Within days of California’s long-anticipated single-use plastic law going into effect, environmentalists, anti-waste activists and the packaging industry reacted with anger and frustration.
Anti-plastic activists say Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and CalRecycle inserted exemptions favoring the plastic industry into the law’s regulations that weaken it and undermine legislative intent.
“These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” said Avinash Kar, senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
On the other side, the packaging industry has sued over similar laws in other states. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” said Matt Clarke, spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, which sued Oregon earlier this year over a similar waste law.
CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, did not respond in time for publication. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released May 1 and posted for review Tuesday.
The environmental organizations say the law’s new final regulations open the door to what is known as “chemical recycling,” which produces large amounts of hazardous waste. The law also contains problematic exemptions for certain categories of plastic foodware, they say.
The language of the law forbids any kind of recycling that would produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. The new regulations allow for these recycling methods if the facilities are properly permitted.
The new regulations also exempt certain products if they are already covered by federal law. For instance, a packaging company, retailer or distributor can claim that they have such a preemption, Kar said, and CalRecycle might not immediately review that claim. “And as long as they don’t review it, they’ll get the exemption for as long as CalRecycle doesn’t review it,” creating a potential “forever loophole.”
“Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”
Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it addressed the scourge of single-use plastics, requiring plastic and packaging companies to use less of them and ensuring that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.
The law’s intent was not only to reduce it, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.
Similar laws have been passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Oregon’s law, however, is on hold while a lawsuit by the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors works its way through the courts.
“We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” said Clarke, the trade group spokesman. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger. Our legal counsel has noted that California’s proposed fees are already higher than what other states have put forward.”
Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic waste group based in Laguna Beach, doesn’t believe the law will work — irrespective of the final regulations — and said the “exorbitant” cost of its implementation will either spur producers to sue, or they’ll end up passing the higher costs onto consumers.
She referred to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, the state-sanctioned group established to represent and oversee the implementation of the law on behalf of the plastic and packaging industry. It finds the law will increase the cost of disposal between six and 14 times for common products, such as Windex bottles, made of polyethylene terephthalate.
“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said in an email. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”
Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who councils companies and interest groups on SB 54 and other Extended Producer Liability laws, said that although he could see areas of the law that “could be sharper and avoid the legal challenges … you can’t stop people from suing.” Environmentalists and anti-waste activists say they are preparing a lawsuit.
Smith said the law already has sparked changes in how companies think and respond to concerns about waste.
One of his national fast-food chain clients has realized that if its brand name is on plastic packaging, it’s that company’s responsibility, he said, so “they’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.
He said in the past, companies have paid little attention to these details and just let their franchisees figure this kind of thing out. Now, they’re spending a lot of time and money “to wrap their arms around what their supply chain looks like and like, what post consumer use of their plastic products looks like and what their regulatory obligations are.”
It’s bringing a new dialogue within companies. And that, Smith said, is what could make this law so powerful.
Times staff writer Meg Tanaka contributed to this report.
In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.
Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.
They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.
“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.
That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.
Let’s break it down.
Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)
Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.
In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.
In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.
To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.
Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.
(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Rogue Louisiana
In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.
“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”
Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.
Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).
That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.
The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.
“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.
The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.
After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.
It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.
Consequences in California
In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.
Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.
Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.
Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.
I excitedly followed my uncle down the narrow dirt path along Wildhorse Creek, a canopy of oaks, maples and other deciduous trees above us.
“What’s this?” I asked, picking up a stick that looked like it’d gotten into a fight with a wood chipper.
“That’s a beaver stick,” my Uncle Dale told me, explaining that one of the cute rodents had chewed on it, probably in the midst of making a dam along the river.
“Can I keep it?” I asked, a little in awe that I could hold such a magical thing.
We were trekking along a trail that my uncle had created on my family’s land in Oklahoma. For years, the stick was in my childhood bedroom, a memento from my earliest hiking memory.
You are reading The Wild newsletter
Sign up to get expert tips on the best of Southern California’s beaches, trails, parks, deserts, forests and mountains in your inbox every Thursday
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Spending time hiking with my uncle helped me fall in love with the outdoors, and I hope this week’s edition of The Wild, The Times’ weekly outdoors newsletter, helps you make memorable moments with the kids in your life too.
I chose three hikes for children of all ages, including for us kids at heart. The trails are all either easy or some level of moderate. They don’t require technical skills, but curiosity, sunscreen and a reusable water bottle are all encouraged. They each feature a mix of native plants and trees and offer opportunities to see a range of wildlife.
I chose trailheads where parking isn’t too challenging (at least, I hope it isn’t). There are restrooms at two out of the three trails. You’ll want to pack snacks and water, as two of the three hikes don’t have water refill stations available.
Logistics done, let’s dive into the hikes!
The Park to Playa Trail offers panoramic views of L.A. County, including views of the Pacific Ocean and San Gabriel Mountains.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
1. Park to Playa Trail to Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook
Distance: 2.6 miles Elevation gain: 304 feet Difficulty: Easy Dogs allowed? Limited (see below) Accessible alternative: Gwen Moore Lake path at Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area
The Park to Playa Trail is a 13-mile regional trek that starts near Leimert Park and takes hikers all the way to the Pacific Ocean. It’s also fun to break into small adventures, like the one I outline below.
You can take Park to Playa from Culver City up to the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook, a fun day for adults and kids (and teenagers who enjoy taking selfies with great views). If visiting Friday through Sunday, you and your kids can pop into the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook Visitor Center, which offers educational exhibits, maps and more.
Although Culver City Park allows dogs, canines aren’t allowed on trails in Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook, so you and Fluffy would need to use roads or sidewalks once you enter state parkland.
To begin your hike, park in or near this Culver City Park lot. The lot offers two-hour parking. If you’d like to stay longer, you can pay to park in the 10-hour parking along the street. Either way, you’ll follow the Park to Playa Trail signs northeast out of the lot.
A wood bridge trail leads hikers to great views of L.A.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
You’ll take a well-built wood bridge trail that’s shaded by several large oak and other trees. At the top of the bridge, you’ll arrive at a small picnic area with a public art piece that’s also an equatorial sundial. You’ll get your first glimpse here at the views you can expect the higher you climb.
Head north, either taking the short stairs or ramp, to then hike east past green sports fields. You’ll follow the Park to Playa Trail around a field before entering Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook via a charming metal archway.
From here, the dirt path widens, and you’ll start to notice more native plants such as California brittlebush and a variety of sages (which offer a fun sensory experience when you pause to give them a sniff).
The Park to Playa Trail passes through the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook area.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Just under a mile in, you’ll reach your first large overlook. Look east toward the Hollywood Hills, and you can likely spot the Hollywood sign and Griffith Observatory. I paused here to watch a red-tailed hawk dip and fly above the city below.
Follow Park to Playa as it winds around, turning left (east) onto a separate trail that will take you up to the main overlook. You’ll soon pass the famous Culver City Stairs, which you could take the rest of the way up to the overlook, or follow the gentler dirt path before you. The path will head southeast before leading you to the overlook where it’s mandatory to pause and take it all in: the ocean, the mountains, the views of why we live here.
From the overlook, you can take the path south to the visitor center, where you’ll also find flush toilets and water fountains. You have the option to turn back around and head down with your crew to where you parked — or continue onward on Park to Playa, which if you feel adventurous, you could take to Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area.
The Antonovich Trail runs alongside Walnut Creek in San Dimas.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
2. Antonovich Trail
Distance: 7.8 miles out and back Elevation gained: 385 feet Difficulty: On the easier end of moderate Dogs allowed? Yes Accessible alternative: The Antonovich Trail, but instead of entering the trail off San Dimas Avenue, where you must navigate a steep hill, start the trail from this parking area; the trail is not paved, but it is mostly flat if you head in the westerly direction from the parking lot.
The Antonovich Trail is a 7.8-mile out-and-back trail that follows gently flowing Walnut Creek, shaded by canopies of coast live oak, fig and Southern California black walnut. Besides a steep descent from the parking lot into the canyon, the route is mostly flat.
Unfortunately, there’s no easy restroom access along the trail. If that’s a deal-breaker, then I’d recommend the Placerita Canyon and Waterfall Trail, which I wrote about here, if you’d like to hike in a similarly shaded canyon vibes. You’ll park near the Placerita Canyon Nature Center, which I’d highly recommend visiting for its educational exhibits and animal ambassadors. It has flush toilets and water fountains.
As shown on this map, there are multiple places to start the Antonovich Trail. If starting it from the lot off San Dimas Avenue, you will navigate an exposed, steep dirt path down into the canyon. As you descend, take in the views of the San Gabriel Mountains.
The trail is popular with horse riders and locals who enjoy bringing their dogs to frolic in the cool creek waters. Keep a keen eye out for birds commonly spotted here, including black phoebe, acorn woodpeckers and hawks. Also watch out for poison oak.
The path splits off into multiple unofficial trails, so keep an eye on your hiking app or map as you scurry along. The first time I hiked this trail, I was diverted from the main route a few times, including once when, to my delight, my detour brought me to a tire swing (which I tested out, flying over a nearby sparkling pool of water).
The trail appears to just abruptly end, but it actually connects to a larger local trail network.
The Devil’s Chair Trail in Devil’s Punchbowl Natural Area leads to an incredible overlook point on a small boulder.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
3. The Devil’s Chair Trail
Distance: 7.4 miles Elevation gain: About 1,500 feet Difficulty: Moderate Dogs allowed? Yes Accessible alternative: Prime Desert Woodland Preserve walking trail in Lancaster
The Devil’s Chair Trail is a 7.4-mile out-and-back hike that takes visitors through ancient sandstone formations of every imaginable shape and size. It’s a great all-day adventure for adults, teenagers and older kids.
About an hour-and-a-half drive from L.A. near Pearblossom, the hike starts in the Devil’s Punchbowl Natural Area, a 1,310-acre L.A. County park with massive sandstone rock formations and a healthy desert landscape of juniper and Joshua trees, along with native wildlife, including bighorn sheep.
Upon arriving in the large parking lot, you’ll find vault toilets and a visitor check-in area. The nature center is a great stop with live snakes, bugs and other crawly creepers inside. The rosy boa and tarantula are among my favorites to view.
The Devil’s Chair Trail was previously closed because of storm damage, but reopened about two weeks ago, thanks to the diligent work of county staff.
Its trailhead is in the southeast corner of the parking lot. The first mile of this hike is arguably the hardest part because you gain 500 feet in just under a mile.
After catching your breath, you’ll turn left (or east), cross a seasonal creek and hike for just over 2½ miles on a gentle path.
As you hike along the trail, you’ll likely spot chipmunks and gray squirrels. I frequently hear a variety of birds when I hike in the park, including hawks, ravens, white-crowned sparrows and dark-eyed juncos (which are very cute).
You also get incredible views of the desert below and mountains in the distance, including nearby Table Mountain in Angeles National Forest and the Tehachapi Mountains in Kern County.
To reach the trail’s namesake, you will walk down a narrow fenced path to a small boulder, surrounded by a short fence, that overlooks the valley below. This is the aforementioned devil’s chair. It’s a great spot to take a family selfie, share snacks and reminisce. And if you’re lucky, you might spot bighorn sheep in the valley below.
***
Regardless of how you spend time in the outdoors, with your immediate or chosen family, I hope you make great memories on our public lands.
3 things to do
A guest at Clockshop’s Kite Festival flies a large octopus kite at L.A. State Historic Park.
(Gina Clyne / Gina Clyne Photography)
1. Fly a kite with friends in Chinatown Clockshop’s Kite Festival, an annual free celebration, is scheduled from 2 to 6 p.m. Saturday at L.A. State Historic Park. Visitors can attend free art and kite-making workshops, compete in a kite competition and dance to local music. This year, The Times collaborated with Clockshop to publish a newspaper kite design. We will have a booth where you can get a copy of our newspaper kite design while supplies last. RSVP and donate at clockshop.org.
2. Yank weeds in Northeast L.A. The Ascot Hills Green Team and local hiking group We Explore Earth will host a volunteer day from 8 to 10:30 a.m. Saturday at Ascot Hills Park. Participants will yank out castor bean and black mustard, two invasive species that turn into serious fire hazards when they dry out. Closed-toe shoes, long pants and a reusable water bottle are recommended. Register at eventbrite.com.
3. Restore the land in Santa Clarita TreePeople, an L.A. climate resilience nonprofit, will co-host a volunteer restoration day with CalFire from 8 a.m. to noon Saturday in San Francisquito Canyon in Santa Clarita. Volunteers will remove invasive weeds and water native plants over uneven ground. Register at treepeople.org.
The must-read
(Photo illustration by Jim Cooke / Los Angeles Times; source photo / Getty Images)
Cute animal videos are a huge part of what makes the online world go round, including a recent viral video where Big Bear’s bald eagle Shadow appears to give his famous mate Jackie a nice massage. Too bad it was fake. Times staff writer Lila Seidman wrote that deepfake wildlife videos are taking over social media, prompting much concern from animal experts. “Far from benign, some experts say the videos can skew how people view and even interact with wildlife — potentially leading to perilous encounters,” Seidman wrote. “They may also undermine viewers’ growing desire to tune into nature to escape the frenetic rhythms of daily life.”
Happy adventuring,
P.S.
Any hiker who has driven into Angeles National Forest has undoubtedly forgotten to buy a $5 day pass or mistakenly left their annual pass at home. Good news, forgetful ones! Angeles National Forest installed an automated day pass dispenser at the pull-off at the intersection of Angeles Crest Highway and Angeles Forest Highway. The lot previously housed the Clear Creek information center and sits just west of the entrance to Switzer Picnic Area. The machine only takes cards. Better to stop and grab a pass than risk a ticket!
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.
Correction: A previous version of the April 30 edition of The Wild instructed readers to take Griffith Avenue outside the Audubon Center at Debs Park. The street’s name is Griffin Avenue.
The emails continually fill my inbox: Startups exclaiming they have engineered a solution to protect homes from wildfires.
I’ve been pitched a system that monitors fires via satellite so it can automatically turn on water cannons when fire gets too close. Another offered high-tech speakers that homeowners can place around their home that blasts powerful but silent sound waves designed to disrupt the chemical process of combustion.
One recent one was so outlandish, I couldn’t ignore it:
An entrepreneur together with a former mayor of Malibu were appearing on Shark Tank to pitch a new system to literally lower an entire home into a subterranean vault when a wildfire approaches.
Many fire officials and experts are optimistic we really can find part of the solution to California’s wildfire crisis in the proliferating world of home defense tech. But they also warn these wild ideas are often expensive as well as largely unproven.
Of course I tuned in to Shark Tank.
You’re reading Boiling Point
The L.A. Times climate team gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox every week.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
“I know, this sounds like a magic trick,” entrepreneur Holden Forrest told the Sharks.
“It sounds crazy,” investor and businesswoman Barbara Corcoran interjected.
Nonetheless, Corcoran, who lost her Pacific Palisades home in the 2025 fires, invested $1 million in exchange for a 20% ownership stake in the company — on the condition that its first proof-of-concept home is her own.
If you, like Corcoran, want to put down some serious money for exciting new tech, there are a few things you should know.
This kind of tech is often significantly more expensive than proven, less flashy approaches to reduce the risk of your home burning — such as covering vents with mesh so embers can’t sneak into the home and multipaned windows that are less likely to shatter in the extreme heat, allowing flames and embers to enter.
For example, Forrest expects the retractable homes to cost around $1,000 per square foot. The company hopes to eventually get it down to around $400.
For reference, Palisades fire survivors expect to pay around $800 per square foot to rebuild, while Eaton fire survivors expect to pay just shy of $600. It’s also more than a new series of fire-resilient homes in the Palisades that incorporate both tried-and-true and flashy new tech, sitting around $700.
Fire safety experts also warn that some of this technology can encourage dangerous behavior such as ignoring evacuation orders and staying to defend homes. For example, even when water cannon companies insist their technology can function autonomously, some homeowners nonetheless stay behind to operate them.
Forrest rejected the idea that his technology, HiberTec Homes, would encourage homeowners to disobey evacuation orders — he argued the opposite. The trust that comes with knowing your home will survive actually decreases the likelihood residents will stay behind, he told the Sharks.
Many of the new home protection systems remain unproven, in part because it takes time for researchers to evaluate them. There are three steps to that:
First, scientists head to the lab to see whether the physics behind the tech works as expected in controlled tests.
Second, they investigate individual homes that used the tech in major fires to piece together whether the same physics held together in the chaos and immense power of real-world fires.
Third, they determine whether what they saw in the lab and on the ground translates to a reduced risk at scale. To do this researchers survey thousands of structures that faced wildfires and compare the percentage with the tech that survived with the percentage without the tech that survived.
If you live in a fire-prone area, and you understand the risks and uncertainties of new tech and have money to spare, by all means, build the wildfire bunker of your dreams — just email me an invite to check it out.
Otherwise, Cal Fire maintains a list of the less flashy solutions that have already gone through their scientific paces.
More recent wildfire news
After months of fierce debate between fire officials and residents in fire-prone areas, California released a new “Zone Zero” proposal outlining landscaping restrictions within 5 feet of people’s homes. Unlike previous proposals, many Southern Californians seem to be … OK with this one.
California regulators determined State Farm “delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape.” The Department of Insurance may now seek to suspend the company’s license. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief supporting 60 fire victims who are suing State Farm and other insurers, my colleague Laurence Darmiento reports.
Survivors of the 2023 Maui fires could start receiving their share of a $4-billion settlement with Hawaiian Electric, the state of Hawaii, Maui County and other defendants as early as June. However, few will break even, reports Stewart Yerton of Honolulu Civil Beat. Lawyers will get a slice for legal fees; the Internal Revenue Service may claw back as much as a third if Congress doesn’t resurrect a tax exemption for such settlements; and insurers who paid out claims will get 10% of the money.
Oh — and this Saturday is Fire Service Day. There’s a good chance your local fire station will hold an open house, complete with fire equipment demos and maybe even free pancakes.
A few last things in climate news
Tom Steyer, a Wall Street prodigy turned billionaire who made a portion of his money off investments in coal-fired power plants, is now trying to use that money to convince Californians he’s the best candidate on climate and energy affordability. Read my colleagues Ben Wieder and Hayley Smith’s full profile here.
The last California-bound oil tanker to pass through the Strait of Hormuz before the Iran war reached the Port of Long Beach, my colleague Blanca Begert reports. After the ship finishes offloading its crude oil, California will have to manage a deficit of roughly 200,000 barrels of oil per day.
The company that produces the widely used weedkiller Roundup promised to “provide a small thanks” to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator after the agency asserted it would not approve a label for the weedkiller warning it causes cancer, reports Sky Chadde of Investigate Midwest. The revelation came at a congressional hearing last week as the company seeks immunity in the Supreme Court.
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.
The top candidates in California’s wide-open race for governor took the stage Wednesday night in a Los Angeles debate that began politely but quickly devolved into another raucous clash.
Former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra and billionaire Tom Steyer, both Democratic frontrunners, were primary targets of the political attacks — Becerra for his record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and Steyer over his past investments, including in private prisons that housed immigrant detainees.
San José Mayor Matt Mahan started off the debate by lashing out at both Republicans and Democrats.
“We do not need the leadership that MAGA candidates on this stage are offering that’s divisive. We don’t need the leadership of a billionaire who’s now against everything he made his money in, or a career politician who has failed again and again to deliver results,” Mahan said, taking shots at conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Steyer and Becerra, respectively.
Mahan had good reason to go on the attack. The moderate Democrat has struggled to meet early expectations that he would emerge as a top-tier candidate.
The California Democratic Party’s latest poll, released Monday, showed Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco, a Republican, with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — were in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for the televised debates this week.
Sanctuary state policy leads to kerfuffle
In a tense exchange on immigration and the state’s sanctuary laws, Porter said, “We ought to enforce our sanctuary laws everywhere so we don’t have crazy cowboys taking the law into their own hands.”
It was a shot at Bianco, who has criticized the law that blocks local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents.
“Tell that to the crazy mother who lost her child,” Bianco said, referring to a case in his county involving a 14-year-old who was hit and killed by a driver who he said had two prior DUI arrests and was in the country illegally.
“Sir, I don’t need any lectures from you about being a mother,” Porter, a single mother of three and the only woman on the debate stage, shot back.
“You might,” Bianco said, prompting a nasty look from Porter and groans and boos from the studio audience.
The one-hour clash followed another Wednesday evening debate, among candidates for Los Angeles mayor, part of a doubleheader hosted and broadcast by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 in Los Angeles. Both took place at the Skirball Cultural Center and were moderated by NBC4 News anchor Colleen Williams, chief political reporter Conan Nolan and Telemundo 52 News anchor Enrique Chiabra.
Republicans and Democrats divided on immigration
Democrats were in lockstep on most issues related to immigration, including opposing Immigration & Customs Enforcement raids and supporting the sanctuary law that prohibits police from coordinating with the federal agency.
Republicans said the controversial state law, which was approved in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, has hurt public safety.
“I have someone in my jail right now … he’s convicted of a felony, but the three prior convictions for DUI, he was released from jail,” Bianco said. “He was deported on two of them, [came] back into the country, and then he killed a 14-year-old boy with another DUI. So we have to wait until somebody dies before we deport criminals who are in our jail.”
Villaraigosa countered that the law allows for violent criminals to be deported and that thousands have been by state and local law enforcement agencies.
Hilton, a British national who became a U.S. citizen in 2021, declared himself “the candidate of the legal immigrant community” and said the governor’s job is to enforce laws, whether they agree with them or not.
All the Democrats said they would restore full Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants, which has been rolled back due to budget constraints, while Republicans said they would not.
Courting Latino voters
One of the many undercurrents of Wednesday’s debate was the ongoing tussle between Becerra and Villaraigosa. Both have been competing for California’s pivotal Latino vote, and the former Los Angeles mayor’s attacks have become increasingly aggressive as Becerra has ascended in the governor’s race.
At about 40% of the state’s population, Latinos are California’s largest ethnic group but also among the groups least likely to vote, casting just 21% of ballots in the 2022 primary election.
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, said Becerra’s surge in momentum could boost Latino turnout, “but I don’t see any evidence right now that actually tells us that will happen. The thing about primaries, unfortunately, is that turnout is always low. Even in a competitive primary like this.”
On Wednesday, Villaraigosa launched a new digital ad highlighting a former member of the Biden administration questioning Becerra’s record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.
He highlighted the issue during Wednesday’s debate after the moderates asked the candidates how they would address homelessness in California.
“Mr. Becerra, are you proud that you pushed out 85,000 migrant children? They were, according to the New York Times, they were maimed, they were exploited,” Villaraigosa said. “Some were even killed. You said those are MAGA talking points, it’s a MAGA hoax. Tell that to the children who died.”
“So I’m not sure what that had to do with homelessness, but cálmate, Antonio, cálmate,” Becerra responded, urging his opponent to “calm down.” He accused Villaraigosa of parroting the unfounded attacks that Trump deployed against former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
“We protected kids. We did not let them be abused,” Becerra said. “Stop lying.”
Speaking of homelessness
The Democrats and Republicans on stage were sharply divided on the best way to address California’s ongoing homelessness crisis.
People living on the streets are “pawns in the homeless industrial complex,” Bianco said, adding: “This is not and has never been about homes. This is about drug and alcohol addiction.”
Mahan, Villaraigosa and Becerra touted their records building housing and expanding mental health services, saying those will help reduce homelessness. They, along with Porter, also called for more oversight of state homelessness spending.
Hilton said the issue is one of the state’s biggest failures and blamed the Democrats — the party that has controlled state government for the past 16 years.
“Some of these Democrats are on this stage, they talk as if we’re in some parallel universe where Democrats haven’t been running this state for the last 16 years of one-party rule,” he said.
Democratic shift on nuclear plants, high-speed rail
A series of lightning-round questions highlighted some subtle shifts on traditional Democratic policies as candidates aim to make the state more affordable.
Democrats led the charge to decommission nuclear power plants in California over concerns of potential environmental and health catastrophes, but as the state struggles with energy affordability, all the Democrats (and both Republicans) said they would support further extending operations at the state’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County.
Most of the Democrats also said they support finishing a high-speed rail line from Bakersfield to Modesto, despite the massive cost overruns and delays, but said the project should be done cheaper and more efficiently. Hilton and Bianco want to scuttle the project.
And all Democrats except Steyer said they would vote against a proposed billionaire tax that will likely be on the November ballot mostly to backfill federal cuts to healthcare coverage. Although most of the Democratic candidates aside from Mahan say they support higher taxes on the wealthy, they have raised issues with the details of the proposal, including the fact that it is a one-time tax.
WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”
The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana,Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.
The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.
“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”
For now, California’s response is far from settled.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) cautioned against “accelerating a race to the bottom.”
(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.
“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”
What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.
California could see 48 blue seats, out of 52
That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.
Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.
“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.
Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.
“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”
Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.
Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.
“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”
Ruling could jeopardize state’s voting rights law
The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.
The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.
“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”
The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.
And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.
Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.
“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.
At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.
“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”
But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.
A threat to independent redistricting
Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.
“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.
J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.
“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”
Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.
“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”
The Humboldt County Office of Elections made an unnerving discovery Monday: a stack of 596 sealed ballots from the most recent election left at the bottom of a locked voting drop box.
The uncounted ballots would not have affected the outcome of the November statewide special election for Proposition 50, the county office said in a news release Wednesday. However, officials said they’re working hard to have all the votes legally counted.
The office discovered that the ballots were uncounted because of a staff error. When workers checked the drop box, there was a miscommunication about whether it had been fully emptied, the office said.
“That outcome is unacceptable and runs counter to the core of what this office stands for,” Juan Pablo Cervantes, county clerk-recorder and registrar of voters, said in a statement. “While the mistake occurred after an election worker did not follow proper procedures, the responsibility for what happened ultimately sits with me.”
After the ballots were discovered, elections staff confirmed that the sealed ballots had not been tampered with, and they worked with the California secretary of state to determine next steps. Under California law, the ballots should have been counted before the election was certified on Dec. 5 and destroyed six months later.
The Office of Elections said it had altered its protocols to ensure such a mistake does not take place again, implementing a new “lock out, tag out” procedure to ensure each drop box is empty and secured before election results are finalized.
“I promise you that we are taking this seriously,” Cervantes said. “We will strengthen our processes and continue pushing toward the standard our community expects and deserves.”
The discovery comes as California continues to be under a microscope for allegations of voter fraud.
Within minutes of polls opening for California’s special election in November, President Trump took to Truth Social to claim that the Proposition 50 vote — which redrew several congressional districts to favor Democratic candidates — was rigged.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote.
When asked later that day to explain Trump’s claims on how the election was allegedly rigged, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said California has “a universal mail-in voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud.” She also accused the state of counting ballots from undocumented immigrants.
Elections officials and Democratic leaders including Gov. Gavin Newsom decried those claims as baseless. “The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in a November statement.
More recently, Republican gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco has drawn scrutiny for using his position as Riverside County sheriff to seize some 650,000 ballots in the county to determine whether they were fraudulently counted. Critics decried the move as another attempt by Republican election deniers to disenfranchise voters.
Humboldt County, which encompasses 4,052 square miles of rural California below the Oregon border, has largely avoided election-related turmoil in recent years. In 2008, however, Humboldt election officials discovered that software they used to tally votes had failed to count 197 ballots from one precinct.
Tom Steyer is trying to sell himself to voters as an agent of change.
He has vowed to take on entrenched political and economic forces to create affordable housing, make the wealthy pay more in taxes, lower energy bills and protect the environment.
But perhaps the biggest change he is selling is his own.
The hedge-fund billionaire turned climate activist has faced criticism throughout his campaign for past investments in coal plants and private prisons, to name a few, that helped build his fortune and gave him the means to spend more than $150 million of his own money in his quest for the governor’s mansion.
Steyer’s prolific spending has blanketed the airwaves with television ads and helped propel him near the top of an unsettled gubernatorial field in the polls.
The 68-year-old San Franciscan has helped put many Democratic candidates in office as one of the party’s biggest political donors in the past two decades, but has never held public office himself.
He spent more than $340 million in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, but dropped out after placing third in the primary in South Carolina, where he had invested heavily.
There is a long tradition of wealthy, self-funding candidates, and the results are mixed at best. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg spent more than $260 million to win three terms as New York City mayor. But he spent more than $1 billion on a 2020 presidential bid and lasted only four days longer in the race than Steyer. Two years later, real estate developer Rick Caruso spent more than $100 million in an effort to become Los Angeles mayor but lost handily to Karen Bass.
Hoping for a better result in his current race, Steyer has staked out a position as the most progressive candidate in the field — touting an endorsement from the Bernie Sanders-affiliated Our Revolution. He’s picked up other key endorsements, too, from the California Teachers Assn., California Nurses Assn. and numerous environmental groups.
But he faces the challenge of convincing enough liberal voters to support a billionaire with controversial past investments the same year a tax on billionaires, currently enjoying strong support, is poised to be on the November ballot.
“This election is about who you can trust to fight for you,” former Rep. Katie Porter said during an April 22 gubernatorial debate in San Francisco. “One candidate is a billionaire who got rich off polluters and ICE prisons and is now using that money to fund his election.”
Steyer said he understands the broad concerns about his wealth and is willing to vote for the billionaires’ tax in November.
“I know that people are skeptical of billionaires, and I’m skeptical of billionaires,” Steyer said Tuesday in an interview with The Times. “But if you look at this race, I’m the only progressive in the race. I’m the person who’s taking on the corporate special interests.”
He pointed to the millions spent by a super PAC supported by the real estate industry and Pacific Gas & Electric — which Steyer has pledged to break up to bring down utility costs — as evidence that he is the candidate most feared by moneyed interests in the state.
“The companies that are running up the costs are fighting like hell, because that’s how they make their money,” he said. “But somebody’s got to stand up to them.”
The departure of former Rep. Eric Swalwell from the race last month after sexual assault allegations doesn’t appear to have resulted in a major surge of support for Steyer. Rather, it is Xavier Becerra, the former Health and Human Services secretary, who seems to have gained momentum.
But veteran California pollster Mark Baldassare said that he hasn’t counted out Steyer yet.
Tom Steyer, in 2013, as he was campaigning against the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
(David Paul Morris / Bloomberg)
“It would be easy to say that he’s reached his peak, except for the fact that there are so many undecideds and Steyer has so many resources at his disposal,” said Baldassare, the statewide survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California.
Steyer has poured at least $875 million into federal and state political committees since 2010, according to an analysis conducted for The Times by OpenSecrets, and federal and state campaign finance records. That total includes the nearly half a billion dollars he has spent on his two races.
In 2013, Steyer left his investment firm and launched NextGen Climate, a progressive political action group geared toward addressing climate change. He has given nearly $270 million to a super PAC affiliated with the group, which was later renamed NextGen America.
The committee has spent tens of millions of dollars on campaigns opposing fossil fuel interests and supporting progressive candidates, though Steyer’s financial support for the group has decreased as he has run for office.
The billionaire also established his climate bona fides by opposing the Keystone XL pipeline during the Obama administration, which became a national proxy fight over climate policy, and by backing environmental ballot measures in California.
Among them was a $5-million investment in 2010’s “No on Prop. 23” campaign, which defeated a conservative effort to overturn California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction law.
Two years later, Steyer invested about $29.5 million in Proposition 39, a winning measure to recoup money from corporate tax breaks to help pay for clean energy projects.
Privileged upbringing and a ‘desire to compete’
Steyer’s unconventional path to politics began with a privileged upbringing on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He studied at the elite Buckley School and Philips Exeter Academy before attending college at Yale University, where he captained the men’s soccer team and graduated in 1979.
After a brief stint on Wall Street, he got a master’s degree in business administration at Stanford University, where he met his future wife, Kat Taylor. They wed on the Stanford campus in 1986.
Steyer worked hard — very hard — at making money.
He was one of several “Wall Street Prodigies” featured in a Wall Street Journal profile from the same year he was married.
Steyer’s work began at 5 a.m. in the office and he seldom took days off — he fretted he wouldn’t have time for a honeymoon.
He eschewed the trappings of wealth — driving an eight-year-old Honda — motivated instead by a “desire to compete, excel and keep struggling to do better.”
Steyer began cutting political checks soon after, but his real emergence as a major political donor came during the 2004 presidential campaign, when he pledged to raise more than $100,000 for John Kerry’s campaign and was talked about as a potential political appointee at the U.S. Treasury Department in a Kerry administration.
Steyer hired Kerry to join his sustainable investment company Galvanize in 2024. Steyer stepped down from the company before entering the governor’s race.
The year 2004 was pivotal for another reason.
A group of students at his two alma maters, Yale and Stanford, along with those at a handful of other elite universities, began a campaign to pressure the endowments at their institutions to stop investing with Steyer’s hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management.
They cited concerns about some of the firm’s investments, including a coal burning plant in Indonesia and a joint venture between Farallon and Yale to pump out water from an aquifer in Colorado adjacent to the Great Sand Dunes National Park.
“Stated simply, we do not want our universities to profit from investments that harm other communities,” the students wrote in an open letter to Steyer. “We are concerned about the impact some of Farallon’s recent investments have had.”
Steyer told the students he appreciated “the importance of the issues that you raise,” but defended his firm’s work, saying that it acted “responsibly and ethically.”
Looking back on that time now, Steyer said it was a turning point.
“I think that experience really was a wake-up call to me,” he said. “It’s when I started to very seriously consider leaving Farallon. I really felt like if I was going to be the person with my values, I was going to have to leave and be independent and do what was right.”
Three years later, Steyer and his wife began their initial pivot to public service, opening a bank in Oakland that would cater to low-income customers
Tom Steyer, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, greets people at an event in Des Moines, Iowa, in 2019.
(Scott Olson / Getty Images)
But this initial venture highlighted the inevitable collision course between Steyer’s burgeoning activism and his firm’s investments.
At an event that year with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Steyer and Taylor pledged $1 million in loans to support vulnerable people in Oakland facing foreclosure in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis.
Left unsaid was the fact that Steyer’s firm had extensive financial ties to San Diego’s Accredited Home Lenders, one of the biggest subprime mortgage lenders in the country.
The transformation to climate activist
Steyer and his wife began writing bigger philanthropic checks and in 2010 took the Giving Pledge, promising to donate at least half of their wealth before they died.
In 2009, they gave $40 million to endow the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford, the first of several multimillion-dollar gifts to Stanford and Yale to support climate-focused ventures. They pledged $7 million to create the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, also at Stanford, in 2010. It closed last year after its endowment came to an end.
And in 2011, the couple donated $25 million to Yale to help establish an Energy Sciences Institute focused on developing sustainable energy solutions.
But even as Steyer undertook his public transformation from investor to climate activist, his firm continued to make decisions out of step with his newfound commitment.
In 2011, for example, the firm purchased 1.8 million shares of BP, a year after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in which a BP-operated project dumped nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Steyer resigned from the firm at the end of 2012, though he still has millions of dollars invested in the firm .
Environmentalists have largely been willing to forgive Steyer’s past investments.
“There’s no question he’d be the most knowledgeable and committed climate advocate that’s ever held really high office in America,” climate activist and author Bill McKibben recently toldPolitico.
While the nonprofit California Environmental Voters hasendorsed both Katie Porter and Tom Steyer in the race, Steyer, in particular, has “taken on Big Oil dollar for dollar, toe to toe, and beaten them,” said Mary Creasman, the group’s chief executive.
“He has made this his career and his investment and his passion, so it’s authentic, and voters see that,” she said.
Leah Stokes, an associate professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara, said she’s impressed by Steyer’s climate track record and progressive campaign platform, noting that he’s been an active presence in California’s climate movement for more than 15 years.
That includes not only his work on ballot initiatives and clean energy technology, but also his focus on biodiversity loss and carbon sequestration at his 1,800-acre TomKat Ranch in Pescadero, where researchers are studying regenerative agriculture.
But Steyer has also played a role in elevating climate into a national political issue — including in the early 2010s when it wasn’t a “politically hot topic,” Stokes said.
“He has been willing to spend an enormous amount of his personal money on elections on climate — whether it’s propositions, whether it’s himself running for president on basically a climate platform, whether it’s the Next Gen giant voter turnout campaign,” she said. “I think he has recognized … that politics is where we have to invest our time if we want to make a difference on the climate crisis.”
Despite concerns raised about Steyer’s early investments into fossil fuels through Farallon, Stokes said she’s more apt to criticize candidates who are taking money from oil companies today, such as Becerra, who accepted a $39,200 donation from Chevron for his gubernatorial campaign.
She was also heartened by the fact that Pacific Gas & Electric has funded a $10-million PAC opposing Steyer, because she said it indicates that he aims to hold utility companies accountable for skyrocketing electricity prices amid soaring profits.
“We could actually have a shot here at having somebody who cares about climate change, who wants to hold utilities accountable, who wants to hold big polluters accountable,” Stokes said. “That would just be transformative.”
Energy costs weigh heavily on voters
Steyer’s focus on climate issues and energy affordability could also be a strategic boon in the governor’s race.
Sixty percent of voters in the state see climate change as a major threat to the country and believe that the government is not doing enough to address it, according to polling from the Public Policy Institute of California.
“Californians connect the dots between what’s going on with extreme climate and wildfires and climate,” said Baldassare, the institute’s survey director.
Recent polling has also shown that voters are very concerned about energy affordability and rising utility costs, with 13% of Americans naming it as the most important financial problem facing their family — a 10-point increase from last year, according to an AprilGallup poll.
Overall, energy costs tied housing costs as the second-biggest concern following the high cost of living, the poll found.
In November, Democrats who campaigned heavily around energy affordabilityswept the field in key races in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia. Residential electric prices increased nearly 11% between January 2025 and this February, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“Voters are supporting candidates who are leaning into these issues,” Creasman said.
Wieder reported from Washington and Smith from Los Angeles.
Democrat Xavier Becerra’s rapid rise in California’s race for governor made him a ripe and constant target during a combative nationally televised debate Tuesday evening, his first real test in a high-stakes election that remains highly volatile.
Becerra was ripped throughout the two-hour CNN debate, primarily by his Democratic rivals, who accused him of dodging questions about his stance on single-payer healthcare, falling short as a Biden Cabinet secretary and pocketing a campaign donation from Chevron.
“I think everyone’s invoking my name. It’s nice to hear my name quite a bit,” said Becerra, who served as the U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. “I will tell you this: Distorting the facts in your quest to be governor is never good, but using Trump lies to try to damage your opponents is worse, and that’s what we see happening.”
As ballots land in California voters’ mailboxes, the state’s seven top gubernatorial candidates clashed over immigration, President Trump, tax policy, political temperament and a hodgepodge of scandals, mudslinging and other unsavory actions that have risen to the forefront of the hotly contested race.
The snarky, sometimes petulant exchanges reflect how unsettled the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is, as well as California’s outsize economic and political gravitas on the national and international stage.
Shortly after the debate began, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter chastised her fellow candidates for their unceasing attacks.
“I can’t believe [the] interrupting and bickering and name calling and shouting and disrespect for everyone up here who’s stepping into public service that anyone wants to talk about my temperament,” said the former Democratic Congress member from Irvine.
Here are the top takeaways from a two-hour debate that somehow seemed even longer:
Becerra takes his lumps
Beccera, who has surged in the weeks before the June 2 primary, faced a barrage of attacks from his Republican and Democratic rivals about his oversight of unaccompanied immigrant minors during his tenure at the Health and Human Services Department and his relationship with a longtime adviser who, along with other consultants, skimmed about $225,000 from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts.
Becerra is not accused of wrongdoing and has been painted as a victim in the prosecutor’s court filings. Still, conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, suggested Becerra knew about the scheme, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, questioned why Becerra paid an unusually high fee to one of the consultants named in the indictment.
“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” Villaraigosa said.
Becerra also was accused of changing his position on single-payer healthcare, a top priority of liberal voters that aims to create a healthcare system run and funded by the federal government.
Though Becerra has long supported single-payer healthcare, he recently assured members of the California Medical Assn. — one of the most influential medical lobbyinggroups in California, which has endorsed him — that he would not support it as governor, according to a KQED report.
When asked directly about this, Becerra said “those reports were inaccurate. I continue to be for Medicare for all.”
Becerra sidestepped repeated questions from Porter about whether he supported a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system in California, saying that he wants to cover “everyone with something like Medicare for all.”
“Covering everyone with something is not single-payer. It’s not even federal Medicare for all. But you won’t say whether you support California having its own state-run single-payer system,” Porter said.
Single-payer healthcare is a telling issue
Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer also has taken heat for changing his position on the issue. The hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior opposed single-payer healthcare during his 2020 presidential bid and now supports a statewide single-payer system called CalCare. He is endorsed by the California Nurses Assn., one of CalCare’s biggest supporters.
A recent analysis by UC researchers estimates CalCare would cost $731 billion to implement in 2027 — a price tag that’s $14 billion larger than all anticipated healthcare spending in California next year.
Villaraigosa said creating a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system — with a price tag larger than the entire state budget — is a “pie in the sky” proposal. He said he considers healthcare a human right but said a system such as CalCare would require approval from the Trump administration — and that’s not going to happen.
“As a patient, it nearly killed me,” he said. “That’s another story we don’t have time for. As a policymaker, you end up with the worst patient satisfaction, costs that you can’t afford, taxes, sky-high to pay for it. It is a total disaster.”
Race remains a toss-up
The 2026 gubernatorial contest has been an undulating, unpredictable whirlwind. Unlike every governor’s race for more than a quarter of a century, there is no clear frontrunner, leading to a sprawling field of candidates with notable resumes but little recognition among California’s 23.1 million registered voters.
On Monday, the state Democratic Party released its latest voter survey, which found Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, Villaraigosa and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — was in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for Tuesday’s debate or an NBC/Telemundo face-off taking place on Wednesday.
Tuesday’s debate with the leading candidates took place at East Los Angeles College and was hosted by CNN, the first time national media has paid such attention to a California statewide contest since 2010.
Partisan divide on immigration
On the debate stage in Los Angeles, a city that was targeted by Trump administration immigration raids, Bianco criticized California’s sanctuary state laws, which prevent local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement.
Villaraigosa defended the undocumented immigrants residing in California, saying they are vital to the economic success of the state. He also accused Bianco of not understanding how California’s sanctuary state policy works — with the former Los Angeles mayor telling him that California has turned over thousands of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes to federal immigration officials.
“I want Mr. Villaraigosa to tell the mother of the 14-year-old in my county that is dead because of an illegal immigrant that had been deported three times because of DUIs that sanctuary state policy keeps us safe. I don’t think she’s going to agree with you,” Bianco said.
Democrats Porter, Steyer, Mahan and Becerra accused the Trump administration of “terrorizing” Latino communities and targeting people for deportation based on the color of their skin.
Steyer said he would prosecute ICE agents “and the people who send them,” including former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump advisor Stephen Miller, for illegal racial profiling.
Agreement on need for housing
On the issue of housing, the candidates agreed that California has fallen short of providing enough homes to make the state affordable. Mahan, the mayor of San José, said he has reduced the city’s homeless population by making it easier to build ADUs in people’s backyards, and by reducing red tape for additional types of housing.
Villaraigosa said he built more market-rate, affordable and workforce housing when he was mayor of Los Angeles than anyone else on the stage.
Hilton pressed for building single-family homes in areas of the state with space, rather than forcing more housing into places where residents don’t want them.
Steyer said, “Californians can’t afford to live here,” and there has to be a greater conversation about building more housing, and faster. He also said that cities and counties “do not want new housing” because they can’t afford to pay the health and education costs associated with more residents, and he will solve that issue by closing tax loopholes for big businesses.
Still, housing, homelessness and affordability — top-of-mind issues for California voters — overall received scant attention during the debate, even though CNN debate moderators Kaitlan Collins and Los Angeles-native Elex Michaelson pressed the candidates on the state’s incessant problems with affordability.
Steyer did use the affordability issue to criticize Becerra, currently his greatest political threat, for taking a campaign contribution from Chevron.
“Being in bed with oil companies is a mistake,” Steyer said. “Xavier Becerra has taken the max amount of money from Chevron, and he has said they’re good guys that we need. The truth of the matter is the oil companies are ripping us off at the pump. They’re polluting our air and they’re burning up the climate.”
Becerra responded that it was “a rich response from a guy who made his billions investing in fossil fuels and oil companies, in coal companies.”
“Now he makes the billions, and he has spent more than every other candidate combined in this campaign, using those profits to now try to buy his seat in the governor’s office,” Becerra said.
Where they stand on the proposed billionaire tax
A notable area of policy disagreement among Democrats is a proposal to levy a one-time 5% tax on the wealth and assets of billionaires. Supporters of the measure say they have gathered enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot.
If approved, the funds would mostly pay for healthcare cuts approved by the Trump administration last year.
Porter said that, although she wants to increase taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents, she doesn’t support the proposal because it is a “one-time tax” that won’t solve the state’s underlying budget issues.
“Yes to a progressive tax code, yes to the wealthy paying more, but this tax is about cheap political points,” Porter said.
Steyer said he would vote for the tax, but he agreed that state leaders ought to go further, including by taxing corporate interests more.
Bianco agreed with Porter that the billionaire tax is a bad idea.
Villaraigosa said California relies too much on the its wealthiest residents to fill state coffers, which leads to “feast and famine” in its budgets. He said businesses and high-earners are leaving the state, and that a plan to tax the wealthiest Americans needs to be enacted at the federal level.
Republican vs. Republican
The two Republicans on stage appeared content to spend their time blasting the Democrats rather than each other.
Bianco was asked if he thought that Republican voters could trust Hilton.
“You’ve called Hilton unethical and dishonest and said that he swindled his way into the Republican side,” Collins said, citing an article from the Atlantic.
“I would never use the word swindled, but the context — yes, I have said that,” Bianco said after some back-and-forth about the particulars of his criticisms. “Have Steve and I disagreed? Absolutely we have.”
He avoided directly criticizing Hilton but said he was the only person on the stage “that their entire existence in their job revolves around honesty, integrity.”
Hilton swerved, saying voters cannot keep voting for the same thing — Democratic leadership — if they want to see change in the state.”
Times staff writers Dakota Smith and Doug Smith contributed to this report.
For the third time in as many weeks, the leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night.
The latest installment was a two-hour session, hosted and carried live from Monterey Park by CNN. The debate marked the first time the candidates appeared before a national audience and came as mail ballots have begun arriving in homes throughout the state.
Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria took in all 120 minutes, absorbed every zinger — scripted and otherwise — and dutifully observed each parry and thrust. Here’s what they took away:
Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa finally rises above his gubernatorial rivals. Is it too late?
I wrote my thoughts about this debate while writing my next columna on … something, stopping to pay attention only when issues in my bailiwick like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party were the subject of discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said came off as one giant shout-fest straight out of the studios of the late, great Wally George, with everyone playing true to form.
Chad Bianco raged, Steve Hilton tried to mask his MAGA-ness with his British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer channeled Bernie. Xavier Becerra did his best impression of the old Bunsen character from “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just … there.
You know who sounded the best? Antonio Villaraigosa.
Anyone who really knows the former L.A. mayor has always seen him as Chicano Prince Hal, someone who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His infidelities effectively killed his political career after his mayoral years; his consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife made Villaraigosa a walking joke among too many Latinos I know.
He has spent the last decade effectively embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He coulda been a contender. Even his gubernatorial run, announced way before many of his opponents, has mostly had the air of a has-been — that’s one of the reasons why Villaraigosa has polled so low through most of the race to the point he was excluded from many of the early debates.
But that hangdog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.
His wisecracks were kept to a minimum. He stayed mostly within his time limits and didn’t interrupt much. He hammered Hilton over his refusal to admit that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and his dismissal of undocumented immigrants.
Villaraigosa especially went hard on his forever frenemy Xavier Becerra on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to how former staffers have been charged with stealing millions of dollars from his campaign funds. (Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing.)
When CNN co-moderator Elex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa if he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “No” thundered down like a Lebron James dunk. He called out the waste on the multibillion-dollar project, said he revived L.A.’s subway to the sea, and spoke with a passionate gravitas that Becerra could only dream of doing.
“When I make a mistake, I’m accountable,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This sounded like a candidate who can win — and now he has a month to make a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.
Four weeks to prove them wrong, Antonio.
Barabak: It was a no-hitter.
No startling breakthrough. No game-changing moment. No candidate so irresistibly charming he or she knocked the race akimbo and stamped themselves as the far-and-away front-runner in the slowly consolidating contest.
By now, the candidates are plowing well-furrowed ground.
To anyone who has watched each of the debates — and there may not be a great many of those viewers out there — it was all quite familiar.
What is new, and what may have been the draw for those just tuning in, is a sense the race is finally taking a coherent shape, with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.
A month ago, Eric Swalwell was a leading contender in the dozy contest and Becerra was an afterthought, being urged to quit for the sake of his dignity and the good of the Democratic Party. (Fears of a Democratic shutout in the June 2 primary have greatly receded.)
When Swalwell left the race and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual assault and other potentially illegal misconduct, it was widely assumed much of his support would move to either Steyer or Porter, the two other leading Democratic contenders.
But Becerra has been the clear-cut beneficiary and his new status was evident Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. He didn’t particularly dazzle, but that’s not his appeal. It’s his steadiness and seeming unflappability in a time of great upheaval and stress, and that was again evident.
With less than four weeks to election day — and voting already underway — time is waning for another dramatic shake-up like the one that took place between Swalwell’s implosion in April and Becerra’s surge in May.
It seems, however, as though little to nothing will change, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton consolidating GOP support and the remainder of the field looking for something — or someone — to drastically shake up the race one more time.
Chabria: I don’t know about a winner, but the debate definitely had a biggest loser: Bianco. The Riverside County sheriff, to his credit I guess, didn’t try for a hot second to hide who he really is — a conspiracy-loving immigration hardliner with ties to an extremist group.
Bianco sort-of said he was a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization best known for some of its members participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. He threw out election fraud theories, even suggesting state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta could be involved. He made it clear that undocumented folks are breaking the law by existing in the state.
Maybe some MAGA voters will stick by that shtick, but I’m guessing independents and more moderate Republicans will find Hilton, the Trump-endorsed Republican, even more appealing after Bianco’s ragey ramblings. Hilton may well be sending his opponent a thank-you note and a bottle of bubbly for that performance.
As for winners, a couple of the Democrats had their moments. Porter spoke with clarity and force on issues including single-payer healthcare (she supports it) and resisting Trump’s immigration policies in this state of immigrants.
But she also directly addressed the criticism of her having a bad temper in a way that I think may haunt her.
As her male opponents bickered back and forth, taking swipes at each other, Porter said that given all the “shouting” and “disrespect” onstage, she was shocked that “anyone wants to talk about my temperament.” It’s a pushback she tried out earlier in the week with a new advertisement that sought to make a punchline out of the criticism.
I get her point and I don’t think a male candidate would face the same scrutiny for yelling at a staffer as she has, but also — what’s more unappealing to voters than an angry woman? A complaining one. That moment of resistance against the narrative may not land the way she intends with voters.
I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night, and that Steyer had Bernie energy — which may be good.
Steyer was the most lively and direct he’s been in a debate, landing a few punches and making points with clarity (far less wonky than he’s been in the past). He’s owning his far-left politics, and labeling himself the “change-maker.”
Steyer has been trailing Becerra in the polls, but Becerra again had a steady if less-than-thrilling appearance. For fed-up Democrats, Steyer may be looking better all the time.
“Tracker,” one of TV’s most-watched shows, is uprooting its Canadian production and moving to Los Angeles.
The action drama, produced by Disney’s 20th Television, is among a slate of new and recurring series benefiting from California’s improved $750 million tax incentive program. The show’s fourth season, set to begin shooting this summer, will receive the state’s largest tax credit , at $48 million, according to the California Film Commission.
The production will film for 176 days in California, with 250 crew members and 275 actors on board. The tax credit is based on the show’s projected spending of over $129 million. Deadline first reported the news of the show’s relocation.
The show stars actor Justin Hartley and follows his character as he tracks down people for reward money. Ever since its 2024 premiere, the show has resonated with audiences. Its third season is currently airing and was the fourth most-watched program on linear TV as of late April, according to Nielsen.
“Tracker” is primarily set in the wilderness, making the move to California a fresh opportunity for the production to explore diverse landscapes as its backdrop. Due to the rural setting, the show is also eligible to earn an extra 5% tax credit bonus, in addition to the 35% base credit, on qualified expenditures incurred outside the designated 30-mile zone of the Greater Los Angeles area.
Before “Tracker” secured the highest TV show tax credit, season 3 of Amazon’s “Fallout,” which relocated from New York to Los Angeles, received a $42M incentive. Dan Fogelman’s new NFL drama “The Land” received $42.8M. Other productions that have benefited from the tax program include medical drama “The Pitt,” Disney’s new animated movie “Phineas and Ferb” and Netflix’s upcoming reboot of “13 Going on 30.”
More than 100 productions have received tax credits since the program was expanded last year in response to the continued migration of productions to other countries like Ireland, U.K. and Canada.
But film industry advocates say these efforts aren’t enough to fully revitalize U.S.-based productions and local film economies.
To that end, , U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) announced in March he is working on a bipartisan federal film incentive proposal that would be globally competitive.
“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” Schiff said.
Such is the case with Burney Falls, a Northern California waterfall whose loveliness became such a siren song to costume-wearing Instagram mermaids, selfie-taking TikTok tour guides and off-the-beaten-track road trippers that crowds grew and grew, until the natural wonder just couldn’t handle it any more.
Crowds in recent years have damaged trails, trampled plants and clogged rural roads.
Now, as part of a pilot program to reduce overcrowding, the California Department of Parks and Recreation will require advance reservations to visit the Shasta County waterfall on many days this summer.
“Burney Falls is a crown jewel of the California State Park System, and we want all visitors to have an enjoyable and memorable experience when visiting this one-of-a-kind destination,” State Parks Director Armando Quintero said in a statement. “By allowing visitors to make a reservation in advance, we can help keep crowds manageable and not push the park’s resources past the breaking point.”
The reservations, which can be purchased online, will be required to visit the falls Fridays through Sundays and on holidays during peak visitation season, from May 15 through Sept. 27.
On those days, McArthur-Burney Falls Memorial State Park will offer 103 parking passes for 8 a.m. to noon, an additional 103 passes for 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 35 passes for the entire day.
The day use passes will cost $11 per vehicle, according to State Parks, with discounts for seniors and people with disabilities.
California State Parks annual pass holders will pay no additional charge but must make reservations. Visitors with overnight campground or cabin reservations will not need additional passes for day use.
The 129-foot waterfall — a wide curtain of white water cascading from a basalt cliff face — generates its own rainbow and once was dubbed the “Eighth Wonder of the World” by President Theodore Roosevelt.
Visitors often endure long lines to get a selfie at Burney Falls. Here, Rachel Brussbau poses with her 1-year-old daughter, Sage, and Crysten Michol in July 2023.
(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)
But for much of its history, it “experienced limited visitation due to its rural location … and lack of publicity,” the State Parks department said in a statement.
“For generations of visitors, it had the reputation of a small, family-oriented park and one of California’s best-kept secrets,” the department said. “However, over the past decade, and especially with the growth of social media, that secret is now world-famous.”
Crowds swelled during the COVID-19 pandemic, when indoor public spaces closed.
A State Parks spokesperson told The Times in an email Monday that in 2015, Burney Falls had 121,495 visitors. Numbers “have steadily risen since that time, peaking at 322,192 visitors in 2020 during the pandemic,” the spokesperson said.
Since then, about 220,000 people have visited the park each year.
The spokesperson said the numbers account only for people who come in through the official entrance and not those who park illegally on the side of the road and enter off-trail.
Because so many people have veered off established trails, the park in recent years has experienced increased erosion and damage to sensitive vegetation and sacred tribal land, according to the State Parks department. Heavy traffic and illegal parking also have created unsafe conditions along State Highway 89, one of the heavily forested county’s main thoroughfares and a critical fire evacuation route.
“Campers with reservations are hesitant to leave the park, knowing that it may take up to two hours to re-enter on busy days,” the department statement read.
Because of limited parking, the gates often close for several hours each day.
“If lucky enough to gain entry, visitors inside the park are met with extreme overcrowding, long restroom lines, and overflowing trash cans instead of a peaceful, rejuvenating experience at one of the nation’s most awe-inspiring natural landmarks,” State Parks said.
In the summer of 2024, State Parks closed all access to the waterfall for the season to repair trails and slopes damaged by heavy crowds and storm erosion.
The department said it will evaluate the day use reservation system at the end of the summer and make adjustments if necessary for future peak visitation periods.
State Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber), whose district includes Shasta County, said the pilot program “is likely to disrupt some trips” until word spreads.
“Unfortunately, for several years it has been clear something needs to change at Burney Falls,” Dahle said. “I hope this is an interim measure on the way to longer-term fixes to accommodate visitors.”
SACRAMENTO — Across America, 53 women have served as state governors. But not one in California. What gives? Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened out here in this cutting-edge state?
In fact, 14 women currently are governors in all sorts of states — north, south, flyover and Pacific coast. Big, midsize and small. Red, blue and purple.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Porter should be elected just because she’s a woman.
What I’m saying is that this is an opportunity to elect a perfectly qualified woman. If a male opponent is considered better suited for the job, fine. But first, let’s give her a good hard look and listen to her ideas. Maybe she’s too liberal — or not liberal enough. Perhaps too feisty and brusque than some unfairly find acceptable in a woman.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Independent polling shows that Porter basically isn’t getting any more support from women voters than she is from men.
I queried my best source on such matters: my daughter, Karen Skelton, a longtime political operative who has served stints in the Clinton and Biden White Houses. Why aren’t more women rallying around Porter?
“There was a time when women were excited to support women just because they were women, fueled by the historic prospect of electing ‘the first,’” she said. “But if anything has been proven in the last two presidential elections where women ran, it’s that identity politics does not work….
“It has to be more than her identity as a woman to get her elected.”
Yep. In my view, Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t very likable in 2016 and ran a lousy campaign. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris also lacked popularity. And she was dealt a losing hand by aging President Biden when he took too long to step aside.
Harris, a former U.S. senator with a long history of electoral success in California, would have been the heavy favorite to become the state’s first female governor if she had run. But she declined, opting for a possible third presidential bid in 2028.
Porter, 52, is a UC Irvine consumer law professor and former Orange County congresswoman who increased her statewide name familiarity by running unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2024.
Running for governor, she has been forthright and specific on what she’d try to achieve in Sacramento. She’d probably shake up the place.
One goal that should appeal to young families is free childcare. How’d she pay for that, I asked.
“Well, how do we afford public schools, roads, everything else, right?” the single mother of three answered, implying it’s about priorities. “The reason we don’t fund childcare, but we do fund other things, is because we expect women and mothers to do childcare for free or for pennies.”
In one, she threatened to walk out of a TV interview when a female reporter repeatedly asked how she expected to gain the votes of President Trump’s supporters. An irritated Porter said she didn’t need their votes, and she was right — but also rude.
In the other video — an oldie — then-Rep. Porter was shown yelling at a young female aide to “get out of my f— shot” during a videoconference with a Cabinet secretary.
Porter says she apologized to the staffer that day and they worked together for years afterward. And following a recent televised debate, Porter says, the former aide texted her congratulations and added that if she still lived in California, she’d vote for her.
The TV reporter, Julie Watts of CBS, was a moderator of a campaign debate last week and tossed some prickly questions at Porter and the other candidates.
“I was very calm and answered all the questions,” Porter notes. “I showed people I can do better” than the TV interview she has apologized for many times.
Porter has never completely recovered from the harmful videos. But she’s running close to two other Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — in the June 2 primary.
“If a man had done the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about it,” asserts Valerie McGinty, founder and president of Fund Her, an organization dedicated to electing women.
Several women agreed.
Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who has endorsed Porter, points to the late beloved, oft-profane legislative leader John Burton of San Francisco as an example of a double standard.
“Not a woman in American politics could get away with titling their autobiography ‘I Yell Because I Care,’” she says. On the book’s jacket cover, Burton is pictured speaking to a crowd with two raised middle fingers.
“People expect women to be strong but not too harsh,” Petrie-Norris says.
OK, but why do women get elected governor in other states, but not in California?
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, says the vast amounts of money and human resources needed to win in humongous California make it especially difficult for women. They usually haven’t been included in the political pipeline long enough, she says, to build a hefty donor base, acquire elective office experience and gain statewide name recognition.
Three women have dropped out of the current race because they weren’t gaining ground. But it’s hard to argue it was because of any gender hurdles.
Previously, three women won their party nominations for governor but lost in November: Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and Republican Meg Whitman in 2010. None lost because of any double standard. It just wasn’t their year politically.
But California has elected three female U.S. senators — Democrats Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Harris.
And nearly half the state Legislative seats are held by women.
It’s conceivable this year that California finally enters the 20th century — let alone the 21st — by electing our first female governor.
For the next week or so, in homes all over California, ballots will be arriving for the June 2 primary.
Since 2020, a ballot has been mailed to every active registered voter in the state — more than 23 million, by last count. The time to choose is drawing nigh.
In addition to the race for governor, Californians will vote in contests for seven other statewide offices, the Board of Equalization — which oversees the property tax system — and a great many congressional, legislative and local races, including the primary for Los Angeles mayor.
What’s a voter to do?
If you’ve waited your entire life for a candidate like Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff running for governor, or you’ve been jonesing to cast a gubernatorial ballot for Democrat Katie Porter from the moment she whipped out her famous whiteboard, the choice is easy. Fill out that ballot and toss it in the mail, stat! No postage needed.
“Don’t mess around,” said Paul Maslin, a veteran Democratic campaign strategist. (His candidate for governor, Betty Yee, quit the race late last month, so he’s a neutral observer at this point.)
“If you have pretty good inkling what you want to do,” Maslin urged, “vote.”
But if, like many, you’re not wed to a particular candidate, what then? If you’re worried about mailing in your ballot and then having some awful, Eric Swalwell-like revelations surface, or if you fret about wasting your vote by supporting someone who drops out before June 2, then what?
There are no do-overs in a California election. Once you’ve cast your ballot, you’ve made your choice. That’s it, however sorry you may be.
Which is why Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, who’s worked in California politics for decades, urged voters not to mail their ballot too soon. Like Maslin, he’s unaffiliated with any of the gubernatorial campaigns.
“It’s a slow-developing race,” Stutzman said of the contest for governor, the marquee attraction on the June ballot. “These are still relatively little-known candidates. There’s going to be a lot more campaigning to go in the weeks ahead. [So] unless you feel really strongly about somebody, I’d hang on to that ballot and see what happens over the next several weeks.”
Then again, with all the talk of clamping down on mail-in ballots and concerns about processing delays by a stretched-thin Postal Service, is there a danger of waiting too long to vote? What if your ballot arrives past the deadline to be tallied?
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court strongly signaled a likelihood it would require mail ballots to be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal. As it stands, California accepts mail-in ballots that were cast before the end of election day, so long as they arrive no later than seven days after.
The court seems unlikely to issue its ruling before the June primary — but that’s not guaranteed.
So is there a sweet spot, somewhere between voting in haste and having your ballot go to waste?
The Official Voter Information Guide, produced by California’s secretary of state, urges those voting by mail to “return your ballot … as soon as you receive it.”
But Kim Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, falls into the wait-a-bit camp. “Don’t vote too early,” she counseled, “because this is a very dynamic election.”
Once you’ve made up your mind, her best advice is to mail your ballot at least a full week before election day, which is May 26, to ensure it arrives on time to be processed and counted. If someone wants to drop their ballot off in person, either at a vote center or secure drop box, Alexander suggests doing so by May 30, which is three days before the election.
“The good news,” she said, “is that under a new state law … all county election offices will be open at least six hours on Saturday, May 30, for voters to come vote in person or to turn in their vote-by-mail ballots.”
Voting in person is an option right up until 8 p.m. on election day, even if you received a ballot in the mail. That applies everywhere in California, save for three sparsely populated, rural counties — Alpine, Plumas and Sierra — which conduct their elections entirely by mail. Bring your unused vote-by-mail ballot to your local polling place and swap it for a polling-place ballot you can use instead.
For procrastinators or those wanting to wait until election day to mail their ballot, they run the risk that it won’t be postmarked until after June 2. That means it won’t be counted, regardless of when it arrives at their county elections office.
“Voters who want to hold out as long as possible … ought to be planning to turn their ballot into a drop box or a voting site and not use the mail at all,” Alexander said.
Her suggestion is to find other ways to mark the occasion.
“Help somebody else go and vote,” Alexander suggested, “or volunteer to help with an organization” running a get-out-the-vote operation.
“If you want to help election officials get ahead on the vote count” — a source of repeated upset as the country awaits California’s lagging results — “you can be part of the solution by getting your own ballot in just a little bit earlier.”
All of which sound like fine ideas. That way you can celebrate election day and make sure your ballot isn’t cast for naught.
SACRAMENTO — One of Gavin Newsom’s top goals as he winds down his final year as California governor is to leave the state with a balanced budget.
After years of the state spending more money than it brings in, it’s Newsom’s last opportunity to fix a chronic deficit or dump the problem on the next governor.
How far he goes to solve the state’s structural spending imbalance will define his legacy as a steward of trillions in taxpayer dollars. As a potential candidate for president in 2028, he could also have a political incentive to do as little as possible.
“Any cuts you make are going to cause people to scream,” said Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist. “Any increases in taxes are going to cause people to scream and in terms of what’s best for a presidential run, it would be nice if people weren’t screaming.”
As California’s 40th governor, Newsom expanded publicly funded healthcare to income-eligible undocumented immigrants, increased state-subsidized child-care slots and provided free meals for schoolchildren among a wishlist of progressive wins since he took office in 2019.
His achievements have helped struggling Californians live in an increasingly unaffordable state and given him bona fides to tout to voters if he launches a bid for the White House.
But the state could never afford to pay for existing services and the new programs that Newsom and Democratic lawmakers enacted, according to an analysis of ongoing state spending since before the pandemic released by the Legislative Analyst’s Office last week.
Spending from the state’s principal operating fund has grown about $100 billion since Newsom’s first full fiscal year in office in 2019-20, mostly due to the growing cost of existing programs that he inherited. State spending has outpaced California’s strong revenue growth by about 10%, creating a perennial budget shortfall — a structural deficit — that Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature solve with largely temporary fixes each year.
Instead of making across-the-board program cuts or raising taxes to align spending with revenue, Democrats have tapped into reserves designed to preserve social services for the state’s most disadvantaged communities during economic downturns.
While the California economy remains stable and state revenue has increased, Newsom and lawmakers have taken $12.2 billion from the rainy day fund. Democrats have borrowed $28 billion more from other state funds to cover their spending in recent years, according to the LAO.
“Taken together, these trends raise serious concerns about the state’s fiscal sustainability,” Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote in a review of Newsom’s January budget proposal.
Fiscal watchdogs have warned that the spending trends will leave California in a precarious position if the stock market tanks and tax receipts bottom out.
Personal income taxes are driving higher-than-expected revenue now, which analysts attribute to an artificial intelligence boom on Wall Street, and suggest the state could have no deficit in the upcoming year. In January, the Newsom administration anticipated significant operating deficits in the years ahead: $27 billion in 2027-28, $22 billion in 2028-29 and $23 billion in 2029-30.
“This issue is really whether they’re going to take seriously the structural deficit that is several years in the making now, where the spending has outpaced revenue, and to address that, they’re going to either have to make some fairly deep cuts or raise revenue and or both,” said former state Controller Betty Yee, who worked as a budget aide under Gov. Gray Davis and recently dropped her own campaign for governor. “But they have to be real. I think resorting to these one-time solutions has really exacerbated the problem.”
H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said the governor is looking to solve the budget problem with more than a temporary fix.
“Although he is still finalizing his proposal that he’ll put forth to the Legislature, as he has said, he wants those solutions to be durable, and he wants them to have an impact beyond a single fiscal year,” Palmer said.
To stabilize California’s budget, Democrats will probably have to raise taxes or fees to generate new revenue and cut programs, according to the LAO. At least 40 cents for every dollar in revenue is dedicated to education under the state Constitution, requiring policymakers to find between $30 billion and $60 billion annually in additional revenue to cover projected shortfalls in 2027-28 and beyond if relying on new taxes alone.
President Trump’s cuts to healthcare are adding to the problem.
HR 1 will add $1.4 billion in state costs to the general fund. Newsom’s January budget proposal did not include a plan to help millions of low-income Californians who are expected to lose access to healthcare under the federal cuts.
To temper those cuts in California, other groups proposed a new tax on billionaires that appears poised to qualify for the November ballot.
Spearheaded by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the initiative would apply a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. If approved by voters, the tax would generate roughly $100 billion, which would fund healthcare programs.
The measure has divided unions and Democrats at the state Capitol.
Newsom has criticized the initiative, citing concerns that increasing taxes on the wealthy will have the opposite intended effect and drive the highest earners out of California. Under a progressive tax structure, the state budget is dependent on income taxes paid by the ultra-rich on earnings largely from capital gains.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders of Google, have already purchased residences in Florida, along with others looking to escape the tax if it goes through in November. Billionaires launched their own ballot measure campaign to undercut the tax proposal.
State lawmakers are also considering avenues to raise revenue, which include repealing a “water’s edge” tax break. Under the change, multinational companies would no longer be allowed to shield the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxes. California loses about $3 billion in revenue from the tax break each year.
In its budget plan released in April, the state Senate proposed a new fee on the largest corporations in the state to provide $5 billion to $8 billion annually for Medi-Cal.
The upper house said 42% of Medi-Cal enrollees are full-time workers who are not enrolled in their company’s healthcare plan because their wages are low enough to qualify for state-subsidized healthcare. As a result, corporations aren’t paying for healthcare for many of their employees and instead taxpayers are picking up the bill through Medi-Cal.
SEIU California, the powerful state union council representing over 700,000 workers, endorsed the plan. The union said Trump’s tax policy will reduce corporate taxes by $900 billion, while 3 million Californians lose healthcare.
“In this urgent moment, California’s workers need to see our leaders show us what they’re made of,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California. “The Senate is showing the courage to demand corporations pay their fair share, rather than making working people pay with their lives.”
The change is being described as a more politically palatable “fee” and not a tax.
“We explored multiple revenue options, and this was the one that felt more narrow, it felt more focused, and it also felt like it was directly going for the subsidy that’s being lost because of the Trump HR 1 cuts,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta), who leads the upper house of the Legislature.
Limón said her caucus believes it’s important to address potential revenue streams because of the depth of federal healthcare reductions.
“If we don’t address the structural deficit, we are looking at severe cuts,” she said. “You are looking at people without health insurance. You are looking at hospitals closing down. You are looking at medical providers not being able to take more patients. You are looking at our emergency rooms over capacity, with not enough medical providers. I mean, you’re looking at a place that’s really, really, really difficult, and we feel like we have to, at least, look at what are viable options that are conditional on these cuts coming.”
Newsom has not commented publicly on the Senate’s plan. As governor, he’s been reluctant to embrace new taxes and fees.
Newsom could reject all the proposals for new taxes or fees and continue what he’s done before: take advantage of higher-than-expected tax collections, shift funds around, delay program implementation and borrow money to knock the deficit down to zero, or forecast a surplus, for his last budget year that begins July 1.
If he doesn’t take on California’s larger budget imbalance, then the problem would be the next governor’s to solve. A stock market crash, or economic recession, could force his successor to make drastic cuts across the board with limited reserves to support programs.
Kicking the can again would cement Newsom’s fiscal legacy as a governor who championed bold headline-making policies that bolstered the safety net for low-income Californians, but who failed to provide a solution to pay for his agenda.
“Not only has he not come up with a plan, he has pretended we don’t need one,” said Patrick Murphy, a professor of public affairs at the University of San Francisco.
Newsom’s interest in running for president could seemingly discourage him from slashing the budget and raising attention to the state’s financial woes, Sragow said. Newsom is setting himself up as a potential front-runner for his party. He has said he remains undecided about officially launching a 2028 campaign.
As a Democrat from California, his opponents would automatically label him as financially irresponsible and tax-happy. Calling out the massive budget problem on the horizon, raising taxes and making painful cuts will give them ammunition.
“There’s a long list of things that he’s going to be charged with, and this is likely to be one more,” Sragow said. “But I guess the question is, is he going to be charged with a political misdemeanor or a political felony?”
Former state Sen. Steve Glazer said Newsom is standing on political quicksand either way. State budget projections are based on assumptions about the future that often don’t bear out, leaving his choices exposed to criticism that he went too far, didn’t do enough, and everything in between.
“Whatever the governor decides to do in his May revise and in his final budget, it’s fraught with political risks, because it can be manipulated so easily by all sides,” Glazer said.
If Newsom ignores the spending problem, his successor could blame him for California’s financial woes when they take office in January and provide their own outlook of the state’s fiscal future. At the time, Newsom could be trying to convince America to make him the nation’s next president.
Murphy said Newsom has championed major policies and been reluctant to back off them later when revenue doesn’t pencil out.
In terms of spending, he’s governed similarly to the men who led California before him, with the exception of Jerry Brown, who cut programs to reduce a deficit he inherited in his second stint in the governor’s office and left Newsom with a surplus.
“It’s not all that different than most of the governors have done, which is finding it very hard to say no and finding it very hard to take on a tough choice of going to the ballot to ask for more money or raise taxes,” Murphy said.
Deukmejian left a budget disaster for his successor, Gov. Pete Wilson. Deukmejian publicly claimed he passed a balanced budget in his final year and blamed an economic downturn for the problems Wilson encountered.
When Wilson announced a record $13-billion budget deficit early in his first year in office in 1991, he said the Persian Gulf War, an economic downturn and natural disasters added to a structural deficit in the budget.
The Legislature and Deukmejian, Wilson said, had “papered over” the problem.
Every Democrat on this list could be expected to work in general harmony with a Democratic governor and in opposition to key Trump administration policies.
There are differences in their backgrounds, but only minor policy divergences, including on the participation of trans athletes in women’s and girls’ sports.
Listed in alphabetical order, with an excerpt from their survey responses:
Richard Barrera, 59, is a longtime school board member in San Diego Unified, the state’s second-largest school system, a senior advisor to Thurmond and before that was a local labor union executive.
“The three experiences that best qualify me for this office are the ones that required me to govern a public school system, execute policy inside the state agency, and understand workforce realities in practice,” Barrera said.
Wendy Castañeda-Leal, 42, has pursued a career in more rural areas, currently serving as superintendent for the Semitropic Elementary School District, which has one TK-8 school with about 140 students off Highway 46 in Kern County. She’s also been director of whole child education for Roseland School District and a secondary alternative school principal.
“I lead districtwide efforts aligned with California’s priorities by advancing equity, strengthening academic achievement, and expanding supports for the whole child, including multilingual learners and underserved student populations,” Castañeda-Leal said. “I also bring extensive site leadership experience as a principal at the elementary, middle and high school levels, where I improved student outcomes.”
Nichelle Henderson
(Courtesy of Nichelle Henderson.)
Nichelle Henderson, 57, is an elected trustee of the Los Angeles Community College District. Her education career began as a teaching assistant. She later taught sixth grade math and science in Compton Unified. She’s currently a faculty advisor and clinical field supervisor in a Cal State teacher preparation program.
“What it is clear among Democratic candidates is that there are candidates that are seeking this position because they want a safe place to land after having termed out,” Henderson said. “My goal is to build the capacity of our TK-12 public schools to prepare students for higher education and to participate in the local and global workforce.”
Ainye Long, 41, a San Francisco Unified middle school math department chair, ran four years ago with no significant resources and came within less than 1 percentage point of making the runoff. It helped then that no Democrat ran against Thurmond and that Republican challengers divided the Republican vote. Long also had then — and still has — the ballot designation: “public school teacher.” She also is a past senior administrator at a charter-school group.
“One job of the [state superintendent] is to measure the effectiveness [in practice — what actually happens] of our laws, and help to find better ways to educate our body,” Long said. “The people closest to the work are closest to the problems of practice, so they’re the first to see the solution.”
Al Muratsuchi
(Photo courtesy of Al Muratsuchi)
Al Muratsuchi, 61, represents the 66th Assembly District, encompassing parts of the South Bay, and has been the chair of the state Assembly education committee. He taught briefly at the college level and served as an elected board member of the Torrance Unified School District.
“I am the only candidate running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction with the combined experience of statewide education policy leadership, … local school district governance as a former Torrance Unified School District board trustee, and classroom educator,” Muratsuchi said, adding that he authored 23 education-related bills that were signed into law.
Josh Newman
(Josh Newman)
Josh Newman, 61, has been a state senator, including chairing the education committee, and a technology company executive. He served in the Army and taught briefly both at the college and middle school levels.
“Among the Democrats in this race, the most significant distinction is between candidates whose approach to this office is primarily organized around labor relationships and funding advocacy, and my own, which emphasizes accountability, outcomes, and the full range of students’ needs alongside continued investment,” Newman said.
Anthony Rendon
(Photo courtesy of Rendon campaign)
Anthony Rendon, 58, was state Assembly Speaker from 2016-23, previously directed Plaza de la Raza Child Development Services and served as chief operating officer for Mexican American Opportunity Foundation.
He spoke of “the role that technology is playing in the degradation of youth mental health and happiness. The next superintendent needs to properly implement California’s ban on phones in classrooms, be ahead of the curve in establishing policies on generative AI use, and make sure teachers have the training and support they need to make sure the classroom is about learning.”
No candidate received enough votes to win the Democratic Party endorsement. The tally was as follows: Henderson: 24.75%; Muratsuchi 21.97%; Rendon 17.43%; Newman 16.82%; Barrera 12.77%.
Voters with disabilities have additional options, including Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail and curbside voting. The remote system allows voters to make their ballot selections using compatible technology in the privacy of their home.
To use the system you’ll need to:
Download the system application
Mark the ballot selections on the app
Print the ballot
Sign the envelope provided with the vote-by-mail ballot or the voter’s own envelope
Return the printed and signed selections either by mail or by dropping it off at a voting location
Information about how to request this option can be found here.
Curbside voting allows voters to park as close as possible to the voting area, and election officials will bring you a roster to sign, a ballot and any other voting materials you may need.
All polling places and voting centers are required to be accessible to voters with disabilities and will have accessible voting machines.
More information on voting options can be found here.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — No trainer has won the Kentucky Derby more times than Bob Baffert. Among other living trainers, nobody has won the Derby more than Doug O’Neill.
Combined the two Southern Californians have eight Derby victories — Baffert (six) and O’Neill (two) — one more than the total for the other 15 trainers in the field.
And yet, O’Neill’s horse for Saturday’s race, Pavlovian, is a 30-1 long shot on the morning-line odds, and Baffert’s starters are 20-1 (Potente) and 30-1 (Litmus Test). Not the odds you’d expect to see if you were just looking at the trainers.
Both know it’s nothing personal.
“It’s a sign of how, really, the sport is all about the horse,” O’Neill said at his barn. “Whether you’re Bob or me or whoever, you’re only as good as your horse. Bob and I are bringing in some horses that don’t jump off the page number-wise. But I was very impressed with Potente’s work the other day.”
Potente’s trainer also understands the odds, noting this isn’t the first time he’s brought long shots to the Derby.
“I mean, I’d rather be here with a horse like American Pharoah or Justify,” Baffert said, referring to his Triple Crown winners from 2015 and 2018. “But then I’d be like Todd [Pletcher]. He’s getting sick. I said, ‘You’re sick because you’ve got the favorite [Renegade].’ When I had Pharoah and Justify, I got so sick. I was so stressed out.”
Baffert added he was thinking at the time, “It was a layup; I better win this.”
If those horses were layups, Potente is more like a three-pointer from Stephen Curry range, while Litmus Test is along the lines of Jerry West’s 60-foot shot in the 1970 NBA Finals.
Of Baffert’s 35 previous starters, three went off at odds of 55-1 or higher (they finished sixth, 10th and 17th), and three others were priced at 20-1 or higher. Two of those finished ninth (25-1) and 15th (27-1), but War Emblem won the 2002 race at 20-1.
O’Neill’s first victory, in 2012, was unexpected; I’ll Have Another was priced at 15-1. Four years later, Nyquist triumphed as the 2-1 favorite. Both horses were owned by J. Paul Reddam, as is Pavlovian. A win Saturday would make the duo just the fourth owner-trainer team to win the Derby at least three times.
“That’s very cool,” O’Neill said, noting that Pavlovian is in the same stall Nyquist occupied a decade ago. “A lot of great memories here.
“But you know, when you’re talking a 20-horse field, I like the way Paul puts it: When you’re one out of 20, you got a 95% chance of losing, right? So when you get lucky enough to win, and you’re part of that 5%, you pinch yourself to how lucky and how amazing that experience was and hopefully could be again.”
Pavlovian is an unlikely Derby horse, and not just because he’s trying to become only the fifth Cal-bred to win the race. It’s mainly because he raced exclusively against Cal-breds in seven of his first eight races and only won one.
The last of those races, though, was the Cal Cup Derby, and a strong finish encouraged O’Neill to try the Sunland Park Derby. With Edwin Maldonado riding for the first time, the son of Pavel won, and in the Louisiana Derby he led almost the entire race before Emerging Market passed him in the final strides.
“For him to put up a great fight with a top horse like Emerging Market, it was a huge effort,” O’Neill said. “And the nice thing there, too, we had extra timing between that race and the Kentucky Derby. Knock on wood, everything’s kind of coming together as we had hoped and prayed.”
While O’Neill never could have expected to be here with his Cal-bred, Baffert will start two of the myriad expensive colts his clients buy each year. Potente, the San Felipe winner and Santa Anita Derby runner-up, cost $2.4 million, more than double any other horse in the Derby. Litmus Test, the Los Alamitos Futurity winner who has disappointed in two starts this year, was purchased for $875,000.
“They’re going to have to improve a lot,” Baffert said. “Potente, we’re still trying to figure him out a little bit, what he wants to do, how he wants to run, but he’s a big strong horse. … He’ll get the mile and a quarter.
“And [Litmus Test] was running really well, and then he sort of took a step back on me, but I did ship him a lot, so that might have knocked him out a little bit. But now he looks good. He worked well here, so we’ll see what happens.”
Second scratch
Fulleffort was scratched Thursday because of a chipped bone in his left hind ankle. Trainer Brad Cox still has his two most accomplished horses running Saturday in Florida Derby winner Commandment and Blue Grass champion Further Ado.
The scratch puts the maiden Ocelli in the field in the No. 20 post position. Great White, who moved into the field Wednesday with the scratch of Silent Tactic, will now break from the No. 19 post.
Kentucky Oaks Day
The filly equivalent of the Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, will be run under the lights at 5:40 p.m. PDT Friday. Zany (4-1) is the morning-line favorite for trainer Todd Pletcher, but two Southern California horses should be strong contenders: Michael McCarthy’s Meaning (5-1), the Santa Anita Oaks winner, and Baffert’s Explora (6-1). McCarthy also will start Brooklyn Blonde (30-1).
Jason Gibbs: Republican, Santa Clarita City Council member, mechanical engineer
Gibbs has been a member of the Santa Clarita City Council since 2020 and was chosen by his peers to serve as the city’s mayor in 2023. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering at Cal Poly and went on to work in the aerospace industry, according to his campaign website. He has lived in Santa Clarita for nearly a decade while raising two young children, his bio says, and has served on the local boards of the Boys and Girls Club, the Valley Industry Assn. and the Salvation Army.
George Whitesides: Democrat, incumbent
Whitesides defeated Republican incumbent Mike Garcia to represent the 27th Congressional District in 2024. Whitesides worked on President Obama’s transition team in 2008 and served as NASA chief of staff during the Obama administration, according to his campaign bio. He was the first chief executive of Virgin Galactic, co-founded Megafire Action, a nonprofit that advocates for legislation to address the growing problem of massive wildfires, and was a board member for the Antelope Valley Economic Development and Growth Enterprise, his bio says.
Across the country, debates over voter identification laws have become a flash point in broader fights about election security and voting access.
Supporters of voter ID laws say they are needed to prevent election fraud and ensure only eligible voters cast ballots. Critics argue there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the requirements instead would reduce voter participation in elections.
Under California law, voters in the state are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. The state does require ID when registering to vote, and residents must swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to vote and they are a U.S. citizen.
Weber has opposed proposals that would require voters to show identification in order to cast a ballot. She and many Democratic leaders argue that voter ID laws can create barriers for eligible voters, particularly those who may not have easy access to government-issued identification.
Weber believes Voter ID efforts are meant to sow doubt in the integrity of the elections system.
“When you really get to it, Voter ID is a smoke screen for trying to create the idea that this is a corrupt system,” she said.
Weber instead supports policies aimed at expanding participation among eligible voters, including vote-by-mail ballots and automatic registration.
Conversely, Wagner wants the state to require voters to show ID at the polls. He argues that requiring identification would strengthen public trust in election results and align California with practices used in many other states. He said it’s patronizing to minorities when critics argue it’s hard for them to get identification.
“You need an ID to drive,” he said. “You need an ID to fly in a plane. You need one to buy alcohol. You need it to buy tobacco.”
Wagner has been working with proponents of the Voter ID ballot measure to raise money and helped gather signatures. That statewide ballot measure would require state or local elections officials to verify that Californians registering to vote are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
“What I’m pledging the people of California is that if they pass voter ID, I will protect it. I will sue if I have to,” Wagner said. “If I am secretary of state, I will implement it and hold the registrars accountable and hold my office and myself accountable for doing the will of the people.”
Vote-by-mail ballots will not be forwarded to a new address, so your ballot will be returned to your local county election office if you haven’t updated your voter registration.
The Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk recommends voters who have been impacted or displaced by wildfires update their mailing address or request a replacement ballot be sent to their temporary address or new permanent address. Los Angeles County residents can follow a guide created for Pacific Palisades and Altadena fire survivors online. Residents can also make updates by phone by calling the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office at (800) 815-2666, Option 2.
You also can update your mailing address by re-registering to vote online. In the “residential address” section, enter your former place of residence and in the “mailing address” section, check the box that says your mailing address is different from your home address and then enter your temporary mailing address.
