california

The U.S. Department of Justice — make that the U.S. Department of “Justice” — is sniffing around Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

This is widely seen as a throw-me-in-the-briar-patch gift from President Trump, coming as California’s governor edges ever closer toward a 2028 run for the White House. The presumed effort to cut down a political foe could instead boost Newsom’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, or so it’s being suggested.

After all, look at how Trump’s verbal bludgeoning elevated former Rep. Adam Schiff. The House has typically been a dead end for lawmakers seeking statewide office in California. Today, the former Burbank congressman and Trump tormentor is a United States senator.

In truth, however, it’s far too early to say how the investigation of Newsom and his wife plays out politically, not least because it’s unclear whether there’s merit to the probe or if it’s merely a fruitless search-and-destroy mission by Trump’s Department of Retribution, Vengeance and Settling Old Scores

Beyond that, the first ballots of the 2028 campaign won’t be cast for roughly a year and a half. The Democratic National Convention, where the party will install its nominee, doesn’t begin for another 778 days.

Your friendly political columnist won’t resort to that hoariest of cliches about such-and-such duration being a lifetime in politics. But for some perspective, let’s go back 778 days.

President Joe Biden was running for reelection and about to challenge Trump to a pair of early debates. Trump was sequestered in a New York City courtroom being prosecuted on 34 felony counts.

A lot happened in the weeks and months that followed, including Biden’s self-immolation on the debate stage and Trump’s criminal conviction. A lot more will happen in the weeks and months to come. There’s no telling what. But it’s safe to say the fight for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination will not be decided by anything that’s taken place in June 2026.

Still, Newsom is once again sunning himself in the national spotlight and for that he has Trump to thank.

With his exquisitely tuned political antennae, the governor jumped out front of the president by announcing last week the feds were targeting him and his wife. (Naturally, Newsom’s revelation was accompanied by a rage-bait email — subject line: “Because I am thinking of running for president” — that denounced the “political witch hunt” and asked for money.)

“After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me,” Newsom said in a 4 ½-minute, direct-to-camera video that framed the investigation before prosecutors had the chance. “And just in the last week, I’ve learned his campaign has reached my own home: To get me, he’s coming after my wife, Jen.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Newsom and his wife both adamantly denied any wrongdoing and, of course, they must be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.

But there was something a bit disingenuous about the governor’s chivalrous defense. Siebel Newsom, a documentary filmmaker who calls herself California’s “First Partner,” is no mere housewife baking cookies and holding teas, in the famous words of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Hold the outrage, folks, this is not some retrograde criticism of career-seeking women.)

Among her many public-facing activities, Siebel Newsom heads The Representation Project, a nonprofit focused on challenging gender stereotypes. The organization has faced criticism for accepting donations from companies that lobby the governor, so it’s not unreasonable to ask whether those interests have improperly sought to influence Newsom by giving money to Siebel Newsom’s causes.

My Times colleagues reported that an investigation related to Siebel Newsom has been underway for about a year and was launched by federal prosecutors in Sacramento based on whistle-blower information provided in California. It was not, their source said, the result of a directive out of Washington.

A second probe, they reported, is related to Newsom’s ex-chief of staff, Dana Williamson, who pleaded guilty last month to bank and wire fraud involving a scheme to steal campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for governor.

The problem with all this federal sleuthing is the utter lack of credibility attached to Trump’s Justice Department. Which is what happens when you turn the department into an arm of Trump’s malevolent fiefdom and deploy its prosecutors as henchmen targeting the president’s perceived enemies.

“This is a huge problem,” Randall Eliason, former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, told Politico. “In any political corruption prosecution, the defense almost always claims it is a ‘political witch hunt,’ that prosecutors are targeting him or her for some political reason.

“The best defense to that has always been [the Justice Department’s] tradition of independence from politics and long track record of pursuing corruption cases based only on the facts and law, without regard to political considerations,” Eliason said. “The Trump administration has abandoned that independence without even trying to hide it.”

The probe of Newsom and his wife presents more questions than answers.

It’s grody, but not criminal on its face, for lobbyists to curry favor with the governor by throwing cash at his wife’s endeavors — if, in fact, that’s been the case. Special interests spending money to gain access and influence is about as common in Sacramento and other capitals as statues, domed buildings and manicured lawns.

So why then are the feds investigating Newsom? Why now? Is there any fire, or is it all a lot of smoke?

Perhaps most important, where can you turn to get an impartial answer?

A new commission made up of legislators, public defenders, academics and advocates seeks to push California — one of just two states that don’t pay for basic public defense — to begin providing resources and enforcing minimum standards for county public defender systems.

The California Independent Commission on Public Defense includes three assemblymembers and two senators — among them Jesse Arreguín and Nick Schultz, chairs of the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees — as well as chief public defenders from several counties, retired judges, the directors of criminal justice nonprofits, and the heads of organizations representing thousands of defense attorneys in the state.

“We have discussed the problem of our public defense system for years,” said Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank and former prosecutor who has sponsored legislation to improve public defense.

The goal is to “move past discussion and study, and come up with an actionable road map of what we need to do to really build out the robust public defense infrastructure that Californians are rightfully entitled to,” he said.

The commissioners plan to develop a five-year plan to phase in state funding, along with enforceable standards like caseload limits and access to defense investigators.

A CalMatters investigation last year found that criminal defendants across the state are routinely convicted without anyone investigating the charges against them, significantly increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Many California counties do not employ a single defense investigator who can interview witnesses, review police reports, visit crime scenes and retrieve video surveillance footage. CalMatters also found that lawyers in some rural counties are handling caseloads that far exceed even the most permissive standards, making them less likely than other defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution’s evidence in legal motions and take their cases to trial.

But the state has resisted stepping in. After a proposed bill that would have created an official state commission to address the issue was abandoned, two advocacy groups, the Wren Collective and UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law and Justice Center, decided to form an independent commission and began assembling participants who could develop and act on reforms. These types of commissions, which have facilitated significant improvements in other states’ public defender systems, are usually established by the governor.

“It became clear that this was an issue that was not a high priority for Sacramento, especially during a budget crisis,” said Chesa Boudin, the Berkeley center’s founding director and a former San Francisco district attorney. It also became clear, Boudin said, that “there was a tremendous gap between what experts understood to be the crisis and the public perception of California government as a kind of progressive leader in the country.”

In the decades since the U.S. Supreme Court established the right to an attorney in state court criminal proceedings, California has saddled its counties with the responsibility of providing lawyers to poor people accused of crimes. Many of those counties have opted for the cheapest path: paying private lawyers and firms a flat fee to represent indigent defendants, regardless of how many cases they handle or how much time they spend on each case.

“You’ve got some offices that have an incredibly high caliber of representation that they can provide, and you have other offices that are doing these flat-fee contracts where the quality has been documented to be pretty bad,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Primus is the only member of the new commission from outside of California. She was asked to join because of her extensive research and writing about the structure of indigent defense.

An indigent defense commission in Michigan, which was formed by the legislature in 2013, has led to significant reforms and a substantial influx in state funding.

The California commission’s work, Primus said, can serve “as a catalyst for political actors to do the right thing and start to fund and improve indigent defense delivery, or as fodder for lawsuits that then can try to get the judiciary to push the political actors to do what is necessary to provide for effective representation.”

The commission is scheduled to hold its first in-person meeting, which will be open to the public, in Berkeley in October, with additional meetings planned for Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Northern California over the next 12 months. Commissioners say they will work in subcommittees in between these quarterly sessions to develop a concrete fiscal plan for the state, draft legislative language, and establish minimum standards for how counties should structure their public defender offices, compensate their attorneys, provide access to experts, and report on their work.

Anat Rubin writes for CalMatters.

They are the warrior class of politics. The consultants, the Bob Shrums and Paul Maslins and Roger Stones and Roger Aileses and Ray Strothers and the others–Washington masters in the dark arts of campaigns, mercenaries holding sway over our dreams and our dreads. Only a few outsiders recognize them by name. Mostly they are known, in the romanticized jargon of their trade, as simply the hired guns of democracy–gloried, feared and hated.

And they are on their way to do battle in California.

For better or worse.

Drawn by tales of incredible riches to be made, of trendy and prolific initiative campaigns, and also drawn by the looming possibility that California will become the presidential “Super Tuesday” of 1992, a gold rush of political consulting is under way. It is a westward-ho migration of professional campaign talent without precedent.

Looking to Expand

Some of the biggest names in the business have moved their homes here from Washington. Others are opening Western offices or looking to expand. Still others are scouting for opportunity. Some are willing to work on the cheap just to get a toehold.

And with this new wave of national consultants comes renewed debate and alarm over familiar concerns.

Are consultants growing too numerous and expensive? Do they swallow up so much of the campaign budget that they weaken the candidate or the cause that they were hired to promote? Is there enough work in the elections of 1990 and 1992 in California, or will consultants have to bird-dog more candidates and ballot initiatives to pay the bills? And the most stubborn riddle of all: To what extent are consultants at the root of the negative, cynical, blow-with-the-wind, overly technological campaign politics of today?

Low Voter Turnout

More than just questions, these are expressions of simmering frustration. Around the world democracy is grabbing big, inky headlines–in China, in Russia, in Poland. But domestically, the news is of record-low voter turnouts and declining voter registration. And anyone close to the process is a target for blame. Consultants, because of their win-at-any-cost bravado, are easy to locate in the cross-hairs.

“Don’t come!” snaps Pat Caddell by way of advice to his former colleagues in the consulting business. “Stay home!”

In the course of a career as pollster and strategist in five Democratic presidential campaigns, Caddell has been everything from the creative boy genius of politics to its temperamental Darth Vader. As much as anyone, he is responsible for the flamboyant gunslinger mystique of the celebrity consultant: the man and woman who can mix polling and advertising and sheer cunning into electoral victory, never mind the attributes of the candidate.

Now living in Los Angeles, Caddell has angrily turned his back on the business, forswearing politics-for-profit. He is now one of the most colorful and energetic critics of Washington political consultants.

“These people are not coming out here for the good of California,” Caddell growls.

“Sometimes politics is a clash of ideology and ideas. But that’s not what this is about. This is about coming out here and making money. And if the consulting corps does for California what it’s done to the nation’s politics, it will be an unmitigated disaster. . . .

“What voters here are going to get is going to horrify them. Campaigns in California aren’t particularly edifying anyway. And they’re going to get worse–the kind of smear, mud and sleaze that we’ve already seen is nothing compared to what’s coming.”

Caddell represents the most astringent view, to be sure.

But most everyone in the political community has something to say, or fret about, as he beholds the invasion of the consultants:

* Bob Shrum (speech writer for Edward M. Kennedy, and media consultant for Richard Gephardt for President, Alan Cranston reelection, Leo T. McCarthy for Senate, John K. Van de Kamp for governor) moves from Georgetown, where he is one of the most storied names in the Washington business, to Los Feliz.

* Paul Maslin (baby-boomer pollster for Gary Hart for President, Paul Simon for President, Michael S. Dukakis for President, Cranston, McCarthy, Van de Kamp) likewise moves from Washington to Venice, Calif.

* Roger Stone (George Bush political lieutenant) signs up at a nominal fee to assist GOP state treasurer candidate Angela Bay Buchanan.

* Roger Ailes (Bush national television advertising, George Deukmejian reelection) is courted by GOP Treasurer Thomas W. Hayes. One political pro believes that Ailes, probably the most celebrated Republican consultant in the nation right now, will be asked to handle up to six campaigns in California before 1990 is over.

* Ray Strother (who has moved from a specialist in Southern campaigns to be a national figure in Democratic politics) is opening a Beverly Hills office. Strother is willing to work at “negotiable,” reduced rates as he tries to work his way into the state’s political network. Sergio Bendixen (Bruce Babbitt for President) is spending an increasing share of his time in California and is actively looking for work. John Russonello (Babbitt, Cranston) is anxious for work here.

* A broad assortment of other, perhaps lesser-known consultants are joining in the gold rush. Philadelphia’s Campaign Group, headed by Doc Sweitzer (Al Gore for President), has opened a San Diego office under Bill Wachob. Pollsters Mark Mellman and Ed Lazarus of Washington (Gore and Ohio Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum and former California gubernatorial contender state Sen. John Garamendi) are actively shopping for work here. Pollster Alex Evans (former Caddell associate) has moved from Washington to San Francisco. Celinda Lake of Greenberg-Lake pollsters in Washington (Dukakis campaign in California and Texas) is working for state treasurer candidate Kathleen Brown and pushing for a statewide initiative on children’s issues. And so on.

“The only thing that surprises me is that it has taken this long for the migration to take place,” Los Angeles lawyer and political adviser Darry Sragow said.

“And if there is a silver lining, it’s that with all the national talent and attention, California is bound to benefit as an originator of political ideas and trends, much as it is now viewed in the consumer arena as where trends start.”

Two men are most responsible for the migration.

One is a home-grown product, Clinton Reilly of San Francisco.

Prop. 103 Battle

Reilly (now managing Democrat Dianne Feinstein for governor) was the full-service consultant–strategy, polling, advertising, the works–for insurance companies in their $63.8-million California ballot initiative campaign of last year.

Reilly lost. The initiative backed by his insurers was defeated, and the rival Ralph Nader-backed rate-rollback Proposition 103 passed. But as the most expensive single-state campaign in U.S. history, jaws of consultants everywhere went agape.

It is assumed that Reilly set a record for consulting fees. Estimates of his earnings range from $6 million to $9 million, and occasionally higher.

“You put those kind of millions around anything that people vote on and consultants will swarm all over it. They’ll flatten the Rockies to get out there,” said James Carville, a Washington-based strategist who is not working here, at least not yet.

Reilly will not discuss specifics about his earnings. But he calls the estimates inflated, and says it is unfair to publish guesses of fees without considering his full-time staff of 20 to 25 who must be paid in off-years the same as in the heat of battle.

Still, Reilly’s campaign stands as an important milepost in the brief history of professional politics, starting back in those days when campaign work came mostly from the heart. Those were the days when the individual made the choice–if he wanted to make money, he went elsewhere; if he believed in something or someone, he threw himself into politics.

Career Option

Now, consulting is a career option just the same as accounting or law. Wholly self-made, Reilly at age 42 bears the fruits of such labors with ownership of his own three-story office building in downtown San Francisco, a showcase home in tony Sea Cliff, a luxury car, fine suits and a cultivated palate.

“I am rich. I have made money. Sometimes when I look at my assets they surprise me. And other times, like (when being interviewed) now, they embarrass me. But I tell you, my motive has never been just money. I am more interested in the professionalization of this business.

“I wanted people to get a fair fee rather than what I saw. Which was a politician waiting until the last minute, hiring you and asking how little could he pay you. Then, expect you to work crazy hours, seven days a week. And then fire you the day the election is over.”

But Reilly is also among a growing number of consultants with a twinge of doubt about how they have altered American politics.

“All this increasing emphasis on political money seems to have been detrimental to the public interest, where interest groups who have the money to give have created a paralysis in the system,” Reilly says. “It’s a byproduct of this professionalism that I didn’t anticipate.”

Gilded Reputation

The second person who has stimulated the migration of fellow national consultants to California is Bob Shrum.

Former speech writer to Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy (D-Mass.), Shrum and his partner, strategy guru David Doak, built their gilded reputation on the strength of the campaign they designed for Cranston’s uphill reelection to the Senate from California in 1986.

Since then, they have become one of the dominant forces in California Democratic politics, producing the advertising and strategy for Lt. Gov. McCarthy’s 1988 run for the Senate, Atty. Gen. Van de Kamp’s 1990 gubernatorial campaign, and for Occidental Petroleum’s Los Angeles ballot proposition campaign in 1988 to drill for oil in Pacific Palisades. They also were on retainer for Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in his easy reelection this year.

As he spent more and more time on business in California, the unexpected happened.

“I fell in love and got married, that’s why I moved here,” he said. His wife is Times society columnist MaryLouise Oates, now on leave writing a book.

Cupid aside, Shrum proved a pathfinder among the national consulting corps. Not only is it possible for a Washington consultant to be successful, and quickly, in California, Shrum showed that a California homestead does not necessarily reduce one’s clout in the Capitol. And he showed that an Easterner can survive here without changing habits. Shrum refuses to learn to drive.

Target of Criticism

Because of his high profile and his strong, lingering connection to the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party, Shrum gets more than his share of criticism for work on behalf of non-Kennedyesque clients. In particular, he is criticized in some liberal circles for his campaign on behalf of Occidental’s proposal to drill in Pacific Palisades, which was venomously opposed by environmentalists.

In truth, though, political professionals long ago ceased being driven solely by their devotion to a cause. Increasingly like lawyers, they are willing to sell their skills to a greater range of clients even though they remain sensitive to the charge they are selling out.

“There are certain basic guidelines,” explains Shrum about his approach to the business. “No Republican campaigns. No campaigns for someone I disagree with on a fundamental issue. . . . Occidental was not a litmus test.”

In the face of this westward migration of consultants, California’s home-grown corps of political professionals is sounding a game note.

“Bring ‘em on!” says Richie Ross, a combative strategist who earned his stripes in Democratic legislative races and San Francisco municipal elections. He is now state manager of Van de Kamp’s 1990 Democratic gubernatorial effort.

He’s Not Impressed

“They’re the guys who swagger around doing stuff we’ve done 10 years ago. Now we get a chance to beat them. I’ve seen their stuff. They don’t know anything about direct mail or targeting. Their TV (advertising) is pedestrian. And none of their strategic thinking knocks me away,” Ross said.

“The field of national politics is rotating west. Now we get an opportunity for visibility. I want people to say, ‘Hmmm, who is this guy who beat Atwater.’ ” (In this case, Atwater being Republican National Chairman and former Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater.)

Many in the consulting community agree that Californians are ahead of the nation in the sophistication of computerized direct mail. In its simplest form, it is nothing more than identifying a narrow community of interest–say, Greek-American voters. Then, these voters are sent special appeals pointing out that one’s candidate is endorsed by some Greek religious leader or that one’s opponent once cast a vote supporting Turkey, Greece’s adversary.

One reason why California consultants are unruffled by the added competition here is that they are moving direct mail and other technologies eastward just as rapidly and eagerly as Washington consultants are galloping west.

One firm, Winner/Wagner/Mandabach Associates, is a California company that drifted away from direct lobbying and campaign consulting here. But it has become heavily involved in ballot proposition campaigns in other states.

Where It’s At

“The things you learn in California you can take elsewhere. . . . It’s not like California was first with the initiative. But there is no question this is the ground where the technology has been developed,” says the company’s Scott Fitz-Randolph.

Still, for the money and thrills, California’s biannual orgy of ballot initiatives is tops in the consulting world, both for the home-staters and the newcomers. Here is a chance to get rich and do battle over driving issues of the day–insurance, political reform, transportation–all without distraction of a candidate.

So refined have initiatives become, they are promoted in classic congressional “pork barrel” fashion. The cases in point are a 1988 park bond and a proposed 1990 rail bond issue sponsored by the environmentalist Planning and Conservation League. In both instances, sponsors of the huge bond issues solicited campaign funds and political support from those who would benefit from the measures.

GOP consultant Dick Dresner, who has been spreading himself between San Diego and New York for seven years, says some national consultants are in for a surprise.

“You may think this a vast, open place. But you’ll be disappointed. You’ll find that whatever you do, there is somebody just as good already doing it here,” Dresner says.

Instant Credibility

On the other hand, there is an undeniable Washington cachet about these big-name consultants.

Candidates seek them out. Just by hiring one, a candidate can gain credibility with the press. If the press takes one seriously, so do campaign contributors. And, quickly, they are on their way.

“That’s what we’re selling,” says consultant Strother.

Pat Caddell believes the cozy relationship between the political press and consultants has subtly shielded the consulting business from the probing scrutiny given politicians, lawyers and other groups that wield substantial influence in society.

“Nobody questions the money, nobody questions the win-loss records, or what they will do to win. Nobody questions anything,” he grumps.

Aside from money, power is a sure draw on consultants. And there is an emerging view that the West, no longer the South, will be the site of the decisive presidential power play in upcoming elections. The political arithmetic of 1988 seems unchanged for 1992 and beyond: A Democrat will have tremendous trouble reaching the White House without California.

That is in the general election. In the primaries, California political leaders of both parties seem determined to move up the June primary, and some consultants figure an early vote here will become the “Super Tuesday” of 1992.

Taking Inventory

Given that, many consultants are taking inventory of their knowledge and contacts here. And they are worried. Looking back on 1988, there is considerable evidence that national consultants of both parties were weak in their understanding of the state.

Both Republican Bush and Democrat Dukakis often seemed slightly uncertain where to go or what to say. Dukakis finally showed how little his campaign understood the state when he decided to make his famous I-am-a-liberal-and-proud-of-it statement in the San Joaquin Valley, an act of geographic silliness not unlike a candidate going to San Diego and announcing his plan to mothball the Navy.

“National consultants know there is a need to get out here and become familiar with California if they’re really going to be effective,” says Kam Kuwata, a Santa Monica consultant of rising stature.

There is something else drawing consultants out of Washington. Call it the need for fresh perspective.

“I felt that to stay clearheaded, I needed to get out of Washington,” says pollster Maslin. “Money? Sure, that’s a factor. And it’s a growing part of the national dynamic. But I needed a chance to recharge outside of Washington.

“After 11 years in the cockpit of national politics, if you will, I needed to get my feet back on some ground. Even if that ground is the San Andreas Fault.”

Just days after the Trump administration completed millions of dollars in renovations on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to make it American flag-blue, residents and online users noted it had turned a phosphorescent green.

Here’s why:

The calm, still waters of the Reflecting Pool make it an ideal nursery for algae growth. Algae need nitrogen and phosphorus to grow, and the Reflecting Pool is primarily fed by the Potomac River, which gets heavy doses of those nutrients from nearby urban and agricultural lands.

The Potomac also absorbed one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history earlier this year when a pipe burst five miles upstream of Washington, although that event probably happened too long ago to contribute to the algal bloom today.

Untreated sewage is high in nitrogen and phosphorus. When nutrient levels are high, feasting algae can quickly reproduce.

The Department of the Interior said when the algae first appeared that it was “residual,” from the supply lines to the pool.

Experts also speculate that the darker blue color may be helping the Reflecting Pool absorb more heat. The higher temperatures promote algae growth by allowing their metabolisms to shift into overdrive.

Summer temperatures in D.C. aren’t helping. This week, temperatures are as high as 95 degrees in the city, prompting a heat alert.

The combination probably explains the excessive growth, turning the water surface an opaque green and preventing onlookers from seeing the new blue hue of the concrete basin.

Algae are important and beneficial organisms when the ecosystem is in balance. They’re the base of the aquatic food chain, fed on by herbivores of all shapes and sizes, including shrimp and juvenile fish, which in turn feed organisms higher up the food chain. The single-celled organisms use the power of the sun to produce energy through photosynthesis, similar to houseplants on your balcony.

In an effort combat the algae in the Reflecting Pool, employees of the National Park Service were seen pouring in gallons of hydrogen peroxide, a chemical commonly used in pool maintenance.

The Department of the Interior also is employing a “high-tech nanobubble ozone technology” to destroy the cells of the algae.

Ozone — yes, the same irritant that is in smog — is a gas composed of three oxygen molecules, and the small size of the bubbles allow the most gas transfer into the water, where it can damage algal cells, similar to how it irritates our lungs.

This only treats the symptoms, however. Generally, ozone nanobubbling is effective as a temporary solution for algae blooms. Longer-term fixes would have to address what makes the Reflecting Pool so ideal for algae, such as its depth, darker color and inflow of nitrogen and phosphorus.

In California, ozone nanobubbles also have been used in a project to improve water quality in the Tijuana River. The 120-mile river that runs near the border in northern Mexico and Southern California was the site of a pilot study in 2025. The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission reported that the nanobubbling reduced “odors and bacteria,” but the project concluded prematurely after a flood swept some of the instrumentation into the river.

I was only about 30 minutes from my home, but there I was in the solitude of the San Gabriel Mountains without another soul on the trail.

Dozens of butterflies, likely variable checkerspots with hints of yellow and red on their wings, fluttered all around. A territorial hummingbird repeatedly buzzed past my head, resembling the sound of either the world’s largest bumblebee or a tiny angry drone zipping past my face. Western whiptails flitted across the trail and onto rocks. A cacophony of birdsong and calls filled my ears, including, per my birding app, spotted towhee, Western wood-pewee, wrentit, bushtit and a purple finch I looked long and hard to try to identify in the treetops. Later, a gray squirrel expressed its displeasure at an interloper disrupting its peace.

These are special and common experiences that I frequently find hiking along the Gabrielino Trail, a 28(ish)-mile route through the San Gabriel Mountains that runs from Chantry Flat north of Arcadia to a lush riparian area along the Arroyo Seco east of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab near Pasadena. Although it offers hikers an epic close-to-home backpacking experience, you do not need to complete the entire trail to enjoy it.

Because of its length and proximity to other trails, it is replete with epic day-hike opportunities and, because of that, it’s a great place to spend the summer solstice, both the mark of the beginning of summer and the longest day of the year.

This weekend, we will see just over 14 hours of sunlight on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The sun will rise around 5:40 a.m. and set just after 8 p.m. It offers hikers the opportunity to not only travel longer distances, but also take rests along the way to really savor their surroundings.

In this edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I will suggest a few routes along the Gabrielino Trail. I encourage you, though, to take a look at a paper map of Angeles National Forest (available at most local outdoors gear stores) or use a mapping service such as CalTopo or onX Backcountry to discern what would be the most fun for you and your hiking party.

Before we discuss the hikes, a few safety reminders:

• 🙅 Don’t drink water straight from the creek (unless in a serious emergency). Always use a filter or pack your own water.
• 🫗 Pack more water in summer than you would in other seasons. Dehydration can evolve into a serious and life-threatening situation.
• 🤮 Never relieve yourself in or next to a river, as it’s a major contributor to pollution; never leave toilet paper in the woods.
• 🥾 Wear water-resistant or waterproof footwear with good traction, and pack extra wool socks to better ensure you won’t get blisters.
• 📡 Bring a cellphone with satellite messaging capabilities or a satellite communicator to ensure you can call for help; you likely won’t have cellphone reception in the San Gabriel Mountains.
• 🤔 Freshen up on Leave No Trace principles and how to best pack your bag for the safest best day.

Additionally, please note that the segment of the Gabrielino Trail in and around the West Fork and Devore Trail camps was damaged in recent storms. The Lowelifes Respectable Citizens’ Club, a trail maintenance crew, is repairing it and hopes to have it online soon.

OK, here’s what I recommend along the Gabrielino Trail. Have fun out there!

A hiker meditates near the Brown Mountain Dam just off the Gabrielino Trail in Angeles National Forest.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

1. Gabrielino Trail near JPL to Brown Mountain Dam (or beyond)

Distance: 7.6 miles
Elevation gained: About 650 feet
Difficulty: On the easier end of moderate
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: Paved segment of Gabrielino Trail from Windsor Avenue

This 7.6-mile out-and-back trek takes hikers along the Arroyo Seco, under the canopy of massive coast live oaks and past aromatic native plants such as California bay laurel.

You will park in the large dirt parking lot and take the steep paved road a very short jaunt to join the trail. If hiking with a wheelchair or if you’re a hiker who prefers pavement, it’s better to park in the lot south of the dirt lot.

Once on the Gabrielino Trail, you can hike as far as you’d like. Short on time? Hike two miles to Gould Mesa campground, have a little snack (and maybe a swim) and head back.

To reach the dam, follow the trail in the northwesterly direction for about 3.4 miles from the starting point. You’ll come to an intersection where the Gabrielino Trail continues northwest, leading you away from the river. Instead, you’ll want to follow the footpath along the river to reach the man-made-but-still-lovely waterfall.

1a. Want a longer day?

If you want a longer day, you could continue on the Gabrielino Trail after your side quest to the Brown Mountain Dam waterfall and ask a friend to pick you up at this gate off Angeles Crest Highway at a specific time. This point-to-point journey will be about 7.6 miles. The extension is also much more challenging than the first 3.7 miles, as it gains about 1,500 feet over 3.9 miles. This trail through Dark Canyon can be overgrown, so please plan accordingly, including downloading a map and bringing a paper map with you. (See map)

Switzer Falls in Angeles National Forest.

(Raul Roa / Los Angeles Times)

1b. Big adventure day

For an even longer point-to-point journey, leave the Brown Mountain Dam waterfall and take the Gabrielino Trail all the way to Switzer Falls, asking a friend to pick you up at the Switzer Picnic Area at a specific time. This point-to-point route will be about 11 miles, and you will gain about 2,350 feet in elevation. This is the most rugged option, and this trail can be overgrown in places. Plan accordingly! (See map)

The Gabrielino Trail, a 28-mile trek through Angeles National Forest, passes through various plant communities and canyons, providing pockets of shade along the way.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

2. Red Box to Valley Forge Trail Camp via Gabrielino Trail

Distance: 4.8 to 6.6 miles, depending on your route
Elevation gained: About 1,200 feet
Difficulty: Moderate
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: Mt. Wilson Observatory paved walking path

This 4.8- to 6.6-mile out-and-back trek will take you along a delightful path that always feels a little bit like a fairy wonderland to me. You’ll pass under shady oak canopies and past moss-covered rock walls. You end at the Valley Forge Trail Camp, which has lovely tall conifers and a vault toilet (that’s usually clean).

To begin, you’ll park in the Red Box Picnic Area parking lot, which can fill up on the weekends and does require you to display an Adventure Pass or other federal public lands pass. You’ll find the trail’s start down some rock steps in the southern area of the lot.

Valley Forge Trail Camp, left, and mossy rocks.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Just over two miles in, you’ll near the trail camp. Take good care to ensure you’re on the right trail. Instead of following the Gabrielino Trail, keep your eyes peeled for the trail that descends toward the riverbed. After a nice rest at the trail camp, you can take the trail or fire road back. (See map)

As of mid-June, the Red Box Picnic Area is experiencing active bear activity, so be mindful if returning to your car around dusk.

2a. For those feeling hardcore

From near Valley Forge Trail Camp, you could consider taking the very steep Valley Forge Trail, a 2.6-mile trek that gains about 1,550 feet, to the Eaton Saddle. From here, you could take the Mt. Lowe Motorway to the San Gabriel Peak Trail, head north briefly using the Mt. Disappointment Road to take the Bill Riley Trail down to Mt. Wilson Red Box Road. The downside is that you’ll have to then take the road about a third of a mile down to Red Box, and drivers zoom through here like they suddenly learned burgers at In-N-Out are free for only the next hour. That’s to say: Proceed with caution.

City lights glow after sunset in a view along the road to Mt. Disappointment in Angeles National Forest.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Additionally, parts of this trip extension might be overgrown. It is about 5.5 miles and gains 2,300 feet in elevation. It will be through a beautiful area of the forest though! (See map)

Regardless of which route you take, please make sure to check the weather, pack smart and be OK with turning around if the conditions on the trail aren’t passable. Additionally, please be mindful of trails that remain closed under the Eaton fire area closure order.

The stretch of the Gabrielino Trail between Red Box and Switzer picnic areas offers great views of nearby peaks in the San Gabriel Mountains.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

3. Red Box Picnic Area to Switzer Picnic Area

Distance: About 8.6 miles
Elevation gained: About 1,450 feet
Difficulty: Moderate
Dogs allowed? Yes
Accessible alternative: West Fork National Scenic Bikeway

Earlier this week, I took this 8.6-mile moderate route, parking at the Red Box Picnic Area before heading down into the canyon on the segment of the Gabrielino Trail that runs parallel to Angeles Crest Highway. (See map)

This trail is both beautiful — lush with native plants and the last blooms of wildflower season with great views of nearby peaks — and exposed. There will be shady patches as you hike under healthy oak and maple tree canopy, but wear ample sun protection.

One of many deep pools along the rivers that run next to the Gabrielino Trail.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Although the trail runs parallel to the Arroyo Seco for a stretch, you cannot easily access the river because of a steep drop-off from the trail to the river. I didn’t cross the river until 3 miles in, and by then, I was feeling hot and ready for a quick dip.

That said, when I arrived at the Switzer Picnic Area, I felt like I’d won the lottery. I had skipped the nightmare that it has become to park here, but I still got to swim around in one of the river’s deep pools. It was 1.8 miles farther to Switzer Falls, one of the best cascades in Angeles National Forest.

Great views from the Gabrielino Trail.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

***

If you have any questions or feedback about the suggested routes, you can simply reply to this email if you’re a Wild subscriber. It will go directly to me. I love hearing from you. Have fun out there and happy summer!

3 things to do

Volunteers work at a Channel Islands Restoration event.

(Channel Islands Restoration)

1. Serve the river in Santa Paula
Channel Islands Restoration, a Santa Barbara-based habitat restoration nonprofit, needs volunteers from 9 a.m. to noon Sunday at Santa Clara River Preserve (1368 Mission Rock Road in Santa Paula). The preserve spans almost two miles and is about 1,000 acres. All ages and skill sets welcome. The site is ADA-friendly, and restrooms are on-site. Register at cirweb.networkforgood.com.

2. Eradicate invasive plants in Irwindale
The California Native Plant Society San Gabriel Mountains Chapter needs volunteers from 8 to 10:30 a.m. Saturday to yank weeds from the Santa Fe Dam natural area. Volunteers will also learn from plant society members about the local flora and fauna. Learn more at chapters.cnps.org.

3. Investigate the invertebrates in Rowland Heights
The Invertebrate Club of Southern California will host a 1.5- to 3-mile hike from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. June 26 through Big Dalton Canyon. Participants will learn about scorpions, beetles and other interesting creatures. Learn more at the group’s Instagram page.

The must-read

The Malibu coastline just south of Point Dume.

(Jackie Snow)

Freelance writer Jackie Snow was feeling inspired to get outdoors. After reading my 2024 piece about walking the entire 27.4 miles of Washington Boulevard, she came up with an idea: Walking the entire L.A. County shoreline. Snow took 10 trips from November through mid-January to accomplish her goal, walking 70(ish) miles in total. She maps out in her piece how you can do that too! “I have seen whale-watch perches, burned-out Malibu lots, crowded boardwalks and magnificent waves. The coastline is both fragile and welcoming — and walkable — if you’re willing to chase the tides,” Snow wrote in her article for The Times.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

It’s ladybug season in Los Padres National Forest. Volunteers with the Los Padres Forest Assn. recently discovered thousands of the insects while they were working on the Piedra Blanca Trail. “If you know where to look, you can find them hibernating on rocks, leaf litter, and trees in masses called ‘lovelinesses,’” the association wrote on Instagram. “But, have you ever seen the next generation hatch and fly away in the springtime?” No, but I hope to someday.

For more insider tips on Southern California’s beaches, trails and parks, check out past editions of The Wild. And to view this newsletter in your browser, click here.

President Trump recently took action that could pave the way for opening many more federal lands to recreational off-road enthusiasts. When I heard about it, I immediately thought of the battle over off-highway vehicle access in California’s Mojave Desert.

Earlier this year, a judge ordered the Bureau of Land Management to close roughly 2,000 miles of off highway vehicle trails in the western Mojave to reduce ongoing harm to the endangered desert tortoise, a keystone species of the local ecosystem whose numbers are in steep decline.

That court decision capped off a decadeslong legal fight led by environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Desert Tortoise Council.

Under the ruling, which the BLM has appealed, the agency has roughly three years to redraw the network of Mojave off-road trails.

In the latest action, Trump has rescinded a pair of 1970s executive orders that directed federal land managers to minimize damage to wildlife and natural resources, as well as conflicts between off-roading and other types of recreational land use, when choosing where to locate OHV trails.

He described them as “excessive regulation” that used “ill-defined criteria” to minimize vehicle impacts. “These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands,” he wrote.

I called up Lisa Belenky, who’s representing the Center for Biological Diversity in the Mojave proceedings, to ask whether Trump’s order changed anything about the case, or the rules the BLM must follow as it revises the trail network.

The short answer, she said, is no.

Each federal land management agency has its own regulations with criteria for managing off-road vehicle use — for instance, the BLM uses travel management plans to determine where vehicles are allowed on specific pieces of land. Trump’s order rolled back the executive directives that guided those regulations, but the regulations themselves remain in place.

Still, Trump’s order directs federal agencies to reexamine their regulations.

In some cases, such a reexamination appears to be already underway, said Paul Sanford, director of policy analysis at The Wilderness Society. The administration last year signaled its intent to repeal the rule that governs motorized access to Forest Service lands, he noted, the Travel Management Rule.

“The rescission of the executive orders makes that easier,” he said.

The Forest Service said in a statement that the rule is expected to be addressed later this year.

“It’s absolutely irresponsible and stupid,” said Jim Baca of Trump’s order. The former BLM director said it was already hard enough to regulate OHV use when he led the agency from 1993 to 1994. “It was difficult to do anything, especially if oil and gas people, mining people and others wanted to get into an area,” he said. To Ryan “Cal” Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the order reflects “the prioritization of one set of user groups over all others.”

Increasing vehicle access in remote areas can cause erosion, stress animals and transport weeds into the backcountry, where they can outcompete native plants, and there’s a strong correlation between roads and human-caused fires, he said. Plus, there’s no indication that any increase would mean funding for more personnel to handle enforcement and lessen negative consequences, he said.

To the contrary, between the end of 2024 and the end of last year, the BLM lost nearly 20% of its staff, and the Forest Service and National Park Service each lost roughly 16%, according to an analysis of Office of Personnel Management data by Hawk Eye Strategies and Prospect Partners. Together, those three agencies responsible for managing more than half a billion acres of public land — about 23% of the United States — count fewer employees than the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, per the figures provided by the consulting firms.

The staffing cuts and regulatory rollbacks — which also include the recent rescission of the public lands rule that put conservation on equal footing with other uses of BLM land — are part of a strategy to “suffocate” federal land management agencies, said Jora Fogg, public lands policy associate director at the Conservation Lands Foundation.

“There’s an effort to undo regulations and protections on public lands because there is a push for this energy dominance and extractive uses,” she said.

I’ve met plenty of OHV enthusiasts who care deeply for public lands. I’ve also encountered degradation and damage.

Earlier this year, tortoise biologist Ed LaRue told me he could show me a corner of the desert that had been scarred by off-roaders departing from designated routes. In the tawny hills of the Ord Rodman Natural Area, a smattering of legal trails had widened into a thick braid so intertwined that it was difficult to tell which were authorized. And while the area was once among the most densely populated tortoise spots in the western Mojave, on that warm February afternoon, LaRue could find no evidence of them.

Reached by phone last week, he said he found some comfort in the fact that certain restrictions on off-roading still remain in place, and that the public will be given the opportunity to weigh in should agencies seek changes.

Still, he said, it’s not clear whether anyone will listen.

More recent land news

Republicans have introduced an amendment to a federal wildfire bill that would repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule protecting certain national forest lands from logging and roadbuilding, reports Brooke Larsen of the Salt Lake Tribune. That comes nearly a year into the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the rule via the rulemaking process, which has faced public opposition.

The Forest Service has cited cost savings as the impetus for a reorganization that will shutter dozens of research facilities. But much of the agency’s research is already inexpensive, and closing these local facilities could make it less so while encouraging workers to leave, according to Chiara Eisner of NPR.

Why is Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins dead set on saving a failing Northern California dam? Grist’s Jake Bittle and Ayurella Horn-Muller report this tale, which also includes a ranch-animal veterinarian and his daughter, a Riverside County water district and an X post from county Sheriff Chad Bianco.

New proposed grazing rules appear to prohibit Indigenously managed bison from grazing on federal public lands. That has tribes urgently seeking government-to-government talks with Interior Department officials in a bid to win an exemption, according to Blaine Harden of Inside Climate News.

A few last things in climate news

As a historic El Niño supercharges the Pacific Ocean, a crumbling Pacifica pier has become a climate battleground over what to save — and who pays, my colleague Susan Rust reports.

The Times’ Grace Toohey visited Santa Rosa Island to learn how a recent wildfire has affected a piece of North America’s so-called Galapagos. Here’s what she saw.

Clean water advocacy groups say recent changes to California’s “cap-and-invest” climate program could mean less help for hundreds of thousands of people who live with contaminated water, our water reporter Ian James writes.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

A bill to tighten California’s rules on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid prison for arrests linked to mental illness — is now on the verge of being signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges much wider discretion to decide whether a defendant should be eligible for diversion. Under the current law, judges must presume mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a legitimate diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to defeat a diversion request, the burden is on prosecutors to prove mental health issues were not a factor in the alleged crime.

The new measure — which moved through the state Senate with no opposition last month and is expected to clear the reconciliation process in the Assembly this week — also gives judges more latitude to block diversion if a defendant poses “a risk of danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher “unreasonable risk” standard that was passed in 2018. Defendants charged with attempted murder will no longer be eligible for diversion under the new bill.

Proponents of more inclusive diversion policies argue that many people with mental health issues are locked up in California prisons and jails, where they are unable to receive the help they need.

The pending bill’s supporters say its changes are designed to address cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man who has been accused of attacking his wife four times over the last 12 years.

In 2014, a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation landed Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought felony domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors allege, he carried out a “brutal attack” on his wife with a glass bottle, leaving her with “extensive injuries,” according to a motion filed in his current criminal case. That time, the court filings show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.

Despite objections from prosecutors and L.A. County probation officials, a judge granted a request to give Guttierrez mental health diversion last July.

A month later, prosecutors allege, he beat his wife until she fell into a coma.

When it passed in 2018, the original mental health diversion law was heralded as a needed off-ramp for defendants suffering from serious psychological issues — offering treatment to those who need it rather than a prison cell. But with voters statewide souring on progressive criminal justice reforms, lawmakers have sought to make it harder for defendants to qualify.

“AB 46 preserves diversion as an important pathway to care while ensuring judges have a clearer and more workable standard when serious public safety concerns are present,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.

Under the existing rules, defendants who successfully argue for pretrial mental health diversion spend two years undergoing a court-appointed treatment plan instead of facing a conviction. Prosecutors must prove the defendant is likely to commit a serious violent crime, a so-called “super strike,” again in order to block diversion.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors statewide who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that has been a nearly impossible standard to overcome.

“Guttierrez being your example: Judge, if you release him, he’s going to probably beat his wife up again, and if he does this time, he could kill her. But for the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her up until now,” Hochman said.

He added that due to the judge’s decision to grant diversion in Guttierrez’s case, “you have three little kids who likely won’t have their mom for the rest of their life.”

A spokesperson for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about his plans for the legislation.

A 2020 Rand Corporation study found 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates housed in Los Angeles County at that time were “likely appropriate candidates” for diversion.

But a number of troubling incidents have led to pushback against the existing diversion law.

In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. rattled off a list of cases in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where a defendant stabbed a 40-year-old man to death after he was granted diversion in a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the letter said, a woman on mental health diversion for carjacking proceeded to steal another car and slam it into an outside table at a restaurant, leaving one person dead and others injured.

Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said thousands of people benefit from mental health diversion every year without reoffending and chastised the bill’s supporters for cherry-picking horrible — but rare — cases to muster support for their proposal.

“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Pick up the most visceral, outrageous anecdotes and then repeat them and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”

Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating age-old mistakes of trying to arrest their way out of a mental health crisis.

“Without this option, you throw them into prison for a couple of years, they get out, and nothing changes. I’ve seen real change in my clients who have been granted these and who have just been on horrific mental health breaks and who, two years later, fully have their lives together,” she said. “You’re always going to be able to find an outlier. You’re always going to be able to find somebody who ruins what is a great project or program.”

Hochman said the modified mental health diversion law is a “rebalancing” of the scales in California after years of attempts to lower the state’s overcrowded jail populations affected public safety.

“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we did have a pendulum swing when these laws were being passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem on their surface to be very — I wouldn’t even use the word ‘progressive,’ but very helpful to people who are suffering.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From now through July 6, residents and tourists alike can download the California State Parks Historian Passport for free, allowing them access to more than 30 state historic parks across the state through the end of 2026.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the initiative Wednesday in honor of both Juneteenth and the the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

“California’s state historic parks preserve some of our nation’s most powerful and meaningful stories, and I’m proud to live in a state that celebrates diversity to connect more people with those stories through this limited-time free pass,” California State Parks director Armando Quintero said in a statement. “I hope the free Historian Passport introduces more Californians to the state’s historic gems and sparks a curiosity and thirst for knowledge that leads to many return visits.”

The pass typically costs $50 and allows unlimited entry for up to four people to state historic parks and museums that charge a per-person admission fee or a vehicle day-use fee.

Historic parks in and around L.A. County that accept the Historian Passport include:

Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park

(Courtesy of California State Parks, 2026)

Other parks that accept the pass are:

A full list is available at parks.ca.gov.

To download a free pass, visit ReserveCalifornia.com and click “Passes” in the upper main menu. From here, you’ll be prompted to either create a new account or log into your existing account. Once logged in, you can use the dropdown menu on the page to select “Special Edition Historian Passport 2026 – $0.00.” You can then check out with your pass and will quickly have it added to your list of passes within your account.

Leaders with the California State Parks Foundation and the California State Railroad Museum Foundation, which helped finance the initiative, said they hope the free Historian pass opens up access to more people to see our public lands.

“California state parks help us understand the history of California, the United States, and the ongoing work of building a more inclusive democracy,” said Rachel Norton, executive director of California State Parks Foundation. “The special edition Historian Passport is a great opportunity to explore state parks for free. We hope access to the Historian Passport encourages more Californians to visit a historic state park and learn about, and reflect on, our shared history.”

Details are still coming in, but a B-52 bomber has crashed at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The base’s official Facebook and X pages have posted the following statement:

“A United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff on the Edwards airfield at 11:20 a.m. Emergency crews immediately responded to the scene and the situation is ongoing. More information will be provided as it becomes available.”

From what we can see, the B-52 appears to have crashed on or at least very near the base’s main runway. Still images and video emerging now show a large fire with black smoke that can be seen from miles away.

News of the crash first emerged in a post on the unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook group. That post said the aircraft in question was tail number 061, but this is currently unconfirmed. While its status is unclear, this particular B-52 was the first to receive a new AN/APQ-188 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, which is one part of a much larger modernization effort for the entire fleet of these bombers.

Did something just happen at Edwards Air Force Base? Currently seeing a large column coming from the base, cams are aligned with one of the runways.

Seems like these two are holding off as well. pic.twitter.com/3vec75KPH0

— DanielFireCopter (@DanielFireTruck) June 15, 2026

How many individuals were on board the B-52 when it went down, and their fate, are currently unknown. However, the bomber ejection seat configuration could have presented complications for escape depending on how soon after takeoff the incident occurred. The B-52 has crew positions that eject downward.

Prior to this crash, the Air Force had 76 B-52s in service.

Though the two incidents are unrelated, this is also the second crash of a U.S. military aircraft in three days. A U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18D Hornet assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323 (VMFA-323) went down near Mount Rainier in Washington State on June 13. The two individuals in that jet were able to eject safely. The Hornet did start a wildfire after hitting the ground.

BREAKING – 🇺🇸 Footage showing a U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18 crashing into a hillside near Rimrock Lake, Wash., on Saturday. pic.twitter.com/yQ4O6UFZOl

— Technopolitik (@Technopolitik_) June 15, 2026

A US Navy F/A-18 crashed near Rimrock Lake, pilot ejected and walked out with medics according to reports. This is along the famous VR-1355 low level route in Washington State.

🎥509Media pic.twitter.com/UhKZyUCRF9

— Thenewarea51 (@thenewarea51) June 14, 2026

Update: 4:00 PM ET –

Fox News has now shared a video it says is of the aftermath of the crash, which shows a very large scorched area along the side of one of the runways at Edwards. There is no readily discernible wreckage, pointing to a total loss of the aircraft.

Update: 4:18 PM ET –

Edwards Air Force Base has shared a new update as of 12:48 PM PDT via its social media accounts. The full statement reads:

“The airfield has been closed, and all inbound aircraft are being diverted. All non-commercial visitor passes have been suspended until further notice to allow the installation to focus entirely on emergency response operations.”

Update- 12:48 PDT: The airfield has been closed, and all inbound aircraft are being diverted.

All non-commercial visitor passes have been suspended until further notice to allow the installation to focus entirely on emergency response operations.

— Edwards Air Force Base (@EdwardsAFB) June 15, 2026

We will continue to update this story as more information becomes available.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature truly believe that slow vote counting is a horrible problem — which it’s not — right now is the time to fix it.

They’re crafting a new state budget. And they could choose to spend the money needed to help counties hire more temporary election workers, buy more sophisticated vote-counting machines and add space for all of it.

That’s the only way to significantly speed up vote counting and mute the MAGA drivel about California being a national “laughingstock.”

How much money?

“We’ve suggested $55.5 million,” says Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which pushes to improve the election process.

“That’s not a lot in the big scheme of the state budget.”

She’s right. It’s essentially pocket change in a proposed budget still being negotiated that tentatively totals $356 billion.

But don’t bet on much of it being allotted for swifter vote counting.

Regardless of all the potshots at California from cable news panelists about our “embarrassing” elections, faster vote tallying doesn’t seem to be a high priority for the Legislature.

Democrats are justifiably much more concerned about protecting poor people’s healthcare, in-home services for seniors and the unraveling safety net as the Trump administration and GOP Congress slash federal funding.

Federal cutbacks aside, the state for years has been spending more money than it takes in despite tax revenue exceeding expectations. Sacramento has a severe deficit spending problem that is projected to last for a while.

So, allocating more money to speed up vote counting by a few days isn’t very high on the governor’s and legislative leaders’ to-do lists.

“The reality is elections currently are underfunded,” says Assembly Elections Committee Chairwoman Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years.

She also says, referring to demands for faster counting: “The media outlets want to call the races and be the first. And that’s what this is all about.”

I don’t disagree. By our nature, we journalists are anxious to report fresh news, including the outcomes of elections. And we become impatient when vote counts roll in seemingly at a snail’s pace.

But come on, it’s not a horrendous burden on the public to wait a few days for an accurate vote count.

It does, however, provide an excuse for President Trump and MAGA Republicans to regurgitate unfounded accusations that elections won by Democrats are “stolen” from the GOP.

“Look what’s happening in California … it’s a rigged election,” Trump bellowed in a June 7 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker. “They’re cheating on the election.”

When Welker challenged him for evidence, Trump heatedly replied: “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked. Your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked. … You’re either crooked, or you’re stupid.”

To put this in context, the Trump diatribe came immediately after he called police officers attacked by Jan. 6 Capitol invaders “a bunch of dirty cops” and “crooked cops.” The Trump-inspired rioters were trying to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s “rigged” election.

It’s constantly puzzling why millions of Americans take this unhinged man’s blatherings so seriously. But they do.

And when the president lies about ballot fraud, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of our election system and undermines democracy. Americans become even more cynical and polarized.

So, the governor, Legislature and counties would do everyone a favor by investing in a faster vote count.

“It’s a problem,” Alexander asserts. “The slow vote count has become the norm in California, but it’s not normal for a democracy. It opens the door for false fraud claims.”

Much of the slow count results from tallying mail ballots, which amount to at least 80% of votes cast. They take longer to process, largely because each voter’s signature on the ballot’s envelope needs to be checked against one on file.

So, California could speed up counting by mailing out fewer ballots. Now, every registered voter gets one. We could go back to requiring voters to request an “absentee” ballot.

But forget that. We’re right to make it easy for people to participate in democracy — as long as safeguards are maintained to prevent fraud.

Some counties have taken advantage of a new law that allows a voter to drop off a filled-in mail ballot inside a voting center. There, it’s handled like an old-fashioned ballot that’s filled out at a booth. This significantly reduces processing time. But many counties say they need more state money to implement the program. I have no idea why.

Counting also is slow, of course, because lots of voters wait until election day — or near it — to cast their mail ballot. That clogs the system.

If the ballot is postmarked by election day, it’s allowed seven days to reach vote processors. Trump and fraud conspirators want to trash all ballots arriving after election day. That would speed up counting. But it’s un-American.

California election officials also try to pressure voters into mailing their ballots early. Rubbish.

Election day should mean something. It’s a day citizens are allowed to vote — whether they hand their ballot to a clerk at a voting center or drop it in the mail. They’ve got a right to take their sweet time in concluding what the wisest voting decisions are.

After all, the government allows us to drop our tax return in the mail on April 15 each year — and is very happy to receive our check a few days later. They process that check plenty fast.

“There’s nothing wrong with a slow count,” says Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who specializes in election law. “But it‘s a major problem because, unfortunately, it’s a manufactured crisis that can undermine public confidence. And it has gotten worse.”

So, Sacramento needs to undermine the demagogic manufacturers by stepping up vote counting while keeping elections virtually fraud-free.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump prosecutor in L.A. pushing unusual public search for voter fraud during ongoing count
California love: From the scene of South L.A.’s erupting sidewalks, 5 questions for Bass and Raman
The L.A. Times Special: Who loved Bass, Raman and Pratt the most? A district-by-district breakdown

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Accessibility is always worth it,” Becker said.

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

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

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

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

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

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Reporting from Washington — Most of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters in California say they expect that come November, Hillary Clinton will be elected president — and, by and large, they’re OK with that.

While both Democratic camps prepare for a final battle in the state’s June 7 primary, the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times statewide poll found that just over half of Sanders’ supporters said they expected Clinton to be the next president. About a third of Sanders’ backers said they expected the Vermont senator to emerge the winner, and 12% said they thought Donald Trump would prevail.

Close to 8 in 10 Sanders supporters said in the survey that they would vote for Clinton in a race against Trump, although many said they would do so reluctantly.

Those findings show the reality underlying the still-heated rhetoric of the Democratic primaries: By contrast with the civil war that divides Republicans, Democrats in the country’s largest state have begun to coalesce behind their front-runner.

In the primary race, Clinton holds a modest lead over Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote. Her lead is slightly larger, 47% to 36%, among those most likely to vote. Either way, that’s a significant problem for Sanders.

The poll was conducted before Sanders’ sweep of three Western states — Alaska, Hawaii and Washington — on Saturday, but those victories don’t change the electoral math much. Sanders would need not just a win in California, but something close to a landslide to overcome Clinton’s large lead in delegates before the party’s nominating convention in July.

Something else hasn’t changed: If there’s one blemish in the picture for Clinton, it’s the persistently high percentage of voters who have an unfavorable image of her, 45% in the new poll.

Clinton’s image in heavily Democratic California is more positive than it is in more Republican parts of the country; 52% of the state’s surveyed voters see her favorably. She fares far better than Trump, her most likely opponent in November, who is viewed negatively by almost three-fourths of California voters.

A Democratic voter at a Washington state caucus on Saturday. In the California primary race, Hillary Clinton holds a modest lead over Bernie Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote.

(Elaine Thompson / Associated Press)

But her image with the public lags significantly behind other leading Democrats. That includes President Obama, whose popularity has risen, both statewide and nationally, in recent weeks. He is now seen favorably by 65% of the state’s voters, the highest level since early in his tenure. Gov. Jerry Brown is viewed favorably by 57%. Both men are viewed negatively by about one-third of voters.

The large share of voters who have a negative view of her does not put Clinton in danger of losing California in a general election: She would defeat any of the Republican candidates handily in the state, which has formed the cornerstone of Democratic victories nationally ever since her husband’s win in 1992. Against Trump, in particular, Clinton would win overwhelmingly, the poll indicated, carrying the state 59% to 28%.

But the negative impressions of so many Californians point toward the deeper problem she faces in the country and also to the likely tone of the fall campaign. A Clinton-Trump race, more than any other in recent decades, would feature two candidates who would start the campaign with large parts of the electorate deeply disenchanted with them. Given that, each side is likely to try to focus voters’ attention on the other’s flaws.

“Clinton’s challenge is not one of persuasion, it’s one of motivation,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. “She’s not going to get Sanders supporters to fall in love with her,” he added, but “the other way to motivate your base is to frighten them about the alternative. Against Donald Trump, that should be very doable.”

That’s certainly the case for Gretta Whalen, a 32-year-old freelance writer and communications consultant from Los Angeles, who leans toward Sanders. Clinton, she said, “has been around for so long, and we know so much about her, and not all of it is positive.” Sanders, by contrast, seems attractive, and his ideas feel new, even if “some of them are very pie in the sky and would be very difficult to get the rest of the country on board with.”

But, she added, as she paused from feeding her newborn son, the contest is different “now that we’re looking at a likely race against Donald Trump.” She and her friends, most of whom back Sanders, “are all so shocked that we’re in this place where Donald Trump is a serious contender for president,” she said. Compared with past elections, this campaign “feels a little more surreal.”

“I was much more excited about Bernie” earlier in the campaign season, she added. “We love him as a candidate. We also recognize that he’s not the most realistic winner.”

Just under 1 in 4 voters in the state have a negative image of both of the likely contestants. That group would hold its nose and side with Clinton over Trump, 38% to 23%, with a significant share of them saying they would not vote at all, the poll found.

Sercan Ersoy, a 33-year-old substitute teacher in Oakland, has much more negative feelings about Clinton than does Whalen. A former member of the Green Party who changed his registration in order to vote for Sanders in the primary, Ersoy feels Clinton is “too much of a war hawk” in addition to having too many ties to Wall Street. “I don’t want to vote for her,” he said.

But “if you ask me in late October,” he added, “and there’s a real possibility of a President Trump, I might say, ‘OK. I’ll vote for Hillary.’”

This USC/L.A. Times poll was conducted March 16-23 by telephone, both cellphone and landline, among 1,503 registered voters in California, including 832 Democrats and non-party voters eligible to take part in the June primary. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points for the full sample and 3.7 percentage points for the Democratic primary sample. It was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm, and the Republican company American Viewpoint.

The poll found the race between Clinton and Sanders dividing along lines that have become familiar during nearly two months of primaries: Sanders overwhelmingly wins voters younger than 30; Clinton does better with older voters. She leads among women by 11 percentage points, among men by 5 points.

Clinton leads narrowly among white voters but has a much larger edge among blacks and Latinos. In a surprise, given her family’s long-standing popularity with Asian voters, Clinton appears to be trailing Sanders with that group, although his edge, 43% to 35%, is within the poll’s margin of error for such a subgroup.

Clinton’s lead among minority voters is “much more muted” than her edge in previous contests in Texas and across the South, said pollster Anna Greenberg. That’s largely a result of a generational divide, with Sanders leading among younger Latinos, much as he does among young white voters. The other minority groups are too small to allow a detailed breakdown by age.

The other significant division in the primary is by party. California’s Democratic primary is open to registered Democrats as well as voters who decline to state a party. Clinton leads Sanders by 14 percentage points among registered Democrats; Sanders leads by 9 percentage points among the nonpartisan voters — again a pattern seen repeatedly in other states.

Among Sanders voters, 80% polled said they would vote for Clinton in November, although the share saying they would do so “reluctantly,” 45%, outnumbers those who would do so “enthusiastically,” 35%.

About 1 in 8 Democratic primary voters surveyed said they would refuse to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. That’s half the level of rejection that Trump faces among Republican primary voters.

Among the Democratic primary voters most resistant to backing her in the fall are white men 65 and older, according to the poll. By contrast, only 4% of people who identified themselves as students said they would refuse to vote for Clinton — another indication that Sanders’ core supporters are unlikely to reject her candidacy.

By 72% to 21%, Democratic primary voters said in the survey that they are excited about the prospect of voting for the first female president.

Sanders has centered his campaign around the belief that the U.S. economy is unfairly rigged by Wall Street and big corporations. Not surprisingly, a large majority of his voters share that view.

The poll asked people if they thought that in today’s economy “everyone has a fair chance to get ahead in the long run if they work hard” or if “it’s mainly just a few people at the top who have a chance to get ahead.” By more than 2 to 1, Sanders’ voters said that only those at the top could get ahead.

Clinton’s supporters were more evenly divided, with 52% saying that everyone had a fair chance and 42% saying that only those at the top could get ahead. That reflected, in part, the feelings of Latinos, who are more likely than other Americans to say that hard work still pays off in the long run.

Those who backed Clinton were also more likely than Sanders’ backers to say that “when it comes to good jobs for American workers, our best years are ahead of us.” More than 6 in 10 of Clinton’s voters agreed with that statement, compared with just under half of Sanders’.

Neither group of Democratic voters was as pessimistic as Trump’s supporters, however. A majority of them said that when it comes to good jobs, “America’s best years are behind us.”

david.lauter@latimes.com

For more on Campaign 2016, follow @davidlauter

Sign up for the Essential Politics newsletter

ALSO:

Trump leads Republican primary field

California’s June primary just became crucial in the race for the White House

Full coverage of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll

Full poll results and detailed crosstabs

Updates on California politics

Live coverage from the campaign trail

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — President Trump’s loyalist federal prosecutor in Los Angeles — has not been shy in recent days about his intention to ferret out voter fraud in California’s primary election and criminally charge those responsible.

He has announced that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway” in coordination with the FBI, urged Californians on social media to submit evidence of “potential election fraud” directly to his office, and said flatly he “will be charging some people” with election fraud — just as soon as California certifies its vote count and his office “can prove some of the allegations.”

Essayli’s public callouts and promises are highly unusual and in direct conflict with Justice Department guidance on ballot fraud investigations at the federal level, which states federal prosecutors should not publicly pursue such claims amid of vote counting.

The Justice Manual — which regulates the actions of federal prosecutors nationwide — says the department “should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded,” in part because doing so “runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, said neither Essayli nor the office had any comment.

Essayli has repeatedly acknowledged in other interviews that he has no evidence of widespread fraud that could sway the results of races, and he even shot down one prominent online conspiracy that falsely alleged Democratic cheating in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

But he has also pointed to more isolated instances of fraud as potentially indicative of bigger problems. He added that there’s no proof such rampant fraud isn’t occurring, partly because of resistance from California to a federal audit of its voter rolls.

Essayli’s remarks are part of a much wider battle to frame fraud in California as pivotal or not, in which Republicans cite individual instances of alleged fraud as evidence of some grand scheme by Democrats to steal the election from them, and Democrats — along with many elections experts — say there is no evidence that isolated crimes reflect fraud on a scale large enough to impact election outcomes.

His remarks have added fuel to baseless claims from Trump and other influential conservative voices that California’s elections have been poorly compromised by coordinated Democratic “cheating.” They have made Essayli one of the most prominent Trump administration figures in the nationwide debate around election integrity — which election experts expect to intensify ahead of November’s midterms.

A public campaign

Essayli has made his case in recent days on various alternative and right-wing news programs and podcasts, arguing that California’s slow process for counting votes had undermined public trust and needs to be audited.

On One America News Network, Essayli said his office has been “sounding the alarm on California’s election system” because it’s ripe for fraud.

“We believe that it has major vulnerabilities. We believe California does not have sufficient safeguards to make sure only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in elections in California, and that is why we’ve been demanding an audit of the California voter rolls,” he said.

On NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Essayli said he doesn’t “care what the outcome of the election is,” but wants voters “to have confidence in the systems, and that the laws are being followed.”

“I guarantee you, when we do bring cases, we will have plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law — that is how we work,” he said.

On the podcast of conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Essayli said he was “prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations,” but that “election fraud is not a theory” but “a real thing” — noting his office recently secured a guilty plea from a woman who paid homeless people to register to vote.

He said California is “a fraudster’s paradise,” accused the state Legislature of “going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for people to commit fraud,” and repeated oft-cited complaints about California’s voter ID policies being lax, its universal mail ballot policies sending ballots to the wrong places, its ballot collection policies allowing “harvesting” and its voter rolls being “dirty,” or filled with ineligible voters.

Essayli said all of that makes his job “incredibly difficult,” because “California has removed the paper trail, they’ve removed the chain of custody, they’ve removed any meaningful way for us to basically have a forensic audit of where a ballot came from,” but that he will nonetheless be bringing election fraud charges in the next “one to two months.”

State and local elections officials in California have defended the state’s policies as facilitating voting by as many eligible voters as possible, which they say is more important than a quick count. They’ve said there are robust procedures in place to ensure ballots are cast fairly and counted accurately, and to identify any problems and audit the results.

Elections experts say instances of fraud do exist, both in California and everywhere else in the country, but that robust efforts in past years to investigate and identify widespread fraud that could sway an election — including by Trump and his lawyers but also outside organizations — have always failed.

Essayli’s efforts have drawn sharp criticism from elections experts, leading Democrats and former prosecutors in the office.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy adviser on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said what Essayli is doing — throwing out unspecified claims of fraud amid an ongoing election and before he has built a case — is “absolutely nuts” and “not a thing that real prosecutors do.”

Before the current administration, the “mantra” of federal prosecutors, he said, was that “you only hold a press conference about a not-yet-concluded investigation when the public is already aware of a large crime,” such as a mass shooting. “Absent that, you wait for the facts to come in, and you see whether there has been a legal violation, and then and only then do you issue a press release — usually hand in hand with an indictment or a conviction.”

In an election, Levitt said the standard is even higher, and “the ethos of a federal prosecutor should be to never become the story, and to never make the prosecutorial job itself an impact in the election you are investigating.”

In an MS NOW interview, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor in the L.A. office, blasted Essayli as wildly searching for fraud to please Trump — despite it and other efforts to please Trump, including on immigration, causing an exodus of experienced career prosecutors from the office.

Schiff said Essayli was “basically making a plea to the public: ‘Please send me evidence. I’m asserting there’s fraud. We don’t have evidence of it, but please send me something. I need to make the boss happy.’”

Another former prosecutor in the office, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, said Essayli is pursuing alleged election fraud cases as hard as he is only because “Trump told him to,” and he’s “constantly auditioning for a bigger D.C. job in case he gets kicked out of his current one.”

Essayli is not the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles — only the “first assistant” — because he has been unable to win confirmation from the U.S. Senate and has only remained in charge through a legal loophole.

Investigations in the works

It’s unclear what specific issues or incidents Essayli’s office is investigating.

Essayli has said his investigations so far lean toward individuals rather than networks, and he told the California Post that he would be investigating a report that thousands of people were registered to vote at homeless shelters with far fewer beds.

His office also looked into false claims that an election night ballot update in Los Angeles County include no votes for Spencer Pratt, the Republican candidate. He said his office “reviewed official county records” and determined the claim was false.

“My office will continue monitoring the election counting process and will follow the evidence wherever it leads,” he said.

One person involved in investigating the latter case was Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner, who joined the office in March after previously serving as deputy general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit Washington, D.C., law firm where he worked on lawsuits focused on conservative free-speech issues, according to his LinkedIn page.

A worker carries ballots at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Renner, who referred questions to the office spokesperson, visited an L.A. County ballot processing center as part of the investigation, where he questioned election officials about the ballot update, according to a law enforcement source with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Election officials have said their numbers were always correct and that the discrepancy was based on a one-minute lag in vote updates for Pratt by The Associated Press, which also confirmed the lag.

Renner also grilled election officials about whether or not post office officials had backdated postmarks on mail ballots sent after election day so they could still be counted, the source said.

Essayli’s elevation to the top prosecutor position in L.A. was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to fill key Justice Department roles with people loyal to the president and open to his election skepticism. Earlier this year, a Times investigation detailed how disgraced ex-L.A. County prosecutor Eric Neff was named “acting chief” of the Justice Department’s voting section.

Neff led a bungled election integrity case at the L.A. County district attorney’s office that was thrown out after an internal review revealed it hinged on the word of “Stop The Steal” activists who had pushed Trump’s discredited theory that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.”

It was one of two election integrity cases Neff tried in his entire career before being elevated to the voting chief post by Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, another proud Trump loyalist from California.

Michael Sanchez, a spokesperson for Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the office has not received any formal document requests or investigation notices from Essayli’s office, only “routine questions about operations.”

What will come of Essayli’s investigations is also unclear. He will have to prove whatever allegations he makes in court — which he has repeatedly appeared to begrudge in recent interviews.

“Instead of putting the burden on the system to reassure the people [that] only legal citizens are voting, one person one vote is the law of the land, and the burden on the system to assure us that there’s integrity and we can believe in it,” he complained to Beck, “they’ve flipped it and now it’s on us to prove every allegation of fraud.”

This being California, Hollywood celebrities sometimes jump into battles over state legislation in Sacramento.

Last week, a group of singers and actors went up against the plastics industry over a bill that would have banned single-use plastic grocery bags from California stores.

“I’ve been bombarded by phone calls by folks who live in Malibu and stars who live in Hollywood,” Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) told colleagues during the floor debate.

An aide to the senator said he was contacted in support of the bill by entertainers including singers Bonnie Raitt, Bette Midler and Jackson Browne, and actress Rita Wilson, the wife of Tom Hanks.

Midler also went to Twitter before the vote, writing “California getting ready to vote on a statewide ban of non re-usable plastic bags! HELP BAG BAN SB 405!!!!!!”

But De Leon said he opposed the bill because it could cost 500 jobs in his district, many of them, he said, held by immigrant women — “Women head of households, women who have to work to put food on the table.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), the bill’s author, countered that working families are already paying a cost as government agencies have to spend money removing bags littering beaches, streets and the oceans.

This round went to the industry. The bill fell three votes short of the tally needed for passage, killing it for the year.

In a statement to The Times after the vote, Midler was critical of the legislators who voted against the bag ban. “Plastic bags are a scourge to the planet and everything that tries to live on it,” Midler said. “Shame on them all for caving.”

ALSO:

California lawmakers OK a dozen gun-control measures

California Assembly approves hike in state’s minimum wage

California Senate seeks to shed more light on campaign cash

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a historic California law inspired by Cesar Chavez and the farm workers union, ruling that agricultural landowners and food processors have a right to keep union organizers off their property.

The justices by a 6-3 vote said the state’s “right of access” rule violates property rights protected by the Constitution, which states private property shall not be “taken for public use without just compensation.”

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said “the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public…The access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” he wrote in Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid.

He cited as precedents a pair of California cases. One ruled for the owner of a beachfront home in Ventura who objected to giving the public access to the shore and a second from 2015 which ruled for a grape grower from Fresno who objected to giving his grapes to a government-sponsored cooperative.

“The upshot of this line of precedent is that government-authorized invasions of property — whether by plane, boat, cable, or beachcomber — are physical takings requiring just compensation,” Roberts said.

The three liberal justices dissented. They described the rule as a regulation, not a taking of property.

The California Legislature in 1975 became the first in the nation to extend collective bargaining rights to farm workers. Months later, a new agricultural labor board adopted the “right of access” rule to allow organizers to seek out those who were working on farmland.

Earlier this year, the state’s lawyers said the rule was still needed because farm laborers often worked in remote areas and were not fully aware of their rights to join a union.

It has come under attack in recent years by agribusinesses that have called it a “union trespassing” rule that violates their property rights.

A lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the farm owners, cheered the ruling as “a huge victory for property rights.” It “affirms that one of the most fundamental aspects of property is the right to decide who can and can’t access your property,” said Joshua Thompson, a senior attorney for the group, based in Arlington, Va..

Karla Walter, a director of employment policy for the liberal Center for American Progress, called it a major setback for union organizing.

“Today the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned nearly a half-century of progress for California’s farm workers, who have struggled to exercise their right to bargain for decent wages and to protect their health and safety,” she said. “Reaching farm workers — the overwhelming majority of whom are Latinx and migrant workers — where they work is critical to protecting their rights and interests.”

The case decided Wednesday began in 2015. The owners of the Fowler Packing Co. in Fresno, which produces grapes and citrus fruit, refused to allow union organizers onto their property.

A few months later, union organizers entered a strawberry packing plant near the Oregon border and disrupted the work, according to Mike Fahner, owner of the Cedar Point Nursery.

The two companies then joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the California union access regulation declared unconstitutional. They lost before a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but the Supreme Court voted to hear their appeal.

Lawyers for the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the farm owners argued the Constitution “forbids the government from requiring you to allow unwanted strangers on to your property.”

In defense of the rule, California officials called it a temporary regulation of property, not a taking of the grower’s land. Union organizers may enter a farm for one hour before the start of the workday or for an hour at the end of the day.

The state’s lawyers said the rule is similar to federal and state laws that allow meat and poultry inspectors to go into packing plants or health and safety inspectors to visit warehouses, manufacturing plants or construction sites.

I wanted to know more the moment I read “Sister Elsie Peak” on an old map.

I discovered the name while researching trails around Mt. Lukens, the highest peak in Los Angeles proper. Looking at the peak’s location on a historical map of L.A. County’s mountains, I noticed that it was previously named for a woman I’d never heard of.

Few of Southern California’s mountain peaks are named after women, so Sister Elsie Peak stuck with me. Who was she? And why was her mountain renamed to instead honor local leader Theodore Lukens?

In this edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I will take you with me on my arduous journey to find the origins of the first known name for Mt. Lukens. Over the past week, I enlisted help from multiple librarians, map experts and one gracious historian (who you’ll meet later). We all scoured newspaper archives and history books, catching the fever of curiosity that seems to consume anyone who tries to find out who Sister Elsie was.

What we collectively found was this: Sister Elsie was most likely not a real person, and her legend was most widely shared in the early 20th century by a local landowner who was known to embellish, including claiming that Josephine Peak near Mt. Lukens was named after his daughter. (It wasn’t.)

There appears to be no record anywhere — in newspapers, in history books, in Catholic Church records — as to the existence of a Sister Elsie or, as you’ll learn more about below, an alleged orphanage, ranch or school that she ran in the Tujunga area for Indigenous children or the broader Indigenous community.

In that same vein, I want to call something out before we begin: Stories about the relationships between colonizers and Indigenous peoples often get romanticized (see: Thanksgiving), with storytellers and early historians intentionally leaving out any details of forced assimilation or the American genocide. I cannot report anything concrete about how Sister Elsie actually treated Indigenous people in large part because I don’t believe she was real.

The sunset as viewed from a trail near Mt. Lukens in the San Gabriel Mountains.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

OK, I’ve held you in suspense long enough. Let’s jump into everything under the actual sun that I could find about Sister Elsie Peak.

To begin my reporting, I contacted Times editorial library director Cary Schneider, who is always eager to help me with prospective stories (i.e. highly specific internet rabbit holes I’ve fallen down).

Cary found what might be the earliest mention in a local newspaper: A story in the Monrovia Daily News on April 23, 1910, in which a writer mentions a new trail leading to Sister Elsie Peak, but tragically gives no details of its namesake.

Next, we jump 20 years into the future when The Times and the Pasadena Star-News covered the dedication of Sister Elsie’s Well in Tujunga. Both publications described the well in their stories on April 28, 1930, as named after “the Catholic nun” who ran a school for Indigenous children “in the days of the Spanish missions.” The Times called her a “pioneer nun and teacher.”

Multiple radio towers and other infrastructure sit at the top of Mt. Lukens, as seen on a 2022 hike there.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

The dedication occurred on the land of Philip Begue, a crucial character to understand in the Sister Elsie legend, as he’s believed to have either spread or made up the story, according to a local historian. Begue’s family bought land around Tujunga and La Crescenta in 1882, and later, Begue was an early pioneer and one of the first forest rangers in what would later become Angeles National Forest.

Throughout the late 1920s and 1930s, Begue seemed set on sharing the story of Sister Elsie. In 1934, he told the Pasadena Star-News that the sister “ministered to the sick and needy” Indigenous people.

A Times story on Sept. 29, 1935, announced a barbecue fundraiser for a local Catholic institution at the “old Basque rancho” owned by Begue. “The ranch on Honolulu avenue was famous in early days when Los Angeles was a pueblo and Sister Elsie had a children’s home where the ranch now stands.” The Begue family planned to cook “hundreds of pounds of meat for the affair.”

Times columnist Harry Carr offered in his column, the Lancer, a completely different take. Carr wrote on April 3, 1935, that Sister Elsie Peak was named “for a nun who lost her life trying to walk from San Fernando to San Gabriel.” No, he doesn’t provide a source for where he learned that information. Trust me: I too shook my fist at the sky.

The last rays of sun blanket across Mt. Lukens, as seen from Dunsmore Canyon in Deukmejian Wilderness Park near Glendale.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I would be remiss to mention that the oldest reference to a “Sister Elsie” in The Times’ archives appears to be an 1889 story about — buckle up — a psychic medium in Azusa. For a brief and beautiful moment, Cary and I hoped Sister Elsie Peak would turn out to be named after Elsie Wheeler, a spiritualist medium whose own story relates to an astrological tool. Alas, the peak was named before she was born (which doesn’t work unless she was a really good psychic). That said, a peak named after a mythical nun and a clairvoyant feels arguably appropriate for the highest point in L.A.

Cary also discovered one of my favorite facts about the Sister Elsie legend — that it was turned into a play titled “Sister Elsie in Tujunga.” It was written by Frances Muir Pomeroy, superintendent of summer school at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church. It was said to be about “the experiences of Sister Elsie when she conducted an orphanage here many years ago,” according to a 1938 Times story.

There are other references to Sister Elsie in The Times’ archives over the next several decades, but nothing that gives concrete evidence that she actually existed.

Cary advised me to contact the Los Angeles Public Library. Librarian Kelly C. Wallace, who specializes in California history, quickly got back to me.

Knowing that Cary had already scoured The Times’ archives, Wallace sifted through the agency’s Los Angeles Area Historical Newspapers database, which contains the Los Angeles Daily Star (1870-1879), the Los Angeles Evening Post-Record (1896-1936) and the Los Angeles Star (1851-1871), along with community newspapers such as the Eagle Rock Sentinel and the Highland Park Herald. She found little there.

The trail through Stone Canyon to reach Mt. Lukens.

(Mary Forgione / Los Angeles Times)

This is especially puzzling if Sister Elsie did exist because, before the advent of television, newspapers reported seemingly everything that we now post on social media — detailed trip reports, the attendees of parties, birth announcements, and even basic road repairs.

Wallace did discover a few interesting tidbits in books, but curiously nothing before 1930.

The earliest reference that Wallace found was in the 1938 book “History of La Crescenta-La Canada Valleys” by Grace J. Oberbeck. She spoke to Begue, who spun quite the yarn:

“On El Rancho de las Hermanas, the ranch of the sisters, a group of nuns who had an orphanage not far distant, kept a herd of cows which was looked after by” local Indigenous people “who supplied milk to the school whenever needed. Sister Elsie was the much loved nun in charge of” the Indigenous dairy workers, “and her name was given to the well. Almost directly north from here towers a high peak of the Sierra Madre range and this bears the name of Sister Elsie Peak.”

Legendary outdoors writer and historian John W. Robinson, Wallace found, told the Sister Elsie story in his 1977 book “The San Gabriels,” but followed it up with a correction in his 1983 tome, “The San Gabriels II”: “The derivation of Mt. Lukens’ original name, Sister Elsie Peak, is clouded in uncertainty. Exhaustive research into Catholic Church records fails to find any evidence of a nun named Sister Elsie nor an orphanage named El Rancho de Dos Hermanas.”

You’re telling me, John!

Wallace also found an entirely different story about Sister Elsie on page 47 of “The San Fernando Valley” by Jackson Mayers, published in 1976.

“Sister Elsie, a Sister of Charity, came to Tujunga from Los Angeles between 1850 and 1875 to work with” Indigenous people “at a school and orphanage. Near Haines Canyon was Sister Elsie’s well; Sister Elsie’s Peak was named, it is said, because when troubled she would gain strength by raising her eyes to that eminence, one whose top she was to be buried. Others held that two nuns on their way from Mission San Fernando to Mission San Gabriel lost their way in Tujunga and died atop the peak.”

There is tragically no footnote on the page, so I have no idea who Mayers’ source was.

I hoped that finding out when Sister Elsie Peak was named would help, but that also proved to be a dead end.

Local historian Mike Lawler, former president of the Historical Society of the Crescenta Valley, told Realtor Sharon Hales in a 2016 interview that cartographer George M. Wheeler and his team named the mountaintop Sister Elsie Peak during their survey of California in the late 1800s.

“We don’t know why he named it Sister Elsie Peak,” Lawler said. “The reasons why he named everything are lost to history. They were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.”

This led me to contact the staff at the David Rumsey Map Center at Stanford University Library, as its collections are vast, and I hoped maybe they’d somehow find half a charred page of notes with Sister Elsie’s biography scrawled in quill pen.

Instead, Kristina Larsen, the center’s associate curator, came up short, finding only that a misspelling, “Sister Else Pk” was on the 1881 land classification map from Wheeler.

Evan Thornberry, the center’s head and curator, unearthed “Vignettes of California Catholicism,” a 1988 book by Monsignor Francis J. Weber, longtime archivist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles at the San Fernando Mission.

Weber conducted an exhaustive search for the existence of Sister Elsie and found no proof of any existence of Sister Elsie or a Catholic orphanage in the Tujunga area at the time.

Weber offered my favorite suggestion for why no one can find any hint of Sister Elsie’s existence: “Maybe the good Sister was kidnapped by Martians!”

If so, I hope someone there takes better care to protect knowledge regarding the names of that planet’s mountains.

You’d think I’d give up here, right?

Instead, I contacted historian Kristine Gunnell, who wrote “Daughters of Charity: Women, Religious Mission and Hospital Care in Los Angeles, 1856-1927” (Vincentian Studies Institute).

I hoped Gunnell would have an answer, as Sister Elsie was said to be in the Sisters of Charity, an American version of the Daughters of Charity, a group that was founded in France in the 1600s with an aim of serving low-income and sick people.

The Daughters group eventually inspired American Catholic women to serve in a similar way, first forming the Sisters of Charity until the groups essentially merged. In the 1850s, as more people moved to the American West, a bishop in the L.A. area requested that Daughters of Charity come to L.A., Gunnell said.

But, there’s no Sister Elsie referenced in Gunnell’s book.

Gunnell said after hearing from me, she contacted a history professor from DePaul University who is compiling a database about all the Daughters of Charity who served in California. He found no one referred to as “Sister Elsie” between 1850 and 1900.

A 1931 news story references that Sister Elsie treated Indigenous children diagnosed with typhoid fever.

Tujunga “was only a day’s wagon ride from Los Angeles, and if these Tongva were Catholic or had Catholic connections, the sisters may have considered their request,” Gunnell wrote to me. “I was hoping that I’d be able to find a record of the typhoid outbreak in Tujunga in the 1860s or 1870s and cross reference it with the Daughters’ records. It’s a good story, and the sisters likely would’ve reported it if it’s true. However, I can’t isolate a specific outbreak.”

Later, Gunnell and I hopped on a Zoom call to commiserate.

With all of our research before us, we reached the same conclusion: A Catholic sister could have feasibly traveled to Tujunga at the request of a bishop to help Indigenous people, but currently there is no record of a woman known as Sister Elsie who did so. There’s no record of much of anything told in the Sister Elsie story. It seems, instead, to have been an urban legend of its time.

At least for now.

Hikers in Elysian Park.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

3 things to do

1. Reach for the rainbow in L.A.
One Down Dog, an L.A. yoga and fitness studio, will host a Pride hike from 10:30 a.m. to noon Saturday in Elysian Park. Guests will hike a loop trail through the park. For more details, register at eventbrite.com.

2. Marvel at mollusks in Malibu
The Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation will host a tidepooling event from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. June 19 near the Wishtoyo Chumash Village (33904 Pacific Coast Highway) in Malibu. Guests will learn about Wishtoyo Village, which is typically not open to the public. All experience levels welcome. Learn more at the foundation’s Instagram page.

3. Learn along the L.A. River in Downey
The California Native Plant Society and Friends of the L.A. River will host a guided bike ride along the L.A. River. Naturalist Cris Sarabia will teach participants about local ecology during the ride. Binoculars will be provided. Guests should bring safety gear and water. Learn more at the group’s Instagram page. Register at folar.org.

The must-read

Burn damage to the Torrey pine grove at Santa Rosa Island.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The length of time that it will take for Santa Rosa Island to recover after a blaze scorched about one-third of the island remains unclear, Times staff writer Grace Toohey wrote after a recent visit to the island. The fire, which grew to 18,379 acres, is now fully contained. Firefighters faced vicious winds and, at times, 30-foot flames. “They held the line, and we have them to thank for saving housing, saving the island, saving the history of the Santa Rosa Island,” said Ethan McKinley, superintendent of Channel Islands National Park. The island has long been a respite for hikers and backpackers, including Times staff writer Lila Seidman, who shared her experiences on the island and her grief that came in the wake of the blaze. “Now fear clouds the memories: Does the rugged, magical place of my mind’s eye still exist?” Seidman wrote.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

I have a flurry of good California animal news to share. First, three mule deer were the first animals to walk over California’s first wildlife crossing over State Route 97 in Siskiyou County. Second, scientists have feared that the population of endangered steelhead trout in the Santa Monica Mountains were killed in massive debris flows after the Palisades fire. However, researchers recently spotted the fish — and their babies — in Topanga Creek. And finally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shared earlier this week that five orphaned black bear cubs that were rehabilitated and released into northern California in November successfully hibernated through the winter and returned to the landscape this spring healthy and active, according to recent data reviewed by the agency’s scientists.

For more insider tips on Southern California’s beaches, trails and parks, check out past editions of The Wild. And to view this newsletter in your browser, click here.

SACRAMENTO — State Treasurer Fiona Ma and former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero have been declared the two winners of a crowded primary election for lieutenant governor, securing themselves spots on the November ballot.

Ma is a Democrat. Romero is a former Democrat who said she registered as a Republican after splitting with Democrats over the push to oust President Biden as the party’s presidential nominee in 2024.

Both were declared as the top-two winners by the Associated Press. Under California’s primary system, the first and second place finisher advances to the November general election, regardless of their political affiliation.

Ma is a certified public accountant serving as state treasurer. She previously sat on the California Board of Equalization and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She also served three terms in the California Assembly.

Romero is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine School of Public Policy. She served as a Democrat in the Assembly and state Senate, becoming the Senate’s first woman majority leader in 2005.

Other notable candidates included former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs and Josh Fryday, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s cabinet. Both are Democrats.

The position is largely ceremonial. The lieutenant governor serves on various boards that oversee the University of California, California State University and community college systems, and can be called upon to break a tie in the state Senate. If the sitting governor dies, resigns or is removed from office, the lieutenant governor would assume the role.

Ma and Romero have offered some similar viewpoints. Both candidates previously expressed support for the death penalty and opposition to the state’s plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Neither candidate supports the controversial Billionaire’s Tax Act. Romero, however, has further vowed to shun all potential tax increases.

Ma and Romero will now face off in November. The winner will replace Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who is finishing her second term and could not seek reelection. Kounalakis instead ran for state treasurer.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Santa Clara County officials announced a new lawsuit against the Trump administration that aims to block a planned immigration facility near Gilroy.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. district court in San Jose, alleges that the leased land is zoned elusively for agricultural use and that the federal government violated laws requiring state and county notification, as well as procedural steps required before beginning construction.

The agency told the San José Spotlight that the project is an ICE office and denied that it would be a detention center. But state and local officials believe the facility will be used for short-term detention of up to 150 people at a time.

“The administration is trying to jam through a new facility on a community that does not want it, bulldozing over laws, shrouding their plans in secrecy and ignoring calls from the community to stop,” Bonta said during a news conference in San José, adding that it marks the 71st lawsuit filed by his office against the Trump administration.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit also argues that the property is in an area known to support several endangered and threatened species and that a facility there would strain the limited waste disposal and drinking water infrastructure.

Santa Clara County officials said they weren’t notified last year when the federal government, intending to build a facility for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leased nearly 25 acres of unincorporated land just outside of Gilroy. The parcel includes three buildings, greenhouses and a large agricultural field, according to the lawsuit.

Community members alerted the county about the forthcoming facility earlier this year and have protested the plans. Construction began early last month, according to the lawsuit.

The plot of land sits 3 miles southeast of the Gilroy Premium Outlets, at 7240 Holsclaw Road, federal procurement records show. The Department of Homeland Security secured a 20-year, $26.5-million lease from a subsidiary of the Beverly Hills-based Elmwood Capital Group, a real estate investment firm.

ICE also has a processing facility in nearby Morgan Hill.

According to the lawsuit, agricultural research companies that previously occupied the property generated hazardous waste that wasn’t properly disposed of.

“The federal government’s apparent failure to address — much less mitigate — these risks endanger the construction workers building the site, detainees and employees who will be located at the site, and the environment beneath and surrounding the site,” the lawsuit said.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government’s only formal communication with the county regarding the project was a one-paragraph letter dated June 21, 2023, and forwarded by an Elmwood Capital representative. The letter said the federal government was planning “office and operations space” there and that it should be exempt from local zoning and planning review.

“Part of the problem here is that they are trying to move forward with this project with as little transparency as possible, and hoping that nobody notices, nobody catches on to the details,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “So, part of what our lawsuit will do is it will force that transparency to occur.”

ICE holding facilities have been the subject of multiple lawsuits since the start of the Trump administration over alleged overcrowding, poor conditions and confinement that went on for days and weeks.

Bonta and LoPresti said that the building of an ICE facility in Gilroy signals a desire by the federal government to increase enforcement in the area.

Advocates and local leaders have raised similar concerns in Dublin, another Bay Area city where federal officials are working to transfer ownership of a former prison. Congressional Democrats sent a letter earlier this month opposing the possibility that it could reopen as an immigrant detention facility.

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, with about 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Assn. has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a top voter concern.

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said the hospital often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need in order to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” he said. Vaughn is also a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, made $8.8 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made nearly $13 million in 2024. Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made just under $12 million.

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists if the measure passed, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026. A coalition of medical industry heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the Health Care Endangerment Act.

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy.

“It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimated total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t just target executive pay; it would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” Coyle said . “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. The California Primary Care Assn., which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require federally designated community clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, more than 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” according to a report commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — such as translation and transportation — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, proud of its political activism, is also behind a controversial billionaire tax proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Trump, is projected to squeeze nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as $30 billion annually in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group and the California Medical Assn., which represents physicians, are neutral on the wealth tax proposal thus far. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law.

“We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves,” she said on the proposed pay cap.

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Californians couldn’t escape billionaire Tom Steyer’s political ads — during newscasts, sitcoms, or sporting events; on streaming services, YouTube, influencers’ social media feeds, or their mailboxes. Even the Puppy Bowl.

Yet despite spending a record-shattering $216 million of his wealth on his run for governor, the Democrat failed to win enough votes in last week’s primary to advance to the November general election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Money isn’t everything, even though it obviously helps,” said Andrea Godfrey Flynn, a marketing professor at the University of San Diego. “It boosted Steyer way up. … But there are so many other factors at play that it may not have been enough.”

Steyer, a hedge fund co-founder turned environmental warrior, polled at 1% shortly before he entered the governor’s race in November, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

He climbed in subsequent polls, hitting 19% in the same poll shortly before the June 2 primary, putting Steyer in contention for winning one of the top two spots in the contest that would allow him to advance to the November election. But then he hit a ceiling, and on Tuesday, it became official that he failed to advance.

Steyer emailed supporters Tuesday expressing gratitude for their efforts backing his campaign, endorsements and votes.

“Together, we fought for a California that belongs to the people who keep it running every day, and we insisted that they do not have to settle for a system that protects corporate profits at the expense of working people,” he wrote. “I’m proud of how we never compromised our values or lowered our sights for what California can and should be.”

He pointed with pride at major corporations such as Chevron and Meta spending heavily to oppose his bid, and said their tens of millions of dollars spent attacking him shows the flaws in the electoral system. And he acknowledged that may be part of the reason some voters were skeptical of voting for a billionaire.

“I’m proud of the enemies we made,” Steyer said. “This campaign proved that business-as-usual depends on politics-as-usual, and there is no going back. We must continue to fight for a system where democracy serves Californians, not corporations — and where you do not have to be a billionaire to run on single-payer, or on breaking up monopolies, or on calling out a corrupt system when you see it. Because people are fed up with a system rigged to benefit billionaires and leave them behind.”

As of Tuesday evening, Steyer had received more than 1.9 million votes of the more than 9 million cast, lagging behind the two candidates who will appear on the November ballot: Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, and Democrat Xavier Becerra, a longtime elected official who most recently served in President Biden’s cabinet. Steyer was trailing Hilton, the second-place finisher, by just over 200,000 votes.

Steyer immediately endorsed Becerra, whom he had relentlessly attacked in the closing weeks of the campaign as beholden to corporations with business in front of the governor.

California has a history of unsuccessful self-funders. Former Northwest Airlines co-chairman Al Checchi spent more than $40 million of his money on an unsuccessful gubernatorial primary campaign in 1998, which broke records at the time.

More than a decade later, former EBay chief Meg Whitman spent $144 million of her wealth on her bid to become California’s governor, setting a new national record for spending on a state election. She won the GOP nomination but lost in the general election.

This year’s gubernatorial contest is not the first time Steyer has spent an inordinate sum seeking office. In 2020, he spent $342 million on a brief, unsuccessful presidential campaign.

Sheri Sadler, a veteran Los Angeles-based Democratic media buyer, said Steyer’s 2026 gubernatorial deluge was notable.

“I literally saw his spots ad nauseam,” she said. “They left almost no stone unturned.”

Sadler worked for Steyer in the final weeks of his presidential bid and scheduled $50 million of billionaire Rick Caruso’s money on ads during his unsuccessful 2022 Los Angeles mayoral campaign.

She believes that Steyer hit a ceiling because voters who are bombarded by ads eventually feel that the candidate is trying to purchase their affection.

“It’s one thing to give me a message I can resonate with. If they’re just trying to buy my vote, that feels different to me,” she said, adding that Steyer’s wealth undermined his platform, which included support for raising taxes on billionaires. “That’s my gut. And I feel like that’s what happened to us on Caruso and possibly why he didn’t run” for governor this year.

Steyer, 68, made his fortune founding a hedge fund that included investments in fossil fuels, private prisons and other businesses that are controversial among Democrats. He told voters that he walked away from the firm 14 years ago, leaving an enormous amount of money on the table, because it did not align with his morals. Steyer adds that he and his wife have pledged to give away most of their wealth before they die.

And unlike many wealthy self-funders, Steyer did not leap into a campaign as a political neophyte who assumed their business skills would translate into being an effective elected official.

Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, are longtime donors to Democratic candidates, but for well over a decade, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on liberal causes such as fighting climate change, mobilizing young voters, urging the impeachment of President Trump, opposing an effort by oil companies to suspend California environmental standards, increasing the state cigarette tax and supporting last year’s redrawing of the state’s congressional districts to counter Trump.

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who advised Checchi, said that Steyer’s focus on such causes had the potential to be meaningful to voters who are often skeptical about the sincerity and motives of rich candidates.

“Tom Steyer has done a good job in that respect, because if you’re going to overcome that skepticism, it’s very helpful for the candidate to show that he or she has actually been involved in the world of public policy and politics for an extended period,” and Steyer has, Sragow said.

Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who endorsed Steyer, argued that he promoted proposals that were against his personal interests, such as the proposed billionaire’s tax that is expected to appear on the November ballot.

“Interestingly enough, Tom Steyer is also the only candidate who’s talked about campaign finance reform and wanting to get money out of politics, including his money, to return power to the people and have publicly financed elections,” Bryan said after a Steyer rally near downtown L.A. on May 31.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond also campaigned on limiting the influence of corporate PAC money in elections, or implementing publicly financed elections in California. Porter often criticized Steyer for running as a “change agent” while spending millions he earned from investments in oil and gas.

“You paid the lowest tax rate on this stage and yet you made the billions that you’re using to fund your campaign off fossil fuels,” she said to Steyer during an April 28 debate in Claremont.

Political experts argue that messages that seem contradictory to a candidate’s background, as well as drowning voters with incessant ads, can be jarring and off-putting to the electorate.

“It can be an overload to voters where they hit that tipping point where they’re no longer interested,” Flynn said.

Despite Steyer’s foundational argument that his wealth meant he was not beholden to anyone, she said voters may be unable to reconcile a billionaire’s ability to understand or empathize about an average Californian’s needs.

“The messaging still is a giant factor,” Flynn said. “I’m curious [about] how believable it came across to voters — can you trust a billionaire to really care about affordability, someone who made money working with business or in business not to care about special interests?”

While Steyer campaigned as a hard-left liberal, he failed to be the top pick for progressives. Steyer had the support of 35% of likely voters who identified as strongly liberal while Becerra was backed by 37%, according to Berkeley’s May poll.

After talking to college Democrats at UCLA on the eve of the primary, Steyer said regardless of what happens in the primary, he will remain politically involved, though he would not run for president in 2028.

“I’m going to keep working on these issues, because I’ve been working full-time on these issues for 14 years,” Steyer said. “There’s no question what I’m going to do. How I do it is a little bit up in the air.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, clinched one of the top spots in California’s gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, earning him the right to challenge veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra in the November election to determine the state’s next governor.

The contest offers voters two starkly different politicians. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump and has wooed his MAGA supporters, blaming Democratic policies for California’s homelessness crisis, high cost of living and other entrenched ills. Becerra campaigned as a battle-tested warrior against the Republican president and a champion of affordable healthcare. He could make history as the state’s first elected Latino governor.

Hilton’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Tuesday, days after Becerra secured one of the top spots and a week after the June 2 election. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation. According to the latest vote count, which is ongoing, Becerra has a slight edge over Hilton.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, center, flanked by lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, left, and California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin, right, hold a press conference to discuss election and voting reforms at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters on Tuesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Democrat Tom Steyer finished in third place. The hedge fund founder and environmental activist spent $216 million of his own money on his campaign, and now joins the legion of other high-profile, self-funding candidates rejected by California voters.

Becerra heads into the Nov. 3 election with a distinct advantage — Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

The contrast between Becerra and Hilton, both on policy and political personas, couldn’t be more pronounced.

A British immigrant and former political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Hilton, 56, embraces traditional conservative ideals that have echoed across the country since the days of President Reagan — cutting taxes, weeding out government fraud and waste and promising to unbridle entrepreneurs and homebuilders from stifling state regulation.

But he’s also ventured into MAGA territory, declining to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and promising to extradite California doctors who provide abortion pills to other states for prosecution.

Becerra, 68, came up in Los Angeles politics in the 1980s and has long supported policies to expand protections and resources for immigrants with or without legal status. Married to Harvard-educated OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, Becerra has also staunchly opposed abortion restrictions throughout his career.

In Congress and other positions, Becerra earned a reputation as a cerebral, analytical politician who would fully commit to his positions after taking time to mull them through.

A straight-laced family man with a Catholic upbringing, Becerra was more reserved during the debates — a quiet confidence that drew some voters to support him. He also faced criticism from his rivals for failing to offer detailed housing and healthcare policies.

Hilton, who cuts an unmistakable image with his bald crown and clipped English accent, proved himself as a polished communicator during the debates, skills honed by his years as a Fox News analyst.

Television hosts must translate complex issues into easily digestible sound bites, said Republican strategist Matt Klink. “Most voters want a CliffsNotes version of the issues,” Klink said.

Republican strategist Kevin Spillane credits Hilton’s TV show, “The Next Revolution,” which ran for six years, with boosting his profile, calling Fox News the most important media vehicle within the conservative and Republican framework.

Hilton “understands how politics and how communications work,” Spillane said.

He often appeared relaxed during the gubernatorial debates, at points even complimenting or joking with his rivals as they parried on stage.

At a CBS debate earlier this year, Becerra referred to President Trump, who endorsed Hilton, as the Republican candidate’s “daddy.” Hilton responded with a quip that quickly deflated the attack.

“It would be rather amazing,” said Hilton, at the possibility of being Trump’s son. “My daddy was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team.”

In an interview last week, before the election, Hilton said he enjoyed the debates. “In a weird way, I was sad when we had the last one,” he said. “I’m looking forward to debating whoever it is.”

As a former political advisor to Britain’s Conservative Party, Hilton helped usher in a green, socially liberal strain of conservatism.

He also infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of unconventional ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton, who founded a nonprofit on California policies, was known for his frequent visits in the last couple of years to the state Capitol for discussions with legislators.

Rival Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who was trailing Steyer in fourth place in the latest vote count, ultimately didn’t seek to appeal to those beyond his rural, MAGA base, Klink said.

By contrast, Hilton presented himself as the “more cosmopolitan” candidate who “can talk to the hedge fund manager or the small-business owner or the Sacramento lobbyist,” said Klink said.

“Hilton was more energized at the end, when it mattered,” said Spillane, contrasting the two Republicans.

Past Republican candidates, including businessman John Cox in 2018 and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in 2010, have self-financed their campaigns with their vast fortunes.

By contrast, Hilton spent just a few million dollars on media advertising, he said in an interview last week.

He said he ignored advice from consultants who told him to do a launch announcement and then unleash a wave of ads in the last month of the campaign.

“I just said, ‘I want to do it the old-fashioned way,’ and that’s what we’ve been doing,” said Hilton in the interview before the election. “We’ve been to nearly every single county…. stepped it up with our town halls.”

Nina Royal, 83, who lives in Los Angeles and is a community advocate for her Tujunga neighborhood, voted for Hilton, saying that he understands California’s problems.

“He’s a realist,” said Royal. “He has a clear view of what needs to be done.”

Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.