.”

In the Central Valley, voters swept out Republican David Valadao, a longtime incumbent and dairy farmer in the San Joaquin Valley who batted away Democratic challengers for years. Valadao lost to Democrat Randy Villegas, a professor and school board member who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and is aligned with the Working Families Party.

In Northern California, Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley lost to former state Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat, for a newly suburban and rural seat in and around Sacramento. And in Southern California, Democrat Marni von Wilpert beat out a Republican candidate for a new district stretching across San Diego and Riverside counties. Parts of the district previously had been represented by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, a longtime politician who opted not to seek reelection.

Tuesday’s wins in California were part of a national trend, with Democrats seizing control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate and several governor seats.

As victors were declared on Wednesday morning, some political analysts downplayed Proposition 50’s effect. Instead, they credited Democrats’ success in California to voter discontent after two years of rising tariffs and gas prices, and immigration raids in the Golden State.

Democrats would have triumphed regardless, said Republican consultant Rob Stutzman, pointing to widespread anger over Republican policies, including that party’s push to retain control of the U.S. House through a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting experiment in some states.

“These are all things that activate Democrat voters, and things that alienate middle of the road voters. It’s just too much arrogance, too much power grab,” Stutzman said.

Newsom and other Democratic leaders campaigned for Proposition 50 in hopes of unseating five Republican incumbents in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation, the largest in the nation. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

Republicans’ redistricting efforts failed to reap them wins in several states, including in Texas.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map, disputed the notion that Democrats would have picked up five California congressional districts without Proposition 50 and argued Tuesday’s election showed the state was the most successful amid the nationwide redistricting wars.

“It would have been foolish for Democrats to sit back on their butts and say the future is going to take care of it,” he said, adding that Proposition 50 “crystallized” Democrats’ fight and “brought voters along.”

In another highly watched race, Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat from Merced, won reelection after easily cruising past Republican challenger Kevin Lincoln. The perennially competitive district — which stretches from Madera through Merced and includes portions of Stockton — became more favorable to Democrats after it was redrawn under Proposition 50 to add urban voters.

And in Northern California, state Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) beat out Republican Rep. James Gallagher of Yuba City, who won the seat in a special election earlier this year after the death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa. The newly configured district includes Santa Rosa, Paradise and Susanville.

In Southern California, a match-up between two longtime Republican incumbents saw Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona beat Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim.

Calvert retained about half of the voters from his former district heading into Tuesday’s election, while Kim retained about a third. The new maps under Proposition 50 created a district that consolidated conservative voters in Orange and Riverside counties.

In Los Angeles, Angela Gonzales-Torres, a democratic socialist, beat Rep. Jimmy Gomez for a district stretching from Koreatown to East L.A. and the northeast communities of Eagle Rock, Highland Park and El Sereno.

Gonzales-Torres’ victory marks a success for progressive groups, which have long targeted Gomez’s seat. The U.S. House Ethics Committee this summer announced an inquiry into Gomez, elected in 2017, over alleged “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.” He has denied wrongdoing, while acknowledging mistakes outside his marriage.

Other Democratic-against-Democratic races were too close to call, including a race for a district in Napa and Sacramento valleys between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts contributed to this report.

The fate of multiple high-stakes California ballot propositions remained undecided Wednesday, as poll workers continued to tally votes from across the state.

Other measures have generated decisive action from voters on such issues as public funding for housing and voter identification.

Six races have been called by the Associated Press, according to The Times tracker. They include four propositions — 1, 2, 3 and 37 — and two failed measures — 39 and 44. Eight remained undecided.

So far, there have been no big surprises, said Mark Baldassare, statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The verdicts are “consistent with what we were seeing in the preelection polling.”

Undecided

Among the undecided items is Proposition 4, which would allow state and local governments to use public money to help finance political campaigns — something California largely has prohibited since 1988. The measure would lift that prohibition, subject to restrictions on how the money could be used and who could receive it. As of Wednesday, votes were leaning slightly against the proposition.

Another undecided item, Proposition 5, would change the process for recalling an elected official. It would separate the decision to recall the official from the choice of who replaces them, creating a second election or appointment process to determine the successor. The race was very tight Wednesday, with votes in favor holding a narrow edge.

Proposition 38 is leaning toward a passing vote by a solid margin. The measure would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research that aims to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Half the money would go to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute, with the other half distributed through research grants.

One closely watched item, Proposition 40 — the so-called “billionaire tax” — also is leaning toward a likely rejection from voters. The proposition would create a one-time 5% tax on individuals and trusts with wealth of more than $1 billion, with the revenue going toward healthcare, food assistance and education. State officials estimated it would generate tens of billions of dollars for the state, but others, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, warned that it would lead wealthy residents to leave California and lead to future budget problems.

Two separate ballot measures, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and still remain too close to call.

Proposition 43, meanwhile, would require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, to approve certain local government taxes. It was leaning toward rejection.

Another big-ticket item, Proposition 45, was opposed by a small margin of voters but still too close to call. It would change the state’s landmark environmental review process, the California Environmental Quality Act, by shortening deadlines and permitting rules for public and private development projects. Supporters say it would cut costly delays and expedite essential housing, transportation, water, health and education projects. But opponents say it would clear the path for more artificial intelligence data centers.

Prop. 45 “has been interesting all along because it fits in with concerns about housing affordability,” Baldassare said. However, it also raised questions about “unintended consequences” for the environment.

“CEQA reform is complicated, let’s face it,” he said. “That has made the voters more split.”

Passed

The passing propositions each won with what were considerable margins Wednesday.

They included Proposition 1, which authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds to finance affordable housing programs, with $1.25 billion set aside for housing for veterans.

Another passing item, Proposition 2, gives lawmakers the ability to put more money into California’s “rainy day fund,” doubling the reserve from 10% to 20% of the state’s general fund revenues. It also would require the state to save more in years when tax revenues are high, helping to weather economic ups and downs. It passed with a clear majority, according to The Times tracker.

Voters also approved Proposition 3, which permanently extends a high-income tax increase on California’s highest earners. The increase was approved by voters in 2012 and was scheduled to expire in 2031. The money generated by Proposition 3 would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. It is separate from Proposition 40 — the more controversial tax on California’s wealthiest citizens, which remains undecided.

“We saw a majority of Californians in our poll saying that the wealthy should be taxed,” Baldassare said. And while voters were warned that Proposition 40 could push billionaires out of the state, Proposition 3 seemed a more palatable way to do that.

Proposition 37 passed with a clear majority of the vote. It authorizes up to $25 billion in state-issued bonds to create a loan program to help middle-income Californians buy newly constructed homes. Qualified buyers can borrow up to 17% of the price of the home while contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

“There’s been strong support for the idea of spending more money on housing affordability through bonds, not taxes, and that explains the support that we saw all along for Proposition 1 and Proposition 37, despite the fact that it’s a lot of bond money,” Baldassare said.

Rejected

Californians rejected Proposition 39, which would have required voters to provide government-issued identification when voting in person or provide identifying information on mail-in ballots. It would have changed California’s signature-based voter identification system and was a resounding rejection of the broader fight playing out over onerous voter ID measures at the national level.

This was another measure where voters received a clear message, including from governor-elect Xavier Becerra, who urged Californians to vote no, Baldassare said.

“We saw in our polling before the election that most Californians don’t think that there’s a problem with the way that we go about our elections and casting ballots and counting votes … so that sort of didn’t align with thinking,” he said.

California voters also resoundingly rejected Proposition 44. The act would have required certain nonprofit community health clinics serving low-income and medically underserved populations to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Those that fell short would be penalized. As of Wednesday morning, a whopping 82% of votes were against the proposition, more than any other.

Democratic candidate Randy Villegas has defeated Republican incumbent David Valadao in the race for California’s 22nd congressional district, clinching one of the state’s most closely watched congressional races and notching another win for the Democratic Party’s progressive left.

Villegas, an educator who grew up in the Central Valley as the son of Mexican immigrants, ousted the Republican representative after a campaign that won support from figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and railed against the rising cost of living, healthcare cuts, and sweeping immigration raids.

“I want to take a moment to acknowledge my family. Both of my parents, who I’m blessed to have with me here today. I’ve gotta tell you, the reason I believe in this country, the reason I believe in the United States, is because of the sacrifices that they made,” Villegas said in remarks to his supporters gathered in the city of Bakersfield on Tuesday evening, calling the result a “historic victory for the Central Valley”.

“And let me tell you, that victory is not because of me. It is because of us,” he added.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the race.

Cost of living concerns

The story of the district fits a larger one playing out across the country as votes come in on election night: angry about surging prices that were driven partly by the Trump administration’s decision to launch a war on Iran, and overreach in areas such as ICE raids, voters decided to punish the president and his party.

Polls had indicated for months that the president had become deeply unpopular, and that this trend was closely linked to collapsing faith in his handling of the economy and cost of living, issues that had previously helped return him to the White House in 2024.

Despite his image as a relative moderate with strong ties to the Central Valley, Valadao did not escape that trend on Tuesday night.

Immigration raids trigger backlash among Latino voters

Following Trump’s win in 2024, much was made of the Republican Party’s successful inroads with Latino voters despite the party’s embrace of rhetoric vilifying immigrants and restrictive immigration policies.

Less than two years later, those promising gains have entirely evaporated.

Incensed over the administration’s aggressive and often indiscriminate approach to immigration enforcement and the toll of rising prices, Latino voters across the country swung heavily back towards the Democrats.

“We have people who said that they regret having voted for him [Trump], because he has not done what he promised,” a member of the United Farm Workers (UFW) labour union who knocked doors in Latino communities for Villegas, told Al Jazeera on Monday.

Residents and officials in the Central Valley said that ICE raids sent shockwaves through immigrant and Latino communities, with arrests of farmworkers and family members cutting against the administration’s claims that it was targeting criminals.

Villegas slammed the raids and linked them to Valadao’s support for a massive increase in the budget for ICE, one of the agencies at the centre of the mass deportation raids.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of US voters now view ICE unfavourably, making it one of the least popular agencies in the federal government.

Progressives make the case for their competitiveness

Before facing off against Valadao on Tuesday night, Villegas had to win a hard-fought primary race against California State Assembly member Jasmeet Bains, a candidate aligned with the party’s establishment wing who warned that his progressive positions would be too far to the left in the traditionally conservative region.

But Villegas and his supporters challenged that premise. His populist message seems to have resonated in a race dominated by concerns about the cost of living and access to healthcare, and at a time when many feel that politics and the economy are skewed in favour of the wealthy and well-connected.

Villegas won endorsements from Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and energised supporters from the party’s base, including members of organised labour who pounded the pavement to get out the vote.

“We beat the Democratic establishment. We beat the Republican establishment. We beat corporate PAC money. We beat AIPAC!” Villegas told supporters on Tuesday night.

Villegas can now add his name to the list of elected officials seeking to prove that progressives can win tough races outside of traditional strongholds.

“Randy’s race has shown us that the Central Valley cannot be counted out of following the really urgent change that we need in every corner of our country,” said Manpreet Kaur, the progressive vice mayor of Bakersfield who was an early supporter of Villegas. “And the Central Valley is included in that.”

Xavier Becerra, who grew up in a 685-square-foot house with his parents and three sisters in working-class Sacramento before ascending to Stanford University, Congress and the White House Cabinet, will become California’s first directly elected Latino governor.

The historic victory thrusts the unassuming Democrat into the forefront of California’s scathing fight with the Trump administration over immigration enforcement, healthcare funding, environmental protections and social issues.

“I didn’t run to make history,” Becerra told supporters at his election night party in West Sacramento. “I ran to make a difference for anyone and everyone who calls California home — whether you voted for me or not.”

He paid tribute to his parents and late labor icon Dolores Huerta before stating his “straightforward” mission: “Deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

The Associated Press declared Becerra the winner at 8 p.m. Tuesday. He beat Republican Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator and former British political strategist backed by President Trump. Hilton conceded defeat a little before 9:15 p.m.

“We have a new governor of California,” he told about 800 supporters at his election night party in Garden Grove. “I know it’s not the one you wished for but I do wish Xavier Becerra well.”

Though the mood at his event was mostly one of defeat, Hilton stirred the crowd with a promise to help Republicans break the Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature in 2028.

“We love California and we’re going to fight for California,” he said. “The fight goes on. We have a plan.”

Becerra, 68, will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunity: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But there are also a long list of challenges: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless natural disasters.

Becerra spent more than 25 years in Congress before he was appointed California attorney general and, later, secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration. His long resume, as he often argued during the campaign, positions him to enter the governor’s office without “training wheels.”

“It’s groundbreaking,” Anna Sampaio, a professor of ethnic studies and political science at Santa Clara University, said of Becerra’s win. “It’s particularly important in this moment when Latinos are under siege, when they’re targeted by the federal government, and you have a Latino not only being elected, but a Latino who is consistently delivering this message that he is going to stand in opposition to a Trump agenda.”

Despite his long-standing presence in California politics, the modest Becerra initially struggled to energize support for his gubernatorial campaign. When explosive sexual assault allegations pushed a front-running Democrat out of the race, Becerra, a staid and experienced candidate with a clean reputation, leaped to the top of the crowded field and finished first in the top-two June primary.

The state has had one Latino governor, Romualdo Pacheco, who assumed office in 1875 when Gov. Newton Booth stepped down after winning a U.S. Senate seat.

Becoming the first Latino directly elected to California’s highest office is a distinction Becerra was reluctant to promote on the campaign trail, preferring instead to focus on his humble roots. His father, born in Sacramento and raised in Mexico, labored on farms and construction sites; his Mexico-born mother was a clerical worker.

The largest ethnic group in California, Latinos make up more than 40% of the state’s population and roughly a third of its voters.

Though noteworthy, polling suggests Latino voters care more about results than his history-making win.

“We’re moving from an era that has defined Xavier Becerra’s career as focused almost entirely on representation to one where the voters are demanding results far more,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who studies Latino voters. “When the housing situation for Latinos is getting worse, when affordability is getting worse, when school performance measures are not getting better, what difference does it make who’s holding office when we should be focused on results?”

Though he offered few specifics, Becerra discussed his priorities throughout the campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction.

He will take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s baton on the thorny question of who should pay when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, even for undocumented workers — a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

“Hopefully he uses an overwhelming victory to achieve what he wants to get done in 100 days,” said Steven Maviglio, who served as a spokesman for former Gov. Gray Davis. “That’s when you’re most powerful: when you assume office with an agenda, so hopefully he’ll detail that within days of being elected.”

Becerra’s victory ushers in a new era of Latino political power in California. For the first time, all members of the “big three” who negotiate the state’s behemoth budget — the governor, Assembly speaker and state Senate president — come from working-class, immigrant backgrounds.

“When you’ve watched your parents and grandparents struggle to make ends meet, you bring a different perspective,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister). “If we do this right, history won’t remember us simply because we were the first. History is going to remember us because we made a difference. We want California to work for everybody.”

Times staff writer Andrew Campa contributed to this report.

Mike Madrid was prepping to interview Xavier Becerra on Olvera Street last month when the immensity of the moment hit him.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

That morning, Becerra held a rally for his gubernatorial campaign in the birthplace of Los Angeles alongside California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and the leader of the state Senate, Monique Limón, that doubled as a referendum on where Latinos stood politically.

Never before have Latinos occupied the top spots in both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion simultaneously, Rivas told the cheering crowd. Becerra reminded the audience that the moment was fraught for Latinos, though. Federal agents were still detaining undocumented immigrants across the state, and Latino residents — the state’s largest ethnic group at 41% — were suffering under the crushing cost of food, gas and housing.

“[Latinos] are here, we are present and we will fight,” Becerra said. “But right now, our fight is to get the vote out, to make sure everyone understands that our power lies in our vote.”

Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra purchases an agua fresca from Taqueria Vista Hermosa in Mercado La Paloma on June 9.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

Madrid, a longtime political commentator and strategist, had set up his recording equipment at the Pico House, formerly a historic hotel named after the last Mexican governor of California. He recalled how Pio Pico, who helped found the California Republican Party but ended up dying destitute, opened the structure in 1870 as a testament to what Latinos had contributed to their state. But they would eventually be seen as a relic of the bygone days when Mexicans ruled — days that gringos imagined would never return.

The symbolism of a Becerra victory would be “kind of a big deal,” Madrid said, representing a back to the future opportunity for an ethnic group that ruled California until the United States won the Mexican-American War, then was relegated to political irrelevance for over a century before finally being at the doorstep of the governor’s mansion again. Becerra would become California’s first Latino governor in modern times and the second since Romualdo Pacheco served for 10 months in 1875.

Now that the race has been called, Becerra’s victory signifies how much Latinos have advanced since Pico’s days. But it’s also anticlimactic.

As California’s Latino population grew and their political power eventually did too, the days when such a victory would have been an inspiring surprise are long gone. Becerra is now just one of many Latino political captains who steer the Golden State.

Xavier Becerra, right, fist bumps with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles, during a tour of businesses in Little Tokyo on Aug. 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero became the first Latina to occupy that role when Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed her in 2023. The state’s senior U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, is the son of Mexican immigrants who settled in the San Fernando Valley. Rep. Pete Aguilar, a fourth-generation Mexican American from Redlands, is the third most powerful Democrat in Congress as the head of the party’s House caucus. Lorena Gonzalez, daughter of a Mexican immigrant father and white mother, leads the California Labor Federation, a longtime kingmaker in state politics.

And now, with Becerra at the helm, they will have to govern at a precarious moment, inheriting a state with existential problems affecting everyone, everywhere.

Droughts, El Niño, an eroding coast and the year-round threat of wildfires, much of it accelerated by climate change. Stagnant population growth that threatens to shrink the number of congressional seats. A presidential administration that keeps fighting California in federal court and has attempted to block the votes of 20,000 Californians it alleges are noncitizens. A restive population that Madrid predicts won’t let Becerra bask in his historic win.

“This is what you’ve always wanted. Here’s the keys to the car,” he cracked. “You’re responsible for it now. Who you’re going to blame if things don’t get better — Trump?”

Jody Agius Vallejo, associate director of USC’s Equity Research Institute, said she hopes that California’s new caretakers remember the struggles of getting to the summit — that they represent the dreams and battles of generations of politicians, voters and activists — as they embark on whatever’s next.

“You use these narratives [of Latino personal and collective struggle] to get elected,” she said. “Use them to understand what people need, and govern for them.”

1

2

3

4

1. Patricia Guerrero, left, is sworn-in to the California Supreme Court in 2022 by Gov. Gavin Newsom. (Nathaniel Levine / The Sacramento Bee via Associated Press) 2. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., questions Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2025. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press) 3. Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., speaks at a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in 2026. (Allison Robbert / Associated Press) 4. Lorena Gonzalez at podium with California Attorney General Rob Bonta during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024. (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Many voters were already shrugging about the significance of Becerra’s likely victory — especially Latinos. Only 45% of Latino voters in California felt “proud” about the prospect of a Latino governor, according to a Berkeley IGS poll released last week.

Those results aren’t surprising to Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach-area state senator who chairs California’s Latino Legislative Caucus. She praised Becerra’s victory as the culmination of decades of political organizing. But voters care more about results than identity, she said — something the Latino political class has been slow to realize.

“People will say, ‘OK, that’s great [he’s Latino], but how are you fighting back?’” she said. “I just think we need to lead now and not advertise we’re Latinos.”

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Xavier Becerra waves goodbye after a visit to Hoover St. Elementary School in March 2001.

(Kim D. Johnson / Associated Press)

Becerra has long been a poster child for Latino political firsts, representing L.A.’s Eastside in the state Assembly and Congress for 27 years before Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him to be California’s first Latino attorney general in 2017. Three years later, Becerra became the country’s first Latino Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden.

Becerra has rarely highlighted his latinidad while never shying away from his background as the child of Mexican immigrants. He told Madrid at the end of their interview at the Pico House that Californians should be prouder of his working class roots than his ethnicity.

Some have complained that Becerra is an unworthy, boring torchbearer for Latinos — not dynamic enough to meet a moment where many hoped for a firebrand. But in many ways, his style is a callback to the past.

When Latino politicians first began winning local and state legislative elections in the decades after World War II, they “were constantly about, ‘How do I mobilize the Latino vote without alienating the white vote, and how do I get support from the establishment which is white?’” said Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University and a longtime chronicler of California politics.

Latinos were the majority of the population in some areas during that era, but politicians couldn’t rely solely on them to win, because they still didn’t represent a majority of voters. That changed by the late 1980s, as immigration brought millions of Latinos to California.

Civil rights activists successfully sued cities and counties to draw district lines making it easier for Latinos to vote for Latino candidates. Local activists registered new voters by selling them a future where people like them would be leaders, not tokens. Pioneers like Richard Alatorre and Gloria Molina subsequently created political machines, which helped Becerra get his start.

Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, center, and Assemblywoman Karen Bass, left, dance to gospel music sung by the McCoy Memorial Baptist choir during an endorsement celebration in 2005.

(Stefano Paltera / For The Times)

That set the stage for politicians who “didn’t need the external validation anymore” of white voters or power brokers, Guerra said. “They could now say, ‘I am a Latino candidate with a Latino agenda, because I represent a Latino district.’”

By 1996, two years after the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 galvanized Latino activism, a record number of newly registered Latino voters in Orange County helped Loretta Sanchez upset longtime Republican Rep. Bob Dornan, the first welt of purple in a famously red county. That same year, Cruz Bustamante became the first Latino Assembly speaker, then lieutenant governor — the first Latino elected to statewide office in California since Pacheco ascended to the same position in the 1870s. In 2005, Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor of Los Angeles, sparking national headlines as the first Latino to occupy that position in modern times.

The Latino political firsts kept coming over the next 20 years, now reaching a pinnacle with Becerra’s win. Guerra said that “incremental” approach made Latinos mainstream to the point where the novelty of another milestone quickly wore off.

“Do you want a transformative moment? Absolutely,” he said. “But those come few and far in between. Incremental comes every two years.”

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie with supporters after a campaign stop on May 21 at the Wende Museum in Culver City.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Becerra started his campaign for governor far behind in the polls, surging after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out due to sexual assault allegations. Becerra’s campaign leaned into his milquetoast persona and crowned him Tío Xavier — Uncle Xavier — to market him as a non-threatening moderate who happened to be Latino.

Madrid, a lifelong Republican, voted for Becerra because of GOP candidate Steve Hilton’s refusal to denounce MAGA. He also thinks Becerra can “resurrect a healthy economy for the working class” — something he accuses Democrats of “abandon[ing] for a generation.” The “burden” is on California’s Latino leaders to show they can serve not just their own community but everyone, he said.

On Monday, Becerra mingled with eaters at Homegirl Cafe in Chinatown, looking anodyne in a white shirt, wire-framed glasses and tan khakis as supporters asked for selfies or a hug.

Half-hearted shouts of “¡Sí se puede!” gave way to authentically boisterous chants of “Be-ce-rra!”

The heavy favorite for governor took questions in the packed dining room and didn’t flinch when I asked him to reflect on the fact that Latinos will head every branch of California government if he wins.

“We’re all fortunate when a state like California gives all of us opportunities to be in position of authority,” Becerra replied.

He nodded at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who stood by his side.

“But we gotta do it right,” he said. “And it’s on me to be a good governor — not to be a good Latino governor, but to be a good governor.”

Projected season opening date: Nov. 27

What makes it special: Sugar Bowl is an independently-run resort with an old-school, European vibe. Its terrain stretches over four peaks on Donner Summit near Lake Tahoe, varying between steep tree skiing, wide-open groomers, terrain parks and beginner-friendly zones. Season passes and lift tickets are limited here, so the slopes aren’t crowded.

What’s new this season: Sugar Bowl Resort continues a multi-year, $100-million resort development project with major improvements debuting this winter, including a new Village Gondola, a reimagined main lodge and beginner experience, expanded terrain parks and snowmaking on the mountain and enhanced snowmaking at Sugar Rush Tubing.

Lift ticket prices: Dynamic lift ticket pricing, with midweek tickets starting at $99. Sugar Bowl is also introducing new 2-, 3- and 4-day packs. Mountain Collective and Ski California Gold passes honored.

Pro-tip: Sugar Bowl opened with the backing of Walt Disney in 1939, making it one of the oldest ski areas in North America. At the resort, look out for Mt. Disney, along with the Donald Duck run, off the Disney Express chairlift.

While votes are still being counted in California, a handful of important races in the midterm elections have already been called or are pointing firmly in one direction.

Despite its status as a reliably Democratic stronghold, the Western state has played a dynamic role in Tuesday’s United States elections, acting as a testing ground for questions as varied as partisan redistricting and tax measures targeting billionaires.

Let’s take a quick look at some of tonight’s results:

Democrats ahead in key races

While vote-counting was still under way, Democratic candidates have pulled decisively ahead in several contests seen as must-wins for the party’s effort to take control of the US House of Representatives.

To boost the party’s chances, voters a year ago approved a partisan redistricting measure promoted by Governor Gavin Newsom to net Democrats five additional seats in the US House.

One such race took place in the state’s 22nd Congressional District, located in the agriculture-rich Central Valley.

Progressive educator Randy Villegas celebrated the results of the race on Tuesday night as the Democrat held a commanding lead of about 30 percentage points over Republican incumbent David Valadao.

Democratic candidate Marni von Wilpert is also ahead in the 48th district, located in Southern California near San Diego, where she is leading Republican Jim Desmond by about 20 points.

While those advantages are considerable, The Associated Press news agency has not yet officially called those races.

Progressive Aisha Wahab is also firmly ahead in her race against Melissa Hernandez, a fellow Democrat, in the 14th district.

Wahab overcame substantial spending by pro-Israel groups to defeat the establishment-aligned Hernandez in a special election in September. She is now on track to win a full term in that seat.

With her previous victory, Wahab became the first person of Afghan ancestry elected to Congress.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, moderate Democrat Scott Wiener is leading progressive rival Connie Chan in a race for the seat of retiring Representative Nancy Pelosi, the powerful former Democratic House speaker. Wiener has a lead of about 10 points with 50 percent of the vote tallied thus far.

Republicans face another bruising defeat in gubernatorial race

While Republicans across the country have laboured to turn California into a symbol of liberal dysfunction, voters in the state remain unconvinced that conservatives offer a better alternative.

The gubernatorial race was called for the Democratic candidate, former state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, immediately after the polls closed.

Becerra’s Republican rival, British political commentator Steve Hilton, had argued that years of unbroken Democratic domination had resulted in sky-high prices and public disorder.

But his bid to underscore cost-of-living issues by holding campaign events where he offered discounted petrol fell flat at a time when many voters blame President Donald Trump’s war on Iran for eye-watering prices at the pump.

Becerra’s victory comes more than five years after Republicans tried to dislodge Newsom through a recall election that failed by a margin of more than 20 points.

In the past, Republicans could console themselves that if they remained in electoral purgatory in the most populous US state, their Democratic rivals were likewise locked out of power in conservative strongholds such as Texas.

Tuesday’s losses will sting a bit more after a series of shock wins by Democrats in states that can usually be counted on to deliver easy wins for Republicans, including Texas.

Uncertainty over some ballot measures

While some results have come in quickly, tight contests over some of the state’s ballot measures, or policy questions put directly before voters, have yet to be called.

Proposition 40, which would institute a one-time tax on the net worth of billionaires in the state to help fund programmes such as healthcare and education, is trailing with about 44 percent of the counted votes in favour and 56 percent against.

The measure won support from progressive figures, such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna, but prompted a deluge of spending from wealthy donors and companies to oppose it.

The Associated Press has announced that Proposition 39, which would have instituted voter ID laws sought by conservatives, has been rejected by voters.

The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.

California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.

While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.

“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.

Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants, notably in California, are swaying elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.

The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.

The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.

Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.

The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.

The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.

Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.

Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.

In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.

Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:

Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:

• Proposition 1, which proposed a $11.25-billion bond to boost the construction of affordable housing, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 2, which would gave state lawmakers more flexibility over state spending by exempting certain tax revenue from a state spending limit, allowing them to place it into a “rainy day” fund, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 37, which would create a down-payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a home, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 44, which would require certain health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care rather than overhead and executive compensation, failed.

Among those that remained too close to call:

• Proposition 4, which would allow state and local candidates to receive public campaign financing if they demonstrated broad support and agreed to expenditure limits.
• Proposition 5, a constitutional amendment that would alter the state’s recall process by limiting it to the question of whether to remove an elected official from office, and no longer including the cadre of candidates hoping to replace the politician.
• Proposition 38, which would create an $8.4-billion bond to support the immunology and immunotherapy fields.
• Proposition 43, which would bar local governments from imposing special taxes unless two-third of voters support the effort. Current law requires a simple majority vote.
• Proposition 45, which would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up certain housing, water, energy, transportation and other projects deemed essential.

Nov. 3, 2026 10:52 AM PT

A total of 23,450,456 ballots were issued to registered voters across California. Voters have the option of returning ballots by mail or in a drop box or voting in person. California also allows for same-day registration. The majority of returned ballots will be counted by the end of election night.

After the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, of those ballots are delivered to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, where they are verified and tallied. County registrars are deliberate and expeditious with the vote count, even as they handle millions of votes under increasing political scrutiny.

Nearly two thirds of registered voters in California are concerned that the federal government might try to stop the vote count before all ballots are counted, an October UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times found.

Each county is responsible for collecting and counting ballots on election night and in the following weeks. The registrars then communicate those results, in batches, to the secretary of state. The counties with the most voters — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange and Riverside — are prepared to process hundreds of thousands of ballots.

In Los Angeles County, the operation to deliver ballots to the processing center involves eight helicopters flying in ballots from Lancaster, Palmdale, Catalina and other far reaches of the county.

Where the votes still are being counted

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and estimates how many votes were cast in each race using vote returns and other data.

One factor considered by analysts in calling a race early is where the remaining uncounted ballots are from. For example, if a Republican stronghold still has a large number of ballots to process, it may indicate a different outcome than if the ballots left to be counted were from a more left-leaning area.

The county has 30 days to submit certified results to the secretary of state. The Associated Press’ Estimated Expected Vote Percentage will remain at 99% until the state certifies the election on Dec. 11.

How many ballots have been processed so far

The speed of California’s vote count is determined by the state’s grace period for mail-in ballots. For a week after the polls close, county registrars will continue to accept and count ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 3.

Ballots with certain errors such as signatures on the return envelopes not matching the ones on the voter rolls have the opportunity to be corrected. Voters have until two days before certification to correct, or cure, their ballot.

Counties must provide the secretary of state an estimate of their remaining unprocessed ballots. Once available, The Times will track those reports as counties update the state each day.

We’ve reached the final hours for voting in California, but there’s still time to cast your ballot in the midterm election.

Here’s what you need to know on election day.

What time do polling centers close?

Polling places and vote centers close at 8 p.m.

What happens if I’m still in line at 8 p.m.?

In California, any voter who is in line at 8 p.m. when the polls are scheduled to close is allowed to vote, according to the secretary of state.

If there is a line when the polls close, a poll worker stands at the back of the line to let people who arrive after 8 p.m. know that the polls have closed.

Where can I find the closest polling place to me?

The Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s website has a vote center locator online.

By entering your address, the locator will create a list of voting centers that are less than a mile away.

Included with the vote center address is how long the current wait time is at that specific location.

The wait times are color coded as follows:

• Dark green: 15 minutes or less
• Light green: 16 to 30 minutes
• Yellow: 31 to 45 minutes
• Orange: 46 to 60 minutes
• Red: More than 1 hour
• Blue: Wait time unavailable

I’m headed to my polling place now but don’t have my check-in code

Your unique “quick check-in code” — a number that verifies your voter registration — can be found on your mailed sample ballot and vote center postcard.

You can take either of those hard copies to the vote center.

If you forgot the hard copies, you can find the code online.

You retrieve it by verifying your voter registration here. You’ll need to input your last name, birth date, the house number of your residential address and your ZIP Code.

For assistance call, (800) 815-2666, Option 2.

Can I still drop off my ballot?

Similar to vote centers, ballot drop boxes close at 8 p.m.

Nov. 3, 2026 10:53 AM PT

The national fight over who controls the House of Representatives has made its way to California.

The congressional map, redrawn with the passage of Proposition 50, includes new districts that favor Democrats. Many districts shifted only slightly, some Republican districts were split, some Democrat districts were strengthened, and in one district, lines were redrawn with no overlap at all with their 2024 boundaries.

Several seats are competitive — either with a tight race between Republicans or because the seat is expected to flip from red to blue. With redistricting, only four seats are considered solidly Republican, according to the Cook Political Report, down from the nine GOP seats won in 2024.

In the Central Valley, Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democrat Randy Villegas are competing for the 22nd District. The boundaries of the Republican-held seat were adjusted in the new map to add about 100,000 Fresno residents. The district covers swaths of Kern, Kings and Tulare counties, along with a piece of Madera County.

The 48th District, a seat previously held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, is another one that could flip, according to the Cook Political Report ratings. Democrat Marni von Wilpert is running against Republican Jim Desmond in the district stretching across San Diego and Riverside counties.

Also on this page are noncompetitive local districts that still may be of interest to The Times’ readers in Southern California.

The Justice Department sent a last-minute surge of election monitors into Los Angeles Tuesday morning, hours after losing the latest legal tug-of-war over California’s 20,000 contested ballots.

In a pair of decisions late Monday night, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published and then quickly rescinded a decision that would have allowed the Trump administration to prosecute election workers who processed contested ballots, even after their demands to segregate them were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Then, as dawn broke on Election Day, the Justice Department announced it was sending out “1,000 election monitors and observers” across the U.S. in what it called “the largest monitoring effort in DOJ history.”

Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Detroit were among the dozens of jurisdictions where monitors were sent under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — legislation the President Trump has worked tirelessly to gut across both his administrations.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the federal monitors “will be at polling locations,” but that the department is not “giving out precinct details.”

The move was widely seen as an intimidation tactic.

“They’re not doing this to make sure that there are free and fair elections,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court. “They’re doing this for nakedly partisan reasons, and the federal government shouldn’t be allowed do that.”

California officials were quick to hit back.

“We’ll have our observers on site keeping an eye on your monitors to ensure the integrity of California’s free, fair, safe, secure, accurate, and reliable elections,” Bonta vowed on social media as the spat escalated early Tuesday morning.

The Justice Department said it would also send monitors to San Diego, Sacramento and Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The sudden influx of election monitors and the dramatic about-face in appellate court are the latest wild swings in the Golden State’s protracted midterm brawl with the federal government — a fight that has captured national attention amid growing concerns of election interference by the Trump administration.

“On the eve of Election Day, Defendants insist they must be free to use their prosecutorial powers to do what they could not through their applications for injunctions in this court and the Supreme Court,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Helen Murguia wrote in her dissent to the initial 2-1 ruling, which appeared just after 8 p.m. Monday night.

“The district court properly attempted to put a stop to Defendants’ efforts to intimidate election workers into abandoning lawful state election procedures through spurious threats of prosecution,” Murguia wrote.

By 11 p.m. the decision had been reversed, with the court setting aside its previous ruling while it reviewed the case with a larger en banc panel.

It was the latest legal blow for the administration in what had been a months long effort to claw back ballots it claims may have been issued to noncitizens, while publicly threatening to prosecute election workers who process them when its efforts were rebuffed in court.

Last week, the Justice Department sent criminal grand jury subpoenas to election workers in Los Angeles seeking reams of data related to efforts to comply with its demands.

Unions and voting rights groups sued in federal court, saying the efforts amounted to “a coordinated campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce” civil servants into holding back legitimate ballots.

On Friday, after the 9th Circuit had ruled for California in the ballot claw-back case, U.S. District Court Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco issued a blistering order blocking the Justice Department from dangling criminal liability over elections workers or demanding voters be stripped from the rolls.

“In the lead-up to the election, high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials have engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election,” Thompson wrote.

“Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters,” the judge wrote.

Then, on Monday afternoon, mere minutes after it was asked to consider the question, the Supreme Court returned an unsigned decision in California’s favor, appearing, at least briefly, to foreclose further efforts to stop those ballots being counted.

“This latest decision should put an end to the Administration’s attempt to disrupt California’s elections through emergency court orders,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in response to the Supreme Court decision Monday.

But it didn’t.

Instead, the late-breaking 9th Circuit decision spurred a flurry of confusion and conjecture just hours before polls were set to open in the country’s most populous state.

In the wake of the court rulings, Segall and others said the Trump administration’s move to deploy election monitors was part of a troubling pattern. The law professor worried the Supreme Court could weaponize what remains of the Voting Rights Act to benefit the president and his party.

“So far they’ve said we’re going to cut the legs off [the Act] so as not to help Democrats, but the next iteration of this will be to use the Voting Rights Act to help the Republican Party,” he said.

Nearly two-thirds of California voters are worried that the Trump administration may try to halt the vote count early, stoking disquieting levels of election anxiety on the eve of the midterms, a new poll shows.

Those fears arise as the Justice Department continues its aggressive efforts to challenge or wrest control over state voting processes, including threatening to prosecute uncooperative elections officials in California, after years of baseless claims of widespread election fraud by the Republican president.

Among California voters, 63% worry that the federal government may attempt to stop the counting of votes in California and other states in the days following Tuesday’s election, according to the poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times. Around half of voters — 49% — are not confident that the state’s election will be free of federal interference, the survey found.

“Both of the items, together, I think should raise alarms for threats against democracy in California,” said Matt Barreto, director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

California voters also have grievances with the state’s ballot propositions, a slate of 14 measures that include new taxes on billionaires and funding for cancer research. More than 8 in 10 of the state’s likely voters said that this year’s propositions were worded in a way that made them hard to understand and that special interests groups have too much influence over which propositions appear on the ballot.

Those concerns were shared across partisan lines, unlike how Californians felt about the threats posed to integrity of elections by the Trump administration. The high level of fear in the state reflects the fact that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California.

While 58% of Democrats are not confident the election will be free of federal interference, 27% of Republicans feel the same way, according to the poll. Similarly, 85% of Democrats are worried about the vote count being halted, compared with 22% of Republicans. A majority of California voters not affiliated with either party also expressed fears of interference by the Trump administration.

“I think voters are reflecting the reality,” Barreto said. “For the past month, the president and the Department of Justice have been attempting to directly interfere and take over California elections and voters are aware of that.”

The Department of Justice has sued California requesting the state set aside some 20,000 ballots the federal government has flagged as being potentially from noncitizens. Federal prosecutors have threatened criminal actions against election officials who refuse to comply. On Monday, the Trump administration escalated its effort to discount the flagged California ballots to the Supreme Court, which rejected its request to set aside the ballots.

Over the weekend, Newsom sent a letter to U.S. District Court judges across California sharing his “grave concerns federal agents will seek search warrants to seize ballots and ballot materials before the election results are certified” and urging judges not to comply.

Newsom wrote that President Trump’s history of weaponizing the Department of Justice to carry out his partisan agenda supports “legitimate concerns about further attempts to disenfranchise voters and undermine election integrity.” Newsom said this could include an attempt to prevent the certification of California’s election.

Concerns have also been raised about the presence of immigration agents around voting centers and performing door knocks and street stops to try to identify voter fraud.

Court rulings have recently dealt a series of blows to the Trump administrations efforts to intervene in the state’s voting process. Nonetheless, distress over election integrity remains extremely high, according to the poll.

Fears of federal meddling in the election are slightly higher among voters of color; 64% of Black voters and 54% of Latino voters said they are not confident the election will be free of interference, compared with 44% of white non-Hispanic voters, according to the poll.

Voters of color tend to lean more liberal, but the historic and ongoing efforts to disenfranchise minorities probably also contribute to this disparity, Barreto said.

Black voters have been a target of voter suppression efforts from the post-Civil War Reconstruction era through the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he said. More recently, the Trump administration has singled out Latino Californians, accusing them of being noncitizens and voting illegally.

Professor Eric Schickler, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, described the level of alarm over election integrity in California and across the nation as without precedent.

He noted that both parties are distrustful about different things, with Republicans focused on allegations of fraudulent voting and Democrats fearful that the federal government may attempt to overturn results.

The last time America saw extreme political polarization paired with widespread claims of illegitimacy over election outcomes was during the Reconstruction era in the late 19th century, when there were widespread accusations of voter suppression in the South and of people voting illegally in the North, he said.

“That hasn’t happened really in the United States for well over a century now,” Schickler said, “so what we’re seeing now is really unusual, especially for a modern and long-lived democracy.”

Schickler said his highest level of concern with possible federal efforts to halt California’s vote count would be with congressional races. A handful of California races could play a pivotal role in deciding which party takes control of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, he said current polling data do not indicate that a Democratic path to victory in the lower house will rely on Golden State voters.

Trump in the past has criticized California for being one of the slowest states in the nation to finish tabulating its election results due to its large population and high number of voters who mail in their ballots. He’s also complained about late arriving ballots. Votes processed after election day in California typically contain a higher proportion of Democratic ballots than those processed on election night.

In addition, to highlight the unprecedented anxiety many California voters are feeling, the poll also shines a light on frustrations voters have with the state’s ballot propositions. Among likely voters, 82% agree that the wording of this year’s propositions made them hard to understand and 82% also agree that special interest groups have largely taken over which initiatives qualify.

In addition, 62% of likely voters feel that there are too many propositions on this year’s ballot. There are 14 statewide propositions, with many voters also seeing additional initiatives at a county and city level.

“The initiative is meant to be an outlet for voters when special interest groups lead legislators to fail to respond to their concerns,” Schickler said. “But now most voters believe the initiative process is itself too beholden to special interests.”

In the last 20 years, California’s ballot initiative campaigns have become increasingly controlled by large corporations or union groups. Part of this is due to the fact that it takes at least $50 million to run an effective campaign capable of reaching the state’s 23 million registered voters, making it challenging, but not impossible, to run a grassroots campaign, Barreto said.

The poll surveyed 2,787 registered voters in California from Oct. 19 to 25 in English and Spanish and has an overall estimated margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Among likely voters, the estimated margin of error is about 3 percentage points in either direction.

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

For all their dominance, California Democrats will emerge from Tuesday’s election facing considerable challenges.

As polls show nearly 6 out of 10 Californians believe the state is going in the wrong direction and even more anticipate bad financial times ahead, the state’s new governor and legislators will have to confront some chronic problems, including a severe budget deficit, housing unaffordability, homelessness, and rising energy and insurance costs.

They will also have to grapple with difficult decisions on whether the state can provide Medi-Cal healthcare to low-income residents, how to make the state more resilient to climate change, and who pays for wildfire damage.

“There’s not going to be a long honeymoon period,” said Mark Baldassare, the survey director at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Californians are in a “pretty grumpy mood,” Baldassare said. Although their dissatisfaction is mostly hyperpartisan, with Democrats pointing the finger at President Trump and Congress as Republicans blame Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sacramento legislators, he said, a majority of Californians are worried about the state of the economy and want to see better government performance.

A construction worker on a new home under construction at the Taylor Morrison Avalon at Cypress.

(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Affordability and housing

For voters, a key concern is unaffordability. More than half of Californians rank cost of living, inflation and the economy — along with housing cost and availability — as the most important issues facing California today.

The state has long suffered from a housing shortage, driven largely by local zoning restrictions, high construction costs and lengthy permitting bureaucracy. Newsom made housing a centerpiece of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, initially pledging to build 3.5 million homes by 2025. He has largely fallen short of that goal.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, about 692,000 homes have been built across the state.

“I don’t know if anyone sees a new direction to go,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego. California Democrats have passed a slew of laws designed to solve the housing crisis and spur home building, he said, but although they have helped at the margins, prices keep creeping up.

The median price of a California home has risen from about $570,000 in 2018 to $900,000 in 2026.

Even if California’s housing woes are partly a product of its successful economy, Kousser said, “that’s no solace for anyone trying to make the rent or have a place to live, so these will remain defining problems for the next governor.”

Before the governor can do anything, voters will decide whether to pass a series of consequential propositions on housing and taxes.

Proposition 1 would allow the state to borrow $11.25 billion for low-income and veteran housing, and Proposition 37 would allow the state to amass a $25-billion down payment assistance program for middle-class households. Proposition 45 would enable the state to overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up reviews for housing, roads and water projects — a proposal that leaves many torn between protecting the environment and wanting more affordable housing.

“There are going to be a series of difficult choices that Californians will have to make,” Baldassare said.

Budget woes

One of the governor’s first challenges out of the gate will be submitting a state budget in January to legislators.

This fiscal year, California has an estimated $18.5-billion operating deficit, according to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. By the end of the year, the office predicts the state’s “wall of debt” to balloon to about $29 billion — even as the state’s economy and revenue have grown.

Lee Ohanian, a professor of economics at UCLA, said the major issue California faces is that the state budget has expanded about 75% in the last eight years. This translates to a 40% increase when adjusted for inflation.

California’s budget growth is particularly alarming, Ohanian said, considering politicians have had limited success in addressing major challenges such as homelessness and had delayed maintenance of public road and water infrastructure.

“It would have been one thing if that 75% increase had fixed all those issues,” Ohanian said. “But the next governor and state Legislature are going to be faced with some of the same exigencies that we’ve had for a very long time and they may struggle to pay for those repairs and that deferred maintenance. The question is: Where is the money going to come from?”

In many cases, Ohanian said, California’s ballooning budget has not resulted in higher quality of public services. The state’s school budget per classroom is over $500,000 a year, he noted, well above the national average. But only about 38% of California students met or exceeded state standards in mathematics.

“The Democratic Party just needs to at some point have a come to-Jesus moment,” Ohanian said. “With the amount of money we’re spending, we can do better.”

Leisure Picon, 35, with her 3-year-old daughter, Ivanka Mendoza, for a doctor’s appointment in Lynwood

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Healthcare for the masses?

After pledging in 2018 to bring universal healthcare to California, Newsom set about expanding the state’s Medi-Cal program that began under his predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown.

In 2024, California expanded Medi-Cal to cover all income-eligible adults, regardless of immigration status.

Spending on Medi-Cal now accounts for 40% of the state’s total spending and is expected to reach $219 billion this fiscal year — more than double what it was a decade ago. But as the state faces massive cuts in federal Medicaid funding, rising healthcare costs and budget shortfalls, it has begun to roll back that commitment.

Last year, Newsom and state legislators agreed to freeze new enrollment for Medi-Cal benefits for adult immigrants without legal status. Next year, many adults under 60 enrolled in the program will also face a $30 monthly premium.

Democrat Xavier Becerra, who polls predict will beat Republican Steve Hilton by a wide margin, has promised to protect Californians’ health by “cracking down on fraud” and “cutting waste.” Becerra has significant healthcare experience after serving as secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden, but he has yet to provide specific policy details.

More or less taxes? And who pays?

As Californians become more concerned about affordability, Baldassare said, they are becoming increasingly fiscally conservative. Polls now show a majority of Californians now say that they’d rather pay lower taxes and have fewer services.

But at the same time, about 6 in 10 likely voters also say the wealthiest Californians should pay more taxes.

“There’s a more liberal orientation, but that doesn’t translate into people saying ‘I want to pay higher taxes and have more services,’” Baldassare said. “It just is ‘I want to have more services. I want to be sure that we’re going to have healthcare’… but looking to others to take that fiscal responsibility.”

The midterms offered Californians a chance to weigh in on who should pay. The measure that grabbed the most headlines was Proposition 40, the so-called billionaire tax that would authorize the state to impose a new one-time tax on residents with assets over $1 billion.

But Californians also got to vote on a string of other tax measures that could affect the state’s budget. Propositions 41 and 42 would constrain state government’s ability to raise potential taxes on assets in the future, and Proposition 43 would make it more difficult for special taxes to be increased by local governments.

Proposition 3 would make permanent a temporary tax increase enacted in 2012 on individuals who earn at least $371,000 a year to fund schools and healthcare. Kousser described the original 2012 tax increase as a game-changer that allowed the state to redistribute wealth from rich to poor regions.

“If that political deal falls apart,” he said, “the state will face much more strain.”

Embers blow down a street as the Palisades fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood.

(Ethan Swope / Associated Press)

Who pays for wildfires?

As California contends with ever more catastrophic wildfires, Democratic politicians have so far failed to agree on who should be financially liable when a fire is sparked by electrical equipment: Wildfire victims? Insurers? Utility company investors? Ratepayers?

Earlier this year, Newsom pushed a controversial plan to limit utility companies’ liability, arguing that holding them fully financially responsible would raise the state’s already high power bills and thwart utilities’ ability to modernize and meet state clean-energy mandates.

But Newsom’s deal would have shifted more of the cost to property insurers, risking the prospect of rising insurance premiums. After wildfire victims dubbed the plan a corporate bailout, Newsom abandoned most of it and tried to push a compromise that would help fire victims receive quicker compensation. That deal also fell through, however, when the Assembly declined to vote on it

Political experts agree it will be a tricky issue to resolve.

The utility companies are not popular, said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist. Yet to shore up utilities’ risk profile and prevent upward pressure on utility rates, he said, the state will probably have to grant some liability caps.

“We’re going to pay for it through utility rates, or insurance rates, or subsidies from the government,” Stutzman said. “Those are basically the three options — and none of those are going to be that pleasant for the governor or for the Legislature.”

Artificial intelligence

With momentum building for regulating AI, California is in a unique position as the hub of the technology boom.

Politicians in Sacramento face intense lobbying from major tech companies and venture capitalists as they seek to limit AI’s potential for disruption and misinformation without stifling an industry that’s fueling the state’s economic growth — and has provided a critical stream of tax revenue to the state.

But some political experts say the issue may not prove as thorny for California as issues like housing or wildfires.

Most voters oppose data centers in their areas and support AI safeguards. Even some AI pioneers are calling out for more regulation. In recent weeks, Anthropic and OpenAI have written open letters to Newsom urging stronger safety requirements.

“That creates an unparalleled political opportunity for a governor and the state to lead the nation in addressing the issues,” Kousser said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday called for a significant expansion of the state’s film and TV tax incentives in the face of mounting evidence that producers are fleeing California in search of cheaper locales.

Newsom said in a statement Monday that he favors expanding California’s current Film and Television Tax Credit Program from $750 million to at least $1 billion annually.

Notably, Newsom’s proposal would include credits for actors and other above-the-line talent and extend the tax credit through 2040, according to the statement. That would make California’s program more competitive with those of other states such as Georgia and New York that allow tax credits to offset the cost of actors’ salaries.

If approved by the state Legislature, the credit would be the country’s largest capped film and TV tax credit, Newsom’s office said.

“We’re the capital of entertainment and we’re going to keep it here,” Newsom said in the statement. “Through this expansion, we will maintain the momentum and success of our historic expansion last year.”

Newsom’s announcement comes as the outgoing California governor and possible presidential candidate is looking to burnish his image as a champion of Hollywood as the state is increasingly losing production to other hubs in the U.S. and abroad, where tax incentives are higher and production costs lower.

The proposal puts pressure on fellow Democrat Xavier Becerra, who is widely expected to be California’s next governor, to take up the mantle of helping Hollywood at a time when the state faces rising financial pressures.

Newsom expanded the program last year, when the annual credit was raised from $330 million to $750 million through 2030. Since then, the credit has generated more than $8 billion in direct production spending and over 43,000 jobs, according to the governor’s office.

Newsom also recently signed California’s first stand-alone postproduction credit to bring back jobs for the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists.

With a budget of $10 million, the program will allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses related specifically to postproduction work done in California, even for productions that don’t shoot in the state.

Despite the expanded incentives, local film and TV production in the Los Angeles area continues on a downward trend.

On-location shoot days in the Los Angeles area fell nearly 5% between July and September from the same period a year earlier, and were 29% below the five-year average, according to FilmLA, the nonprofit group that handles film permits for city and county.

Newsom said the expanded credits would address some of California’s limitations.

For example, the new incentives would allow companies that commit to shooting two different productions in California to get a 5% boost in credits. Independent productions would be eligible for $100 million in annual funding, up from $26 million.

Steve Kang, president and chief film liaison for the city’s Board of Public Works, welcomed the proposed enhancements.

“This is a huge win because the current expanded program is helpful, but there were a lot of exceptions and caveats, which limited its full potential,” Kang said.

Others welcomed Newsom’s proposal as “a good start,” but said more was needed to keep the industry in Southern California.

Many productions that shoot locally still face logistical and operational problems with permitting and specific shoot requirements, said Cale Thomas, policy legislative director for Stay in L.A., a grassroots coalition.

“We just need to make it cheaper and easier to shoot here,” Thomas said. “A multifaceted problem takes multifaceted solutions.”

Scott Budnick, a producer of the successful “The Hangover” franchise who lobbied for the state’s enhanced film tax credits last year, also praised Newsom’s proposal, but said the state needs to remove a cap on funding that has created significant hurdles for filmmakers.

“I feel very strongly that the biggest problem with the current credit is because we have a cap,” Budnick said. “It makes every piece of the credit 10 times harder.”

The effort in California comes after congressional leaders introduced the Motion Picture, Television and Entertainment Revitalization Act in September. The bill would establish a 20% federal tax credit on U.S. labor for eligible film and TV productions, including postproduction and visual effects work.

If the federal incentive passes, the hope is for U.S. productions to stack incentives and make the U.S. more attractive for major studio shoots. The federal incentive, however, also is likely to raise the competitive stakes for California as other states compete for Hollywood’s business.

“This is about protecting the future of an industry that has helped define California for generations,” Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) said in response to Newsom’s proposal. It would ensure “the next generation of creative workers and small business owners can raise their families right here at home,” he said.

Newsom has faced tense relations with Hollywood. Many in the industry remain angry with Newsom over his role in the Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. Newsom was instrumental in behind-the-scenes lobbying to get state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to abandon the court fight challenging Paramount-Skydance’s takeover of the legacy studio, which is expected to lead to widespread layoffs.

Newsom’s support for the deal came after Paramount threatened to move operations to Tennessee or Texas, placing more pressure on Bonta to come to an agreement and blunt efforts to lose California’s signature industry.

Top officials in California are bracing for unprecedented election interference from the Trump administration in coming days, including potential ballot seizures.

They are warning the public about such actions in striking messages casting President Trump and U.S. Department of Justice officials as threats to the vote and to American democracy. They have begged federal judges to reject warrant requests and hold the line against lawless probes. They have deployed armies of election lawyers and volunteer monitors, particularly to areas where congressional races could be close.

“California is dead serious about the security of [Tuesday’s] midterm elections. If Trump tries to meddle with California’s ballots, you can be sure as hell that we’ll prosecute those who help him,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday. “Californians deserve a free and fair election, and that is exactly what we’ll deliver.”

Those efforts, echoing others from Democrats in Congress and liberal officials in other political battlegrounds, are like nothing seen before in the U.S., and in response to an equally extraordinary campaign by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections based on claims — espoused by Trump for years — that voting in places such as California has been corrupted by widespread fraud.

On Monday, Justice Department officials redoubled their effort to block about 20,000 California ballots from voters who they allege may be noncitizens by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, after lower courts rejected the request — and as another judge in a separate challenge barred them Monday from demanding California officials segregate the same ballots. The Supreme Court denied the request.

They and local partners also rolled out criminal charges against seven noncitizens accused of illegally voting or registering — bringing the total number of lawful permanent residents recently charged with election-related offenses in the state to 35.

Beyond California, the Trump administration is trying to preemptively negate any win by the Democrat in the Alaska Senate race, based on claims that the presence on ballots of a third candidate with the same name as incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is confusing voters.

The incumbent senator is identified as such on the ballot, and Alaska courts have already rejected similar challenges. A federal judge dismissed the administration’s suit Sunday.

The White House and the Justice Department have said they are simply trying to ensure American citizens’ votes aren’t diluted by illegitimate votes from noncitizens, and that Democrats aren’t able to steal the Alaska race by intentionally confusing voters.

But Democratic leaders have alleged that the lawsuits are part of a broader Trump administration effort to establish a “pretext” to challenge the outcome of Tuesday’s midterm elections if they don’t like the results.

On Saturday, Newsom wrote to federal district court judges across the state, urging them to deny any Trump administration requests for judicial warrants that would allow them “to seize ballots, election records, or certified voting technology while an election is underway and before the results are certified.”

Newsom wrote that he has “grave concerns” that federal agents will “quickly pivot” to making such requests in criminal courts given their mounting losses on other fronts.

The state’s “strict chain of custody, documentation, and retention laws related to ballots and ballot materials ensure any evidence of alleged wrongdoing tied to ballots or ballot materials is preserved and appropriately supervised by a court, so there is no legitimate law enforcement reason to seize ballots, ballot materials, and equipment needed to process and tabulate ballots,” Newsom wrote.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — whose office has been fighting the Trump administration in court — has also been increasingly vocal about his belief that Trump will take increasingly drastic steps to try to control the election results.

“He’s intent on pulling out all the stops, engaging in whatever type of lying, cheating, and stealing is necessary to get the outcome he wants. He starts with the outcome and he backs it out from there, and will do anything seemingly necessary to try to get to the outcome that he wants — instead of letting the facts, and the law, and the votes determine what the outcome is,” Bonta said in an interview on MS NOW that he posted Sunday.

Elections experts point to the administration’s many losses in court as evidence that its efforts are not working, and said most voters won’t experience any problems with casting their ballots.

They said they do have concerns about future efforts by the administration to intervene, including through dramatic steps such as ballot seizures, but whether it takes such steps may hinge on whether the balance of power in the House or Senate depends on the outcome of a small enough number of close races.

If the expected “blue wave” is large and races are not particularly close, it will be more difficult for the Trump administration to sway the outcome in its favor and less likely it will even try to do so — even if Trump publicly rejects the outcome as illegitimate.

In announcing the latest charges, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutors in Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo County Dist. Atty. Dan Dow said the fight is not partisan. Six of the charges were federal; the seventh was brought by Dow locally.

Dow, the county’s district attorney since 2014 who has denied previous claims that he harbors anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments, last week announced that he was investigating a subset of “63 suspected non-citizens registered to vote” in the county from the broader federal list of 20,000 names statewide. On Monday, he appeared alongside Essayli to announce the one person charged in his county — and said more such cases could be coming.

He said California’s system, which requires registering voters to attest to the fact that they are citizens, is an “honor system” that doesn’t work.

One of those charged federally was Moria Dahan, 35, an Israeli national living in West Hills. Dahan was charged with making false statements on her naturalization application to become a U.S. citizen. Prosecutors alleged she illegally registered to vote, voted in person in 2024, and later falsely stated on naturalization papers, under penalty of perjury, that she had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen or registered to vote in a U.S. election.

Tiffany Feder, Dahan’s attorney, described the issue as a mix-up, and said her client never intended to illegally participate in voting. She said Dahan “was targeted through a very extensive scheme to induce her to register and vote,” and like other green card holders with limited English skills, believed the forms she was filling out were official and required.

“The truth is that the moment we discovered this, at her interview, we promptly withdrew her application for naturalization,” Feder said.

California has more than 23.4 million registered voters — meaning the 20,000 flagged individuals would account for less than one-tenth of 1% of all voters in the state, and the 35 charged a tiny sliver of that. State officials and election experts have pointed to the small numbers of arrests, despite a sweeping probe to find such voters by Essayli and others, as proof such fraud is rare.

Essayli argued the exact opposite Monday — saying the charges were just a “sampling” from the broader list of 20,000 individuals, and part of an effort to force state officials to take that list seriously by moving forward with local law enforcement partners such as Dow instead of waiting on the courts.

“Our goal is not to charge all 20,000 people,” Essayli said. “Our goal is to get California to not count the votes of noncitizens.”

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

WASHINGTON  — On the day before the midterm election, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene and set aside ballots from 20,000 California voters who the administration says may not be citizens.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal on Monday.

“The Court should issue a limited injunction directing California to stop commingling suspected illegal ballots with legal ones,” he wrote, “pending completion of the United States’ appeal to the 9th Circuit and further review in this Court.”

He said the court should require “California to segregate mail ballots from persons whom the United States has identified as likely non-citizens. The court should also enter an administrative injunction to that effect while it considers this application.”

It’s not clear whether the court will see this as an emergency.

The appeal goes first to Justice Elena Kagan. She could ask for a response from California, which would take days.

So far, the administration has lost before a federal judge in Los Angeles and twice at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Those judges said that Trump’s lawyers were wrong on the Constitution and that their complaint came too late for this election.

In May, more than 23 million Californians were registered to vote, and the majority lean in favor of Democrats. But Trump claimed again last week “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.”

In mid-October, the Trump administration sued and said federal courts should require California and Los Angeles County to “set aside vote-by-mail ballots from persons identified by the federal government likely to be non-citizens.”

Federal law says that within 90 days of an election, officials may not “systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”

Separately, the Supreme Court also has repeatedly frowned on “late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes” involving elections.

The California court cases have also put a spotlight on the state vs. federal divide in election law.

Usually, federal laws are deemed to be the “supreme law” and override state laws that are in conflict. No one disputes U.S. prosecutors may bring criminal fraud charges against noncitizens who violate a federal law by registering with a state to vote and casting an illegal ballot.

But election rules and procedures are different. The Constitution says “the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state,” unless Congress acts by law to “alter” its regulations.

The 9th Circuit judges in Friday’s opinion said that “this clause expressly dictates which sovereign has the authority to prescribe the manner in which congressional elections are conducted.”

“If the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts,” said Judges Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Biden appointee.

Dissenting Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, called the administration’s proposal to separate the 20,000 ballots a “reasonable request” and a “modest remedy” for the problem of illegal voting.

The majority cited a 2013 opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“The Elections Clause functions as a default provision,” he wrote. “It invests the states with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections,” unless Congress adopts a different rule.

Scalia spoke for a 7-2 majority that rejected an Arizona law that required voters to show documentary proof of their citizenship when registering to vote. In the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Congress said voters may register to vote by filling out a form and attesting under oath they are citizens.

California does the same under state law.

Scalia said the federal voter registration law did not allow Arizona to adopt new and stricter rules.

In dissent, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito said they would go farther to protect the states from federal interference in elections.

“Given states’ exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are met,” Thomas said the Arizona restriction should have been upheld.
“The Constitution reserves for the States the power to decide who is qualified to vote in federal elections,” Alito added.

Last month, Trump’s prosecutors brought fraud charges against 28 lawful immigrants in California who are alleged to have registered or voted in the past even though they are not citizens. They did so under a 1996 immigration law which made it “unlawful for any alien” to vote in a federal election.

The notion of segregating potentially suspect ballots is not a new issue for the Supreme Court.

In November 2020, Alito agreed with Pennsylvania state officials and said they should set aside late-arriving mail ballots to be counted separately.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state election officials and the state Supreme Court agreed to waive part of the state’s law and allow for counting mail ballots that arrived up to three days late.

Republicans strongly objected. That led to Alito’s order. But in the end, the small number of late votes made no difference because the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, decisively won Pennsylvania’s votes and defeated Trump.

The California dispute is different because the state has not changed its voting rules or election procedures. Instead, it is the Trump administration that sought a late change in California’s voting rules and election procedures.

The last day to register to vote online for the Nov. 3 general election was Oct. 19. You still can register to vote, however, through the “same day” voter registration process.

Here’s what you need to know.

Who can register to vote in California?

You must be a United States citizen and a California resident, 18 years or older on election day, not serving a state or federal prison term for a felony and not deemed mentally incompetent by a court.

How to register via the ‘same day’ voter registration process

If you missed the registration deadline, you can register as a conditional voter through the same-day voter registration process.

Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers.

You’ll need to re-register to vote if you’ve changed your:

• name
• residence address or mailing address
• political party

If you’ve become a U.S. citizen fewer than 15 days before the election, you may register to vote by visiting your county elections office anytime before the polls close on election day. You must bring proof that you are a U.S. citizen and sign a form saying you are eligible to vote in California.

For more information, contact your county elections office; a complete list of contact information for each county office can be found here.

What documentation will I need to complete the registration process?

The application requires a state driver’s license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card.

If you don’t have any of those, you still can register. You’ll be assigned a unique identifier to validate your registration.

Here’s how that information is verified:

• California ID numbers are matched with Department of Motor Vehicles records.
• Social Security numbers are matched with Social Security Administration records.
• Unique identifiers are verified by election officials.

What if I need a guide or voting instructions in another language?

Voters can choose to get election information in English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai or Vietnamese by calling the phone numbers listed here or by using these online options to get help.

Where can I complete the ‘same day’ voter registration process?

You can visit an early voting location. Now through Nov. 2, in-person voting centers are open from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., according to the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office.

You also can complete the same-day voter registration process on election day. All polling locations are open on election day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

What’s a provisional ballot and when will my vote be counted?

With same-day registration, you are “conditionally” registered to vote and your ballot is provisional.

The provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.

This just means that elections officials must confirm that you are registered to vote in that county and that you did not already vote in that election. After that information is confirmed, your ballot will be processed and counted.

More election news

Spearheading the campaign in opposition of Proposition 38 is Robert Kaplan, senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at Stanford School of Medicine, and David Panush, who served as a senior health policy and budget advisor to five state Senate presidents.

Kaplan stated, “As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive,” because the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely minuscule pool of qualified recipients.

To qualify, a recipient institution must be established since Jan. 1, 2025, and have at least 200,000 square feet of research space it controls. From that start date, the recipients also must have an affiliation agreement with a UC campus and be affiliated with a UC Health system that records more than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3.5 million outpatient visits annually. The qualification requirements also include having identified at least $250 million in philanthropic support and securing two $50-million commitments for designated research programs.

Kaplan argues medical research grants should be awarded through a competitive process that gives all applicants equal opportunity. Instead, his campaign states, only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria. In a Cal Matters report, a UCLA spokesperson confirmed that among all nonprofit entities affiliated with the school, “only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy could satisfy the stipulations of Prop. 38.”

Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the Yes on 38 campaign, said that “lots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.”

“But it is very likely that [the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy], which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” she added during a virtual news conference in mid-September.

Swanson said it was likely that other research institutions from Stanford, Scripps Research, USC and Cedars Sinai would qualify for the other 50% of funds, “and that really is what we wanted to ensure that we had research institutes that were ready to hit the ground running.”

Ultimately, she said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.

Michelson’s institute first became a nonprofit in 2022, and the co-founder has donated at least $120 million to the research organization. The billionaire is the board chair of the institute, which is housed at a research center owned by UCLA, according to the opposition campaign.

The Vote No on Prop. 38 campaign also argues against the financial model of the measure, saying a bond would saddle taxpayers with decades of debt and that any potential future revenue from the research is uncertain.