“Trump’s endorsement would be huge,” said Jon Fleischman, a conservative strategist and former executive director of the state GOP.
“Actually,” he went on, ‘I think it would be determinative” — virtually guaranteeing either Hilton or Bianco finished in the top two in the June 2 primary, ushering them past the rope line into November’s runoff.
If there’s an inside edge in the Trump Endorsement Sweepstakes, it would seemingly go to Hilton.
He’s familiar to the president as a former Fox News host. He’s interviewed Trump several times and the two occasionally text and talk on the phone. Bianco has no such personal connection, which might explain his ballot-seizing stunt.
Steve Hilton could have the inside track on a Trump endorsement, given their personal relationship.
A Trump endorsement comes in all sorts of flavors.
As The Downballot recently noted, “His bag of tricks includes dual endorsements, triple endorsements, pre-endorsements, Election Day endorsements, yanking endorsements … belated endorsement of a candidate after initially endorsing just one candidate [and] non-endorsements after promising to endorse.”
There was also the time Trump endorsed “ERIC” when Republicans Eric Schmitt and Eric Greitens faced each other in Missouri’s Senate primary. (Schmitt won and is now the state’s junior U.S. senator.)
Trump’s backing still counts a good deal, even as his approval ratings sink to sub-basement levels. The president remains popular with Republicans and, critically, the kind of GOP loyalists who vote in primary contests, which is why both Hilton and Bianco would welcome a presidential laying on of hands.
There’s good reason, however, to think Trump might pass on endorsing in the governor’s race, or opt to deliver one of his dual he-and-him endorsements.
The GOP’s best — and perhaps only — hope of winning the governorship is the Democratic-freeze-out scenario. So, tactically, Trump’s wisest move may be to bless neither Hilton nor Bianco. Or support both. That would avoid elevating one over the other, which could make it easier for a Democrat to finish among the top two and advance past the June primary.
“I think Trump’s people are smart enough to know that there’s a reason why he may not be served by endorsing a candidate,” Fleischman said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the prevailing wisdom there is we better not endorse anybody, because we don’t want to tilt this one way or the other.”
If Trump were to back Hilton or Bianco, it’s not hard to imagine Democratic interests seizing upon the president’s benediction and putting significant money behind an ad blitz promoting the president’s favorite in hopes of boosting him — and him alone — into the top two.
In 2018, his main rival was fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. Two major Republicans were also in the race, John Cox and Travis Allen. There was no real concern about those two nabbing both spots in the June primary. Rather, Newsom and Cox had a shared interest in boxing out Villaraigosa.
So the Newsom and Cox campaigns opened a private back-channel, trading gossip, swapping insights on the race and even sharing some empirical data. One poll, showing Cox getting a bigger boost from a Trump endorsement than Allen, passed from Democratic hands in hopes it would reach the White House and nudge the president into supporting Cox.
Donald Trump wanted only the pretty ones, his employees said.
After the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes opened for play in 2005, its world-famous owner didn’t stop by more than a few times a year to visit the course hugging the coast of the Pacific.
When Trump did visit, the club’s managers went on alert. They scheduled the young, thin, pretty women on staff to work the clubhouse restaurant — because when Trump saw less-attractive women working at his club, according to court records, he wanted them fired.
“I had witnessed Donald Trump tell managers many times while he was visiting the club that restaurant hostesses were ‘not pretty enough’ and that they should be fired and replaced with more attractive women,” Hayley Strozier, who was director of catering at the club until 2008, said in a sworn declaration.
Initially, Trump gave this command “almost every time” he visited, Strozier said. Managers eventually changed employee schedules “so that the most attractive women were scheduled to work when Mr. Trump was scheduled to be at the club,” she said.
A similar story is told by former Trump employees in court documents filed in 2012 in a broad labor relations lawsuit brought against one of Trump’s development companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The employees’ declarations in support of the lawsuit, which have not been reported in detail until now, show the extent to which they believed Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, pressured subordinates at one of his businesses to create and enforce a culture of beauty, where female employees’ appearances were prized over their skills.
A Trump Organization attorney, in a statement to The Times, called the allegations “meritless.”
In a 2009 court filing, the company said that any “allegedly wrongful or discriminatory acts” by its employees, if any occurred, would be in violation of company policy and were not authorized.
Employees said in their declarations that the apparent preference for attractive women came from the top.
“Donald Trump always wanted good looking women working at the club,” said Sue Kwiatkowski, a restaurant manager at the club until 2009, in a declaration. “I know this because one time he took me aside and said, ‘I want you to get some good looking hostesses here. People like to see good looking people when they come in.’ ”
As a result, Kwiatkowski said, “I and the other managers always tried to have our most attractive hostesses working when Mr. Trump was in town and going to be on the premises.”
Trump has struggled to win the support of female voters as he seeks the nation’s highest office. In the past, he has insulted women’s appearances, sometimes calling them “pigs” or “dogs.”
Trump’s record with women got renewed attention after this week’s presidential debate, when Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told the story of a former beauty pageant winner who said Trump called her “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight.
Trump has previously defended himself by saying he has “great respect for women” and “will do far more for women” than Clinton. He has also said that “all are impressed with how nicely I have treated women.”
As part of the lawsuit over a lack of meal and rest breaks at Trump’s golf club about 30 miles south of downtown Los Angeles — his largest real estate holding in Southern California — several employees said managers staffed Trump’s clubhouse restaurant with attractive young women rather than more experienced employees in order to please Trump.
The bulk of the lawsuit was settled in 2013, when golf course management, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $475,000 to employees who had complained about break policies. An employee’s claim that she was fired after complaining about the company’s treatment of women was settled separately; its terms remain confidential.
A public relations firm working for the Trump campaign referred questions about the lawsuit to one of the attorneys who represented the Trump National Golf Club in the case.
“We do not engage in discrimination of any kind and have always complied with all wage laws, including by providing our employees with meal and rest breaks,” said the attorney, Jill Martin, assistant general counsel for the Trump Organization.
The former employees’ statements primarily describe the club’s work culture from the mid- to late 2000s. The Times spoke at length to one of the ex-employees, who described in detail the allegations about workplace culture. The person declined to be quoted by name, citing a fear of being sued.
In their sworn declarations, some employees described how Trump, during his stays in Southern California, made inappropriate and patronizing statements to the women working for him.
On one visit, Trump saw “a young, attractive hostess working named Nicole … and directed that she be brought to a place where he was meeting with a group of men,” former Trump restaurant manager Charles West said in his declaration.
“After this woman had been presented to him, Mr. Trump said to his guests something like, ‘See, you don’t have to go to Hollywood to find beautiful women,’” West said. “He also turned to Nicole and asked her, ‘Do you like Jewish men?’”
One of the few older people on the wait staff who served Trump, Maral Bolsajian, said she was “uncomfortable” when he visited, calling his behavior toward her “inappropriate.”
“Although I am a grown woman in my forties, Mr. Trump regularly greeted me with expressions like ‘how’s my favorite girl?’” Bolsajian said in a declaration. “Later, after he learned (by asking me) that I was married — and happily so — he regularly asked, ‘are you still happily married?’ whenever he saw me.”
Trump also asked her to pose for photos with him, said Bolsajian, who added that she felt she “had little recourse given that Donald Trump is not only the head of the company but also one of the most powerful, well-known people in the United States.”
Bolsajian said, “In short, I consistently found Mr. Trump to be overly familiar and unprofessional.”
The lawsuit focused on the course’s high-pressure work culture. Employees said they were not allowed to take the breaks required under California law.
The statements about Trump’s preference for young, attractive employees were filed in support of a separate claim for retaliation, lodged after former restaurant host Lucy Messerschmidt, then 45, contended that she had been fired for complaining about age discrimination.
Jeffrey W. Cowan, a Santa Monica attorney who represented the employees in the lawsuit, said the case targeted Trump’s development company, VH Property Corp., but “the evidence certainly suggested” that the club’s work culture flowed from Trump.
Donald Trump takes an unfinished pathway at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes in 2005.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times )
Although Trump was mostly absent from the course he purchased in 2002, workers said his company maintained a rigorous work environment that often left workers exhausted.
Employees said managers urged them to hurry through brief meal breaks, sometimes even expressing impatience with bathroom breaks.
“My manager insisted that because this was Trump’s golf course, it had to be top-notch,” one employee said in a declaration. “He was concerned that if Trump observed employees eating or resting, Trump would not be pleased.”
Another employee said his manager “seemed obsessed with the fact that this was Donald Trump’s golf course,” believing that “Mr. Trump wouldn’t like it if he saw employees sitting around because he would think the golf course was inefficient and overstaffed.” A valet described a stretch where “someone got fired every week.”
One busboy said in a declaration that he took up smoking so that he would have an excuse for going outside for a break.
In response, Trump’s company filed declarations from more than a dozen other employees who said they regularly were offered lunch breaks of at least 30 minutes for every five-hour shift, and were counseled by managers if they didn’t take them.
Lili Amini, general manager, said in a declaration that the company implemented a firm policy about such breaks in 2009.
Employees said managers started instituting breaks after the class-action lawsuit was filed.
The Trump National Golf Club on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in 2005.
(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times )
Female employees said they faced additional pressures.
Strozier, the former catering director, said Vincent Stellio — a former Trump bodyguard who had risen to become a Trump Organization vice president — approached her in 2003 about an employee that Strozier thought was talented.
Stellio wanted the employee fired because she was overweight, Strozier said in her legal filing.
“Mr. Stellio told me to do this because ‘Mr. Trump doesn’t like fat people’ and that he would not like seeing [the employee] when he was on the premises,” wrote Strozier, who said she refused the request. (Stellio died in 2010.)
A year later, Mike van der Goes — a golf pro who had been promoted to be Trump National’s general manager — made a similar request to fire the same overweight employee, Strozier said.
“Mr. van der Goes told me that he wanted me to do this because of [the employee’s] appearance and the fact that Mr. Trump didn’t like people that looked like her,” Strozier wrote.
When Strozier protested, Van der Goes returned a week later “and announced he had a plan of hiding [the employee] whenever Mr. Trump was on the premises,” Strozier wrote.
West, who worked as a restaurant manager at the club until 2008, wrote that Van der Goes ordered him “to hire young, attractive women to be hostesses.” West also said Van der Goes insisted that he “would need to meet all such job applicants first to determine if they were sufficiently pretty.”
Van der Goes, who worked at the club until 2008, did not respond to requests for comment, though he defended Trump in a February interview with the Santa Clarita Gazette.
“He’s not a racist. He’s not a bigot,” said Van der Goes, who called Trump “an astute businessman and a marketing genius.”
Employees said several women quit or were fired because they were perceived as unattractive.
A server, John Marlo, recalled seeing a co-worker crying in 2007. The woman had wanted to be promoted to server.
“She told me that she was upset because a manager had told her that she couldn’t be a server because of she had acne on her face,” Marlo said in a declaration. “According to her, she was qualified for the job and wanted it, but couldn’t get it solely because of her acne.”
The woman quit soon after, Marlo wrote.
Messerschmidt, the employee who said she was fired in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination, said in 2008 that one of her managers, Brian Wolbers, changed her schedule to give her time off during one of Trump’s visits because Trump “likes to see fresh faces” and “young girls.”
Wolbers did not respond to a request for comment.
Gail Doner, who worked as a food server from 2007 to 2011, wrote that she was 60 and had often been frustrated by the inefficiency of the restaurant’s young, inexperienced hostesses, who “usually were not competent but were kept anyway.”
“The hostesses that were the youngest and the prettiest always got the best shifts,” Doner wrote.
Meanwhile, Doner — who had 20 years of experience working for wine vendors, and was at “the top of [her] game” while working for Trump National — said managers slowly cut back her shifts until they stopped scheduling her at all, “effectively firing [her].”
“It did not appear to me that this reduction in shifts was happening to any of the younger, more attractive female food servers,” Doner said. She added: “I chose not to fight to get my job back because by that point I was fed up with the toxic environment and the way that I was treated.”
A watered-down resolution calling for Congress to “repair” the nation’s “historically broken” immigration laws won bipartisan support by the state Senate on Monday.
The Senate voted 32 to 0 to support Senate Joint Resolution 8 by Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana).
The measure originally called for illegal immigrants to have access to “a logical and streamlined path to citizenship,” but it was changed to provide that path for “individuals after they gain legal status.”
The resolution also originally said: “This reform should also include a way to help families remain together throughout the lengthy bureaucratic process,” but that provision was removed. It now calls for the reform to “recognize the societal and cultural benefits of keeping the family unit intact.”
Senate Republican leader Robert Huff of Diamond Bar noted that California is home to a large number of illegal immigrants, many of them providing important work in agriculture, and he said immigration laws are not working.
“The status quo is hurting our state,” Huff said.
Sen. Anthony Cannella of Ceres is among the Republicans who have supported proposals in Washington that include a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“We must recognize the hard work and contribution of our immigrant community,” Cannella told his colleagues Monday.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced Thursday that it has launched an investigation into two California women’s prisons to determine if they unconstitutionally provided housing and preferential treatment to “biological male prisoners.”
In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said investigators will look into “widely reported allegations of deprivation of female prisoners’ rights” at the Central California Women’s Facility in Madera County and the California Institution for Women in San Bernardino County.
The Justice Department said in a news release that there have been allegations “of sexual assaults, rape, voyeurism and a pervasive climate of sexual intimidation due to the presence of males in the women’s prison.”
Newsom’s office referred The Times to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. A spokesperson for the agency said it is “committed to providing a safe, humane, respectful and rehabilitative environment for all incarcerated people.”
The Department of Justice also notified Maine Gov. Janet Mills of an investigation into allegations that the state “has allowed a biological male inmate to remain housed with women despite complaints that the male inmate has assaulted or harassed several female inmates.”
Dhillon said in a video posted on X that the investigations are part of a new project called the “single-sex prisons initiative” to look for potential civil rights violations in which female inmates are forced “to be in the same rooms with men who are posing as women to get access to the female prisons.”
“In California there are reports of many dozen such men housed in women’s prisons which of course is exposing these women to sexual assault and other forms of violence and harassment that, if true, are extremely troubling and could violate the civil rights of these women,” Dhillon said.
In 2020, Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 132, which gives transgender, nonbinary and intersex inmates at state prisons the right to be housed at either men’s or women’s facilities. Opponents of the law sued the following year, alleging that it was unconstitutional and created an unsafe environment for women in female facilities, with some plaintiffs claiming they were assaulted.
At the time, LGBTQ+ advocates slammed the suit as baseless and damaging.
“The way they wrote [the complaint] is saying that trans women are men and they are putting men in women’s prisons, which is completely false,” Bamby Salcedo, president and chief executive of the TransLatin@ Coalition, which cosponsored SB 132, previously told The Times. “They’re making a claim that is not accurate and not respectful towards trans women specifically.”
In an interview with the Times Thursday, Salcedo said that while there may be instances in which people have abused the law, she stressed “it is the responsibility of the CDCR to protect people who are incarcerated.”
“They should be able to not just follow the law, but also to be able to screen people appropriately,” Salcedo said.
Salcedo said she was not surprised to hear about the new Justice Department investigation, calling it “an effort for this administration to continue to deny opportunities and access to trans people in our society.”
The Women’s Liberation Front, which brought the lawsuit, announced this week that a federal court had dismissed the case but that they planned to appeal. In an emailed statement, Elspeth Cypher, Women’s Liberation Front board president, called the Justice Department investigation “welcome and long overdue.”
“I hope that this investigation provides the women in prison with some hope that finally someone is listening,” Cypher said.
Under the bill enacted in 2021, 1,028 inmates housed at male prisons have requested to be moved to female facilities, according to data as of March 4. The department had granted 47 requests and denied 132. Another 140 applicants “changed their minds,” according to the department.
State officials said that 84 inmates sought to be transferred into men’s facilities from women’s prisons. Of those, seven were approved.
According to the corrections department, 2,405 inmates identify as nonbinary, intersex or transgender. Those populations are said to experience excessive violence in prison. A 2007 UC Irvine study that included interviews with 39 transgender inmates found that the rate of sexual assault is 13 times higher for transgender people, with 59% of those surveyed reporting experiencing such encounters.
The Justice Department said Thursday that its investigation was just getting underway and that it “has not reached any conclusions regarding allegations in these matters.”
“I’m very determined to ensure that no woman who’s incarcerated in the United States is subject to potential rape, sexual assault or other violations of her civil rights as a condition of incarceration to satisfy some woke ideology by the state,” Dhillon said. “If these states are violating these rights and they don’t stop, we will make them through litigation.”
Once upon a time in California, I went to the Orange County fairgrounds to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger give the signal for a wrecking ball to drop onto a vehicle.
The audience went wild, and Schwarzenegger went on to become governor and deliver on his promise to roll back a car tax increase, thereby blowing a $4-billion hole in the state budget.
I think it’s fair to say that in the current gubernatorial campaign season, the excitement level is several decibels below what we experienced in 2003. But once again, it’s fair to say we’ve not seen anything quite like this year’s derby.
“There’s no historical precedent in modern California history for a governor’s race with such a large field or such an amorphous field of candidates,” said longtime political observer Dan Schnur. “Unless you’re paying very close attention, it feels like a big multi-headed political blob.”
The two Republicans could be the top two vote-getters because the Democrats have arranged themselves into a circular firing squad. While the Dems scramble for votes in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans lead in the polls because they’re splitting the GOP vote, and under the rules of the top-two primary, they could face off in the November election.
That means that California, which is one of the bluest states in the country and has nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, could end up with a Republican governor, which would be like having a Dodgers manager who wears a Yankees jersey in the dugout.
And by the way, if it happens, the Republican would be able to shuffle regulatory boards, attempt to squeeze budgets and create a bit of chaos, but still not get much accomplished because of Democratic super-majorities in the Senate and Assembly.
And he would be targeted for recall even before he takes office. (More on that in a minute.)
There is a way for the Democrats to avoid this humiliation, but they can’t seem to agree on anything at the moment. Party leaders have all but asked the candidates at the bottom of the polls to bow out, but understandably the response has been, “Why me? I’m no worse than the others.”
USC decided to host a debate night, a simple enough proposition, but then flubbed the deal by leaving four candidates off the invitation list — four candidates of color. A kerfuffle followed, and the debate was dumped, and an attempt to let everyone into the party fell apart.
So now what?
It’s possible the Dems will huddle around one or two candidates who then move up in the polls and remove the threat of the unthinkable — two Republicans head-to-head. That would be Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco going against former Fox TV host Steve Hilton.
It’s also possible the Dems will play dirty and either spend money to promote one of the two Republican candidates or torpedo one of them. All they want, at the moment, is for a Democrat to make it past the primary, because that would all but ensure victory in November, given voter registration advantages.
And then, if that doesn’t work, there’s the recall scenario.
“You could shut it down probably within five or six months,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California GOP political consultant.
“It would surely happen,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who helped Schwarzenegger knock Gov. Gray Davis out of office, and take his job, in the 2003 recall.
A wealthy Democratic donor could bankroll the recall campaign, Stutzman said. Or public employee unions might put up the money, given that a Republican winner is likely to create a state version of Elon Musk’s ham-handed attempt to fire nearly everyone on the federal payroll.
“The pitch,” Stutzman said of the recall strategy in an email, would be that “Trump still looms and CA must resist, and a GOP gov is a fluke of weird election law. Difficult to imagine it wouldn’t succeed.”
I thought of one more approach the Democrats could use to make sure at least one of them is on the ballot in November. Tom Steyer, a leader for many years on one of the most critical issues in California and the world, climate change, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads that run about every two minutes, promoting him as the best candidate for governor.
They’re so repetitious, you can’t help but tune them out.
But everyone would pay close attention if Steyer instead ran ads offering incentives for either Bianco or Hilton to leave the state. Steyer could offer $10 million cash for Bianco to move to Hawaii, and maybe throw in a beach house. He could buy a private jet for Hilton to take him back to his native Britain. Every day, there could be new ads upping the ante until one of them leaves the Golden State.
Wouldn’t that be a better use of Steyer’s money? It might even get him elected.
To be honest, having some honest pushback against Democratic authority in California wouldn’t be a terrible thing. It’s not as if Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats are winning the battle against homelessness, housing shortages, affordability and other big challenges, and voters understandably want more — way more — for their tax dollars.
An experienced, no-nonsense, sensible, fiscally conservative GOP candidate would do the state good.
The problem is that the two Republicans in the running, Bianco and Hilton, are Trump toadies.
In an embarrassingly amateurish political stunt, Bianco blew the president a kiss and all but begged for an endorsement by seizing 650,000 ballots from last November’s election to determine whether they were fraudulently counted.
Hilton recently said in an interview with ABC’s Eyewitness News 7 that he believes “everybody supports” Trump’s immigration policies.
Hilton might have missed the news that U.S.-born residents are carrying their passports in case they’re targeted by skin color. That Californians by the thousands have joined the resistance. That despite claims, most deportees don’t have criminal records. And that even some of the state’s GOP lawmakers have begged Trump to stop raiding industries that rely on immigrant help (and are often owned by Republicans).
And by the way, is this a smart time for a GOP candidate in California to be doing his best Trump impression?
The president’s popularity is down, consumer prices are up, he’s shamelessly pardoned drug lords and Jan. 6 barbarians, he thinks the presidency is a game of Battleship after promising to keep us out of wars, gas prices are sky high, he just said he was glad that Vietnam War hero and former FBI Director Robert Mueller had died, and he’s playing golf all day as if everything’s hunky dory.
Like I said, there’s not a big-name character like Schwarzenegger in the race, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good options. If you like Bianco or Hilton, so be it. Otherwise I suggest you read up on the other eight:
Steyer, Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. Mayor and legislative leader Antonio Villaraigosa, former Rep. Katie Porter, former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.
I heard the ribbit of a Pacific chorus frog and couldn’t stop my feet as they veered me off the official trail and onto a foot path leading down to Wiley Creek.
I grew up with a pond in the pasture behind my house where I could listen to the riotous sound of amphibians any evening I wanted. The soundscape of freshwater habitats is such a comfort to me.
I sat down on a boulder near the water, trying to remain still. The frog had quieted after spotting me, and I hoped it would restart its song, understanding I was not a threat but instead just a big fan.
This was the first of many beautiful moments I experienced on my recent hike through Ed Davis Park in Towsley Canyon in Newhall. It features shady canyons with blooming wildflowers and wildlife that appear to be thriving. I would later learn that a walk through Towsley Canyon is also a journey through the history of environmental activism in the Santa Clarita Valley. This area was once slated to become a landfill.
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.
And because I got confused by this, I will point out: The Rivendale Park and Open Space is also nearby, at the mouth of Towsley Canyon near the northeast corner of Ed Davis Park. So you could find yourself hiking along one of its trails as well.
Ed Davis Park offers access to multiple trails, including:
Clockwise, southern bush monkeyflower, blue dicks, phacelia, California poppy, a flower and purple nightshade that appears to be a collinsia heterophylla.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
I arrived at Ed Davis Park just after 9 a.m. last week with a plan to take a short hike, given the high temperatures forecast that day. I parked near the entrance in the large dirt free lot. Note: There were no restrooms or portable toilets that this outdoors reporter could find anywhere nearby, so plan accordingly.
From the parking lot, I headed west, quickly turning south onto Wiley Canyon Trail. I was immediately greeted by a lesser goldfinch, perched on a strand of wild rye like a feathered park ranger.
The trail was initially a bit rutted but quickly smoothed out. As I headed into Wiley Canyon, I found myself in a crisp cool landscape shaded by large oak and California black walnut trees. I quickly heard running water. When I checked the thermometer hanging on my backpack, it read 69 degrees.
Clockwise, lesser goldfinch, western whiptail, convergent lady beetle and a lizard.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Although I could hear nearby traffic and a Southwest plane passing overhead, it didn’t block out the dynamic soundtrack of the canyon’s avian residents: the oak titmouse, northern mockingbird, blue-gray gnatcatcher and Hutton’s vireo, which, according to my birding app, were all above and around me.
As you travel along the canyon, you’ll find purple sage bursting out of the ground, and blue dicks starting to bloom. I passed by several ceanothus with white and blue-violet blooms. I really took my time taking in the native plant landscape and was lucky to spot a convergent lady beetle sipping on dew on a blade of grass.
After my short visit to the creek to find frogs, I was looking up to observe a turkey vulture and red-tail hawk circling overhead, seemingly competing for airspace, when I noticed the California dodder nourishing itself atop several plants on the hillside. Although it is a parasitic vine, this orange otherworldly being does indeed serve an important ecological purpose.
California dodder in the Towsley Canyon area around Newhall.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
“Dodder will flower during the hot summer months, providing native insects with a valuable meal and drink during the months when many other California native plants are dormant,” Jorge Ochoa, an associate professor of horticulture at Long Beach City College, wrote for the Friends of Griffith Park regarding the plant’s purpose.
I continued south, passing a spotted towhee digging in the dirt for its breakfast. Then, just under half a mile in, I turned northwest onto the Don Mullally Trail. The trail is named after a naturalist who, according to park signage, “traversed every canyon, led countless hikes to unforgettable destinations, and shared the Woodlands’ unparalleled native tree associations and ecological majesty.” May we all be so lucky!
A shady portion of a trail in the Towsley Canyon area around Newhall.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
This is where you’ll start to gain some elevation — and sun exposure. But it’s also where you will find the most blooming wildflowers! I quickly spotted phacelia with bright purple blooms, and as I headed west, an increasing number of California poppies and southern bush monkeyflower.
Towsley Peak near Towsley Canyon in Newhall.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Ed Davis Park is home to a robust butterfly population. I found a kaleidoscope of pollinators among the wildflowers and weeds, including a checkered white butterfly who was eagerly drinking from invasive mustard. I chuckled to myself. It didn’t seem to mind feasting on one of the most hated plants in Southern California.
The trail does turn into a narrow single track with thick vegetation, so please take good care as you’re hiking. I was very aware of the likelihood that I would encounter a rattlesnake, and I made sure to stomp my feet and pause from gaping at the flowers to make sure I wasn’t about to step on anyone. Additionally, watch out for poison oak, which I found growing among California black walnut.
Purple sage grows thick along the trails in Towsley and Wiley canyons. You might also spot an outdoors journalist who doesn’t realize their shadow is in the photograph until they get home.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Just over a mile in, I paused to take in the view. Several peaks in the Sierra Pelona Mountains, including Liebre Mountain, Burnt Peak and Jupiter Mountain, were easy to see from the trail, even though they’re about 20 to 25 miles away. I didn’t spend too long there, though, as my thermometer informed me it was 93 degrees in the direct sun. Where did spring go?
I took the Don Mullally Trail down and then the paved Towsley Canyon Road back to where I parked. You’ll notice as you head back that there are at least two paid lots should the free lot be full. You’ll need $7 in cash or a check, which you can deposit in the iron ranger.
The Sierra Pelona Mountains are visible from Towsley Canyon.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
A turkey vulture flies low in Towsley Canyon.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Given its astounding beauty, it’s hard to comprehend how this parkland almost became a dump. But around 1989, an intense battle broke out between the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which, at the time, managed wastewater and trash for 78 cities in L.A. County, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
In early 1991, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy acquired 453 acres of Towsley Canyon, strategically buying a 180-acre parcel at the eastern entrance of the canyon and a 273-acre piece in the heart of it, according to The Times’ archive.
County officials mulled over whether they could still build a smaller dump in Towsley Canyon, but there was a major hiccup. The conservancy’s land was directly across the only two roads into the area, meaning the agency could hinder garbage trucks from using the roads.
“For all practical purposes, the coffin has been nailed on the proposal to turn Towsley Canyon into a landfill,” Joseph T. Edmiston, the conservancy’s executive director, said in a 1991 news article.
At the time, county officials were also considering building a dump at Elsmere Canyon — an effort also successfully fought off by local advocates.
Reflecting on my visit to Towsley and Wiley canyons, I thought about how our trash does indeed end up in someone’s neighborhood, whether that be a canyon wren, a jellyfish or your neighbor in another neighborhood (if we think about humanity and neighbors in a global sense). It’s a further incentive to practice the five Rs: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and rot.
I hope your journey through these canyons brings you a similar experience of joy, wonder and deep reflection!
3 things to do
An Egyptian goose in the Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Refuge.
(Amanda Thompson)
1. Better your birding in Pasadena The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter’s Pasadena group will host “Photographing the Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Reserve” from 7 to 9:30 p.m. Wednesday at Pacific Oaks College. Guests will hear from photographer and storyteller Amanda Thompson and visual communicator Joe Doherty about how to better navigate the Sepulveda Basin to observe the flora and fauna that lives there. RSVP at act.sierraclub.org.
2. Cycle on over to Cudahy Nature for All, an L.A. climate justice nonprofit, will host an 8-mile bike ride from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday starting at Hollydale Regional Park in South Gate. Riders will peddle along the L.A. River before arriving at Cudahy River Park. Participants can reserve a bike by emailing Priscila Papias at priscila@lanatureforall.com. Register at cosechasoftware.com.
3. Frolic under a full moon in L.A. We Explore Earth will host a free full-moon gathering from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at Elysian Park. Participants will come together for a guided group hike cleanup followed by a sound bath and live music, all under the rising full moon. Register at eventbrite.com.
The must-read
Manatees rest at Blue Spring State Park in Orange City, Fla.
(Explore.org)
As I glided my kayak along the aptly named Crystal River in late March 2019, I couldn’t believe just how close the 1,000-pound manatees came to me and my friends. Nearby, my best friend Jenny squealed as a massive sea cow poked its whiskered snout out of the water next to her kayak. Whenever I’m stuck working indoors, I often turn on the live feed of the manatees at Explore.org. Apparently I’m very much not alone! Times staff writer Lila Seidman wrote that the number of nature-themed 24/7 livestreams created per year swelled by about 3,000% between 2019 and 2025. This genre of entertainment has been dubbed “Slow TV,” as it’s unedited and can be quite calming (although there are grisly moments that remind us of nature’s brutality too).
Regardless, during this heat wave, I’d highly recommend checking out some Slow TV, including local livestreams such as Big Bear’s celebrity eagle couple Jackie and Shadow.
Happy adventuring,
P.S.
For Wild readers who’ve felt like there’s been a real lack of turtle news featured as of late, this one’s for you: During a recent trip, a visitor at Joshua Tree National Park reported to rangers about multiple Mojave Desert tortoises stuck inside a historic dig site in the northern part of the park. Rangers and the visitor ventured into the park and located three trapped male tortoises. “It’s unknown how long the tortoises were stuck in the hole, so biologists immediately began assessing and rehydrating them,” a staffer wrote on Joshua Tree National Park’s Instagram page. As a quick aside, is anyone else rethinking their life’s choices and wondering why they didn’t consider rehydrating tortoises as a profession? Does it include carrying a tiny water bottle? I digress. The park workers built a ramp out of natural materials to ensure any tortoise who scrambled by the dig site didn’t find themselves stuck inside. After the tortoises experienced the world’s cutest rehydration experience, the biologists discerned they were healthy and strong enough to keep trundling along. Shout out to this thoughtful visitor and our hardworking and earnest park workers for being great stewards to our natural world!
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.
If I had a nickel for every time an editor has sent me an SFGate story and asked me to match it, I’d be at least a couple dollars richer. The San Francisco-based news website provides solid coverage of California public lands, especially our national parks.
So when my colleague Jaclyn Cosgrove told me the National Park Service had reportedly blacklisted SFGate, I wasn’t exactly shocked.
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 emailed the National Park Service to learn more. “Unfortunately, SFGate has distorted the facts and has caused confusion with their reporting with the mainstream media,” a spokesperson replied. “This has caused the Department to spend countless hours correcting their false narrative with other media outlets.”
Although the statement came from a park service email address, the wording is identical to a statement provided to SFGate by an Interior Department spokesperson.
But others — like questions about whether the park service is relying more heavily on seasonal employees amid a decline in permanent staff — went unreturned. And some — like an inquiry for a previous edition of a Boiling Point newsletter about an interpretive exhibit under scrutiny at Death Valley National Park — were fielded by a spokesperson for the Interior Department , rather than the park itself.
I’m not alone. When our wildlife and outdoors reporter Lila Seidman wrote about a wildfire that ripped through Joshua Tree National Park during last year’s government shutdown, she received responses from the Interior Department, but emails to the park service went unreturned.
Jack Dolan, an investigative reporter who often covers public lands, said he hasn’t received meaningful responses from the National Park Service since early last year.
And Cosgrove, who writes The Wild newsletter, said that park rangers remain friendly and helpful, but any communication involves a demand for all questions in writing.
Park service sources and advocates describe all this as part of a broader effort to centralize communications from sub-agencies to the Department of the Interior. Since last year, roughly 230 communications employees have been moved from the National Park Service to the Department of the Interior — part of a broader push in which more than 5,700 employees at the 11 agencies the Interior Department oversees were shifted from the agencies to the department, according to figures provided by the National Parks Conservation Assn., a nonprofit that advocates for the park system.
What’s more, the Interior Department must now approve many park service communications that were once left up to the parks themselves, said John Garder, senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Assn. That includes exhibits, news releases, website updates and even social media posts, said a source within the park service who asked to remain anonymous over fears of retaliation.
The consolidation “creates significant inefficiencies and removes a layer of accountability to the parks themselves,” Garder said. “It makes it difficult for parks to act nimbly using their professional discretion to make decisions about informing the public about developments in the park,” like a closed road, wildlife hazard or natural disaster.
In an email to The Times, the park service accused National Parks Conservation Assn. employees of donating to Democratic political campaigns and pointed out the nonprofit’s X account follows progressive politicians and groups. “Our parks are nonpartisan, but the NPCA isn’t and they are using you to further raise money off of our parks while never giving those funds to our parks,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.
National Parks Conservation Assn.’s X account follows over 55,000 users of the platform, including both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and organizations. Garder also noted that the association’s longstanding role has been to advocate for national parks, rather than to raise money directly for them.
The park service email confirmed that officials are “modernizing” the Department of the Interior so that it “will share one voice when communicating the priorities of the Department.”
“The unification of the communication functions will allow for a more collaborative, creative and hands-on approach to Department communications,” the statement said, “and will modernize the federal government by providing a product that is not only better for the American taxpayer but also showcases the state-of-the-art communications capabilities of the United States of America.”
I asked whether I should attribute the statement to a spokesperson for the park service or the Interior Department. The spokesperson replied that I could attribute it to either.
A quick announcement
If you’re a Southern California local, you are probably familiar with PBS SoCal. On April 22, the public media organization is premiering the seventh season of the award-winning program “Earth Focus,” which will be followed by the eighth season in May. We’re excited for the eighth season in particular, because we collaborated with the PBS SoCal team on a few stories about the complexities of rebuilding Los Angeles. You can stream the show for free at pbssocal.org/earthfocus.
More recent land news
Karen Budd-Falen, the third highest-ranking official at the Department of the Interior, has been granted an ethics waiver to work on grazing issues despite potential conflicts of interests that prompted her to recuse herself from such matters during the first Trump presidency, according to Chris D’Angelo of Public Domain.
A pair of Republican senators have officially moved to overturn the management plan for Utah’s Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, casting uncertainty on its future and raising new questions about the future of public lands management, Caroline Llanes of Rocky Mountain Community Radio reports.
The Interior Department has officially pulled back more than 80% of its regulations tied to implementing the National Environmental Policy Act in a bid to streamline the environmental review process for major projects on federal public lands. Conservation groups say the changes will block public input and violate federal law, according to Hannah Northey and Scott Streater of E&E News by Politico.
The Trump administration is taking the final steps to undo the Public Lands Rule, which elevated conservation to an official use of Bureau of Land Management lands, Streater also reports. The rule allowed conservation groups to obtain leases for restoration work, similar to how the Bureau of Land Management awards leases to private contractors for extraction and development, points out Sage Marshall of Field & Stream.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Serviceis expected to soon release an updated proposalfor the rescission of the Roadless Rule, which blocked new road building and commercial logging on some 58 million acres of backcountry. The rollback would strike a big blow to hunting and fishing opportunities, according to a report from Trout Unlimited.
A few last things in climate news
Amid a global energy crisis that’s seen oil prices skyrocket, California has been particularly hard-hit due to a dearth of refineries and higher taxes and fees, all of which have left politicians, consumer groups and business interests arguing over who’s to blame, write Ivan Penn and Kurtis Lee for the New York Times.
In the latest maneuver in its campaign against renewable energy, the Trump administration will pay a French company $1 billion to walk away from two U.S. offshore wind leases, according to Jennifer McDermott of the Associated Press.
Southern California’s most destructive wildfires, wettest holiday season and hottest March heat wave have all taken place in the last 15 months, and there’s one clear through line connecting them all, scientists told my colleague Clara Harter.
Mosquitoes have gone year-round in Los Angeles, but business owners have indicated they’re not willing to pay to expand a promising effort to help control their numbers, my buddy Lila Seidman reports.
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 outcome was one few anticipated, with Gray Davis romping to victory in the Democratic primary, then winning the governorship in a landslide.
Less than three months before the June primary, Davis had been running dead last, behind two well-heeled Democrats and the eventual GOP nominee. The number of people who told him to quit would have filled the L.A. Coliseum, Davis recalled this week. But he never considered dropping out; the pressure only made him more determined.
“Sometimes it’s meant to be. Sometimes you get every break,” Davis said. “Sometimes it’s not meant to be and you get no breaks.”
His bottom line: “Anything can happen.”
Of course, no two campaigns are the same.
This gubernatorial contest is being conducted under a system in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to a November runoff. In 1998, California held an “open primary,” under rules later voided by the Supreme Court. All candidates appeared on the same ballot, with the top finishers in each party guaranteed a spot in November.
Beyond that, the world has vastly changed: politically, socially, culturally. (Google is now one of the most valuable companies on the planet, pulling in a record $403 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025.)
Voter attitudes are different. One of Davis’ greatest assets was his position as lieutenant governor; that currency — incumbency and government know-how — no longer trade at the same high value.
The media landscape has fractured — back then newspapers set the political agenda, fewer than half of voters were online and streaming was something mostly done by water. Californians aren’t nearly as tuned in to the governor’s race as they were then.
“There’s a sideshow going on internationally and nationally and people are like, ‘Oh, right, there’s a governor’s race happening,’” said Paul Maslin, who was Davis’ pollster and is now working for Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. “Whereas in ‘98, that was clearly the big act in town.”
Having said all that, luck and an opportune break or two are still key ingredients to political success, as Davis suggested.
Feinstein, the state’s senior U.S. senator, had nearly been elected governor in 1990 and her lengthy deliberations froze out other potentially strong contenders. Had Feinstein run, she very probably would have blown away the field and made history by becoming the state’s first female governor.
Davis also greatly benefited when a federal court tossed out strict contribution limits, allowing him to go from collecting bite-size donations to much greater sums. Though he was vastly outspent by his two rich Democratic opponents, multimillionaire Al Checchi and then-Rep. Jane Harman, the decision allowed Davis to remain competitive and eventually pay for the statewide ad blitz that is indispensable in California.
Checchi, in particular, barraged voters with an unrelenting flood of ads. (Shades of the omnipresent Tom Steyer.) In one of them, a spot attacking Harman, Checchi included a photo of the lieutenant governor — and not a bad-looking one at that. The glimpse reminded voters that Davis, who was husbanding his resources for a late advertising push, was still in the race. He enjoyed a significant boost in polls.
Still, Checchi and Harman saw each other as the main opponent and their strategists acted — and tailored their advertising and campaign messaging — accordingly. The result was “a murder-suicide, as the term went at the time,” said Garry South, who managed Davis’ campaign. “They decided to focus so much fire on each other and ignore us that we simply slipped through the hole.”
Davis can well relate to those gubernatorial hopefuls in the position he once was — dissed, dismissed and bumping along near the bottom of horse-race polls. Speaking from his law office in Century City, he had this simple advice:
“Follow your heart,” he said. “Do what you think is right.”
“It’s fine for someone else to tell you you should get out, but that’s not their business,” Davis said. “You’re the candidate, and if you think for whatever reason you want to stay in the race, you should stay in the race.”
But Davis isn’t too worried about that happening. Moreover, he said, it’s easy for those watching from the sidelines to take potshots and offer unsolicited — and not particularly empathetic — advice.
“They’re not running for office,” he said. “Other people are putting themselves on the line. … [If] people have the wherewithal, the courage and the dedication it takes to put themselves in a position to run for office, if they really believe it’s the right thing to do, they should. They should follow their dream.”
Besides which, you never know what might happen come June.
A proposed gubernatorial forum hastily cobbled together in the hours after USC canceled its Tuesday debate fell apart because the candidates of color who were excluded from the previously planned event were unable to show up in person at KNBC-TV’s studio in Universal City, according to multiple sources.
Facing mounting pressure that its debate selection criteria excluded every candidate of color, the university canceled its debate late Monday. On Tuesday morning, billionaire Tom Steyer — a Democrat — proposed holding an alternative face-off, with KNBC moderating. But the candidates who had not been invited to the USC debate had already made other commitments.
“A lot of this came out of nowhere — there’s a debate and you’re not invited, followed by there’s no debate, and then maybe we should all hang out and have a conversation,” said Kyle Layman, a strategist advising former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.
USC officials declined to comment on Tuesday’s developments — as did KABC-TV, one of the broadcast partners of the canceled debate. KNBC did not respond to a request for comment, but someone involved with planning a potential debate there said pulling together such an event in just a few hours was impossible, and also unfair to the candidates who had made other plans after initially being excluded from the USC debate.
“We looked into the possibility of doing something. It just wasn’t possible because of the last-minute logistics. It was not feasible,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “We couldn’t get everybody here.”
The fact that the candidates excluded from the USC debate couldn’t find a way to participate in Tuesday evening’s alternative forum irritated some people involved in the planning, however. Becerra, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee had loudly protested not being invited to the USC event.
“This is like probably one of the last opportunities they have to be with other leading contenders of the race, so why not take this opportunity?” said someone who took part in conversations about the proposed last-minute debate, who asked for anonymity to speak openly. “If the whole thing is about bringing your message to the voters, making sure voters have as much information as possible, talking about the issues that matter, wouldn’t you want to take every opportunity to do that?
“If you’re going to talk a big game about taking your message to voters, the importance of debates, why not do it?” this person said.
Becerra, Thurmond, Villaraigosa and Yee have reportedly formed an informal pact not to participate in any debate that does not include all of them, which Yee referenced in a Tuesday afternoon news conference.
“The idea that none of the candidates of color are going to be joining a debate is just inappropriate for a state like California,” Yee said. “We also need to have a commitment from all of the debate sponsors that they will include all of us going forward.”
Yee and Thurmond were not invited to the next major televised debate, which will take place April 1 at Fresno State University. Becerra and Villaraigosa had previously confirmed their attendance, according to a news release from the Western Growers Assn., one of the event’s sponsors.
And all four candidates of color, along with San José Mayor Matt Mahan, were not invited to a debate on April 22 in San Francisco that will be hosted by KRON-TV and broadcast on Nexstar Media Group stations throughout California.
“We don’t need gatekeepers,” Mahan said in a statement Tuesday evening. “I’m calling on my fellow candidates to work together to organize our own debates — so we can take our ideas for a better California to every corner of California. Let’s let the voters truly decide.”
The scrapped USC debate was going to be hosted by the institution’s Dornsife Center for the Political Future and co-sponsored by KABC and Univision. Six candidates had been invited to participate: Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan and Steyer; along with the leading Republicans, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Candidates and elected officials called the criteria used to determine participation in the debate biased because it included Mahan, a white candidate who is polling near the bottom of the pack but is supported by notable names in the USC community. Hours after the debate was canceled, Steyer’s campaign sought to create an alternate event that would include all of the candidates.
“We were trying to do the right thing upon learning that the debate was canceled at USC,” said a member of Steyer’s campaign who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “Tom immediately was like, ‘We can do something alternative.’ People want to hear from the gubernatorial candidates. It was on the table. It was offered.
“NBC couldn’t get all the candidates here, but we tried,” this person said. “Given the short amount of time we were trying to put this together, it ultimately could not happen because not all the candidates could get to the studio.”
Thurmond, who was in Sacramento and Richmond on Tuesday, joined a political influencer on YouTube Tuesday evening, while Yee attended previously scheduled events with the East Area Progressive Democrats and a women’s group in the L.A. area. Villaraigosa had lined up other interviews at his Wilshire campaign office, Becerra was traveling, and Porter was scheduled to host a livestream on her Instagram account Tuesday evening.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the government to return to the U.S. a California DACA recipient who was deported last month to Mexico.
U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins in Sacramento gave the government seven days to return Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, and restore her protections under the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “as if her Feb. 19, 2026 removal never occurred.”
A lawyer for Estrada Juarez argued that she was unlawfully deported within a day of appearing at a scheduled immigration appointment in Sacramento.
Lawyers for the government, meanwhile, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Estrada Juarez’s case because her petition was filed after she was deported and because her removal was a discretionary decision the government is entitled to.
Coggins said she found the government’s argument “unavailing,” writing in her ruling that Estrada Juarez “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA, and in violation of the Constitutional protections afforded to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
In a statement, Estrada Juarez said she was “overwhelmed with relief and hope” after learning the court’s decision.
The Department of Homeland Security said it had reinstated an expedited removal order for Estrada Juarez from 1998, when she was 15. But her lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the record showed that the order lacked supervisory approval and was never finalized, so there was no valid removal order to reinstate.
Homeland Security previously told The Times that an immigration judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.” Tolchin said Estrada Juarez never saw an immigration judge.
Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, has had protection from deportation under DACA since 2013. She applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, who is a U.S. citizen.
Her deportation after the green card interview garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).
DACA was created to protect undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. as children.
As of June 2025, there were more than 515,000 DACA recipients, known as “Dreamers,” in the U.S. California has 144,000 DACA recipients, the most of any state, according to federal data.
When he entered the race for California governor, San José Mayor Matt Mahan pitched himself as a pragmatic Democrat who would prioritize improving residents’ quality of life and government efficiency.
He unveiled a key part of that promise on Tuesday with an expansive plan to reform state government, including tying pay raises for elected officials and other top leaders to improvements on key issues, and pledging not to approve any tax increase until the state proves “that we can deliver better outcomes with the dollars we already have.”
Mahan also delivered a blistering rebuke of ballooning state spending — which, as he often points out on the campaign trail, has increased nearly 75% over the last six years. In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, California lawmakers approved a no-frills state budget that came in at $202 billion. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest spending proposal is nearly $349 billion.
“We have fallen into this lazy, reflexive mindset of always going back to voters and telling them that the only solution to every problem is a tax increase or a new bond or a new rule coming down from Sacramento,” Mahan said in an interview. “We need to step back and take a really hard look at our existing spending and increase the level of transparency and accountability in government.”
His eight-page plan includes ways to measure and track accountability, some of which are drawn from policies in other states. They include lobbying reforms, following up on audit recommendations and overhauling the state’s digital infrastructure and its procurement process — services Mahan described as “clunky and cumbersome.”
He also proposed a “California Performance Review,” inspired by a similar effort in Texas throughout the 1990s, that would review state agencies and solicit input from employees to eliminate waste and inefficiencies.
But near the top of the list is a proposal to tie pay raises for state officials including the governor, lawmakers and thousands of gubernatorial appointees to “measurable outcomes” in areas such as reducing homelessness and unemployment.
“People in the real world don’t get raises if they don’t do a good job,” Mahan said, “and I think it should be the same for the politicians and senior administrators who are allocating budgets, leading projects, making the big decisions on behalf of the people of California.”
Though the benchmarks would be created with input from the state Legislature, Mahan floated one example: reducing unsheltered homelessness by 5% to 10% within one year, something he said he’s accomplished three years in a row in San José.
It’s a solution one might expect from a former entrepreneur and mayor of a city in the heart of Silicon Valley. Mahan made a similar proposal at the local level last year, but it was rejected by the City Council.
“Tying pay to performance is nothing short of revolutionary in government. It’s a private-sector model that is overdue,” said former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a Mahan supporter who sponsored several bills aiming to increase transparency in government.
Dozens of tech company executives are backing Mahan in the race for governor and have collectively donated millions to his campaign, as well as two independent expenditure committees supporting him.
That has raised concerns from some voters, and criticism from some of Mahan’s opponents, that he would be beholden to their interests and veto future regulations on tech or artificial intelligence companies.
Mahan has sought to dispel those concerns, arguing that he believes AI and social media platforms should be regulated. Of his plan to overhaul state information technology systems and infrastructure, he said that “whenever we spend public dollars, we have to run open, transparent and competitive procurement processes that ensure best value for the taxpayers.”
Though Mahan did not specify how he would link government outcomes to pay raises, state lawmakers have largely panned his campaign and are unlikely to get on board. The change probably would also require voter approval.
Currently, annual raises for elected officials are determined by a citizen commission that was added to the California Constitution in 1990. Changing how that panel works or imposing limits on when it can approve raises would require a constitutional amendment, which requires voter sign-off.
But Mahan contended it would be one of the fastest ways to fix a system that he says works for special interests at the expense of working people.
“I’m under no illusion that this will be easy, but I think it’s a necessary realignment of incentives,” he said. “We have to make ourselves as accountable to the people as we possibly can be.”
When I read all the hype being heaped on Kamala Harris’ lead in early polls for the 2028 Democratic nomination, I have to chuckle to myself.
The release of a Rasmussen Reports poll in February was titled, “Kamala Harris Still Leads 2028 Field for Democrats.” One headline in the Hill predicted, “Kamala Harris may yet be the Democratic nominee in 2028.” A Washington Examiner piece about polling warned, “Democrats won’t get rid of Kamala Harris that easily for 2028.”
I chuckle not because I don’t believe the numbers, but because I don’t believe any poll this far out in an open contest is meaningful, let alone determinative. I’ve seen this movie before, and it didn’t end well.
In 2003, after managing the successful 2002 reelection campaign of California Gov. Gray Davis, I signed on as an advisor to the presidential campaign of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman — who, I needn’t remind anyone, had been the Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2000 election, which he and Al Gore lost in a nail-biter to George W. Bush.
Based simply on his high name identification from that hellzapoppin’ race, and the fact his name had been on the ballot in all 50 states just two years before, Lieberman initially led the Democratic field quite handily in almost every national poll.
An ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2003 found Lieberman leading the Democratic field with 27%. A Gallup poll from that same month also placed him first, ahead of both John Kerry and Richard Gephardt.
A Pew poll in the summer of 2003 also found Lieberman atop the field, as the best-known candidate at 85% name recognition, and 58% support, ahead of Kerry, Gephardt and Howard Dean.
Boy, did we brag about Lieberman’s lead at every stop and in every press release. But in the end, the promising early numbers meant nothing. When actual votes were cast, Lieberman totally flamed out, receiving a measly 8.9% of the vote in the critical first primary in New Hampshire, finishing dead last, and dropping out of the race in February 2004, having lost every primary and caucus up to that point.
Why? A lot of reasons, including mistakes made by the candidate and campaign. But fundamentally because, when Democrats started to take a close look at and assess the full field, they relegated Lieberman to the status of a loser, and they wanted to move on. We heard a lot of, “He had his chance and lost.” Does Harris come to mind?
The fact is, we Democrats tend to put defeated presidential nominees in the rear-view mirror pretty quickly. Think of Michael Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And let’s not forget, Harris obtaining the nomination in 2024 was a fluke; she didn’t compete in one primary or receive one primary vote. The first time she ran for president, in the 2020 cycle, she also didn’t win one primary or receive a single primary vote, because she ran a bad campaign and hightailed it out of the race before a single vote was cast. Two strikes and you’re out?
We Democrats just don’t renominate losers. The last time we did it was exactly 70 — yes, 70 — years ago, with Adlai Stevenson in 1956 after he had lost the 1952 presidential race to Dwight Eisenhower. Stevenson rewarded Democrats for this recycling effort by losing to Eisenhower a second time — by an even worse margin. Democrats learned their lesson: Reheating doesn’t work with failed candidates.
And, come on, Harris not only lost to Trump, not only lost all seven swing states, but was the first Democratic presidential nominee in 20 years to lose the popular vote. And her weak showing also helped Republicans wrest control of the Senate from Democrats. We’re supposed to imagine that’s a credible record on which to run again for the nomination?
All of these breathless stories about Harris leading the field nationally also never mention her perilous standing in her own home state of California. A Berkeley IGS survey in August revealed that by a margin of 18 percentage points, even her fellow Democrats in California did not want her to run again. A Politico poll this month showed Gov. Gavin Newsom with a 2-to-1 lead in California among voters leaning toward voting in the 2028 Democratic primary.
So have fun, Kamala Harris, enjoying your name-ID high while it lasts (although maybe a mite longer than your 107-day presidential effort).
Garry South is a Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and played significant roles in three presidential campaigns, including that of Al Gore.
Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.
The unsparing letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which as a result of the university’s selection criteria would not include any of the leading candidates of color.
“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”
USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Tuesday’s debate is scheduled less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes.
The university has been embroiled in controversy over the criteria it used to select the candidates it invited to participate in Tuesday’s debate, which is co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision.
Specifically, critics have pointed out the methodology allowed San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — to vault above former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee.
“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the letter says. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”
Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.
USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.
“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”
The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.
“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”
Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.
The four Democrats who are participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all issued statements criticizing USC’s selection criteria, but did not pull out of the debate.
“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”
Porter expressed similar thoughts.
“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”
March 23 (UPI) — A sheriff in Riverside, Calif., has seized more than 650,000 ballots from a 2025 state election that allowed the state to redistrict to gain five congressional seats.
Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for California governor, said Friday that he is investigating allegations by an activist group that alleged the reported tallies don’t match the ballots.
“This investigation is simple,” he said at a press conference. “Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.”
The election Bianco is investigating is the special election for Proposition 50, asking voters for endorsement to redraw the congressional districts in response to other Republican-led states, like Texas, redrawing their districts to pick up seats.
Californians voted to redistrict, and it was not a close election: 7.4 million in favor to 4.1 million.
A group called Riverside Election Integrity Team called for the investigation saying its examination of records shows about 45,000 more ballots were counted than received, Bianco said.
Local election officials said those allegations were based on a misunderstanding of how ballots are officially counted, the Palm Springs Desert Sun reported.
“County election staff follow detailed procedures established by state and federal law to protect the integrity of the vote and to ensure that every eligible ballot is processed and counted in accordance with those legal requirements,” Riverside County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen said in a statement.
Bianco seized the ballots with two warrants signed by a judge. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Bianco a letter March 6 alleging, “my office has serious concerns as to whether probable cause existed to support the issuance of the warrants and whether your office presented the magistrate with all material evidence as required by law.”
Bonta also alleged that Bianco’s office is not qualified to count ballots and the investigation “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.”
Bianco replied: “A judge approved the warrant, so Bonta’s opinion means absolutely nothing.”
Bianco also said Friday that he would give the investigation to a judge-appointed special master.
Democrats and Republicans in the state have said the investigation is baseless.
“It looks to me like it’s a politically motivated effort,” Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, told The New York Times. “It’s awfully coincidental that he would be taking this high-profile and extreme of an action literally two months before he’s facing a statewide election.”
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said Bianco’s claims are not supported by the evidence.
“The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections,” Weber said in a statement on Friday.
“Investigations into election processes must be conducted by those with the appropriate legal authority and subject matter expertise. Similar claims raised in other states by individuals without election administration experience have been thoroughly reviewed and debunked.”
Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat running for governor, said Bianco is trying to gain national exposure.
“What we’re seeing from Chad Bianco is a dangerous abuse of power and no different from what we’re seeing from Donald Trump and the extreme Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters nationally,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.
“Seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots without credible evidence is an attack on the very foundation of our democracy. If you’re willing to undermine free and fair elections for MAGA stardom, you have no business holding public office.”
Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted a former waitress in 1972 after escorting her to one of his shows, a civil jury in California concluded Monday, awarding the woman $19.25 million in damages.
The verdict was the latest turn in a series of legal battles the disgraced entertainer, now 88, has faced since allegations that he repeatedly drugged and raped women exploded publicly about a decade ago. Since then, he served about three years in a Pennsylvania prison on sexual assault charges before the case was overturned in 2021.
Donna Motsinger, now 84, said in her lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court that Cosby had given her wine and a pill that left her unable to move, and that she woke up in her house wearing nothing but her underwear, according to court records, and that “she knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby.”
Cosby has denied the allegations, as well as those brought by dozens of other women who claimed they had been drugged and raped. Coming in the early years of the #MeToo movement, a broad social media-inspired campaign to name and prosecute men accused of sexual misconduct, Cosby’s attorneys painted him as an unfair target of mass vigilantism gone awry.
Motsinger sued Cosby in 2023, alleging that, at the time, she was working at a Sausalito restaurant called The Trident that was popular with celebrities, including Cosby, according to the complaint her attorneys filed Sept. 27 of that year. One night, Motsinger accepted Cosby’s invitation to go with him to his show at the Circle Star Theater in San Carlos. Cosby picked her up at her home in a limousine, according to her complaint, and, on the way to the venue, gave her the wine and a pill that she thought was aspirin.
“Next thing she knew, she was going in and out of consciousness while two men attending to Mr. Cosby were putting her in the limousine,” the complaint said. “The last thing Ms. Motsinger recalls were flashes of light,” before waking up in her house in nothing but underwear.
Motsinger didn’t consent to Cosby’s sexual contact and, having been rendered unconscious by drugging, she couldn’t consent to it to begin with, according to the complaint. As a consequence of her ordeal, her complaint says she suffered lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering and emotional distress.
WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.
That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.
The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.
In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”
California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.
By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.
Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.
But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.
GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.
Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.
The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.
IMPERIAL — Whenever the weather changes suddenly, or the skyline becomes shrouded in a windy haze, Fernanda Camarillo braces herself for an asthma attack.
Her condition has become more manageable, but the 27-year-old said it’s still scary when her chest tightens and she starts to wheeze. It was one of her first thoughts when she heard about plans to develop a massive data center next to her home in Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico that struggles with poor air quality.
“A lot of people in the county are asthmatic,” she said, explaining that she worries the new center would add more pollution. “I’ve been anxious — so many of us are voicing our concerns.”
Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly changing and expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence, or AI as it’s known. States and communities nationwide havestarted pushing back, citing concerns that the projects could strain power grids, increase utility bills and have negative health and environmental impacts.
In California, state legislators are debating how to protect residents and natural resources without creating so much red tape that developers go elsewhere, taking their jobs and taxable earnings with them.
No Data Center signs are posted in the front yard of a home that is right behind the proposed site.
“We can be supportive of innovation and a technology that is needed but also protect our communities and our health and our environment,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). “We can do both at the same time.”
The California Legislature is considering bills to prohibit the projects from being exempted from the state’s stringent environmental law and to impose new tariffs on new major energy users that strain power supplies. Lawmakers also have proposed restrictions on new data centers, requiring companies to provide verifiable estimates on expected water and energy usage before they can be granted a business permit.
Imperial resident Fernanda Camarillo, who is an asthmatic, holds some of her medications.
Members of Congress also expressed concerns. Rep. Ro Khanna, speaking at a town hall about AI last month at Stanford University, said legislators must ensure data centers serve the communities that power them.
“We live in a new gilded age,” said Khanna (D-Fremont). “What kind of future are we going to build?”
::
Eric Masanet, a professor at UC Santa Barbara specializing in sustainability science for emerging technologies, described the facilities as the “brains” of the internet. The sprawling centers are filled with banks of specialized computers that process online shopping orders, stream movies, host websites, encode Zoom and other videoconferencing apps, store data and serve as switching stations for the digital world that’s now woven into daily life.
Data centers, particularly those that power AI, use significant amounts of water and energy. The facilities accounted for about 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity consumption in 2023, up from 1.9% in 2018, according toa report provided to Congress from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers projected that figure will reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028.
Many companies, including big tech giants like Meta, Google and Amazon, are making major investments in AI.
“We are building a lot more data centers faster than we ever did — and a new AI data center is 10 to 20, maybe 30 times, the size of the largest data centers we had before,” Masanet said.
The proposed site of the 950,00-square-foot data center is on a dusty parcel that is next to the Victoria Ranch housing community and adjacent to farmland in Imperial, Calif.
It’s unclear how many data centers are in the state. A California Energy Commission spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times it does not track this information. Data Center Map, a nongovernmental website that tracks data centers across the world, lists 289 facilities in California, with more than 4,000 nationwide.
The federal government has, so far, largely left it to states or localities to regulate data centers.
The facilities can generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes.
But some new proposals are sparking a backlash. More than 200 community and environmental organizations, including a dozen from California, sent an open letter to Congress in December calling for a national moratorium on new data centers.
Robert Gould, a pathologist with San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the organizations that signed the letter, explained data centers are causing a shift away from renewable energy and back toward fossil fuels because the facilities need a reliable and constant stream of power.
Cornell Universityresearchers last year estimated that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030, unless steps are taken to change course.
Gould said fossil fuel emissions are associated with various cancers, an increase in hospitalizations for older adults due to respiratory conditions, and asthma attacks or stunted lung growth in children. Particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions is also linked to cardiovascular events and negative effects on maternal fetal health.
Gould’s organization has noticed an alarming trend.
“These are generally placed in communities that are the least able to defend themselves,” he said.
Farmworkers toil in the noon heat to pick vegetables in Imperial. Agriculture is an important part of the Imperial Valley economy.
::
The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California where a proposed center faces fierce opposition from residents.
The county in 2025 granted the project an exemption for the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. The landmark 56-year-old state law has been credited with helping to preserve California’s natural beauty and protecting communities from hazardous impacts of construction projects — but also blamed for stymieing construction.
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, a California-based limited liability company that started two years ago, plans to develop a 950,000-square-foot facility in the county that’s designed for advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning operations. The company says it will use reclaimed wastewater and EPA-certified natural gas generators, and create 2,500 to 3,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent positions.
“We are committed to Imperial County and to creating lasting economic opportunity,” the company website states. “The project will generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue for local schools, fire departments, libraries, and essential services.”
The Imperial County Board of Supervisors is moving toward finalizing the proposal.
Farmland spreads out in front of the Imperial Valley Fair near a proposed data center in Imperial.
Sebastian Rucci, an attorney and chief executive officer of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, said he commissioned multiple studies assessing the proposed center’s potential effect on issues like traffic or the environment that found no or minimal harms. He threatened to pull his proposal if a CEQA review was required.
“CEQA leaves you in an unknown territory — some of the environmental groups have used it for extortion, they sue, they have no basis for the suit but they delay you, and then they can squeeze money out of you for settling the lawsuit,” said Rucci.
The exemption, however, has alarmed residents, who have spoken up at county board meetings and launched a community organization, Not in My Backyard Imperial, to protest the data center and demand a CEQA review.
“It feels like it’s us against the county,” said Camarillo, adding that many feel the board has dismissed their questions and concerns.
None of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors responded to requests for comment.
Resident Fernanda Camarillo’s home is right behind the proposed site of the data center in Imperial.
The center would be a neighbor to Camarillo’s house in Victoria Ranch, a family-friendly area with beige stucco homes topped with terracotta tile roofs. She worries about noise, pollution and spiking utility bills. Power companies that have to upgrade grids to meet data centers’ energy demands sometimes seek to recoup that cost by hiking up rates for all consumers.
Camarillo, a substitute teacher, is also scared for her students. The air quality in Imperial Valley is already so poor that schools use a system of color-coded flags to signal whether it’s safe for children to go outside during gym or recess, she said.
“I think they see [the valley] as easy pickings because we are a low-income community and we have such a large population of Latinos here,” Camarillo said.
A quick drive around the neighborhood shows others share her concerns. Signs protesting the data center pop up throughout the community, displayed on front lawns or nestled into rocky garden beds.
Victoria Ranch was quiet and peaceful on a sunny Sunday in late February. Francisco Leal, a resident and lead organizer for NIMBY Imperial, said that’s a major part of its appeal.
The colorful dusk sky hovers over a Little League baseball game at Freddie White Park in Imperial. The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California.
Leal wants answers about everything from potential health hazards and impacts on the local water supply to whether the fire department is equipped to handle a large-scale electrical blaze. But without a CEQA review, he says residents are left to trust assurances from the developer or privately hired consultants.
Leal plans to sell his property if the project goes forward, but the thought makes him emotional.
“It’s not just a house; it’s a home,” he said. “This is the only home my kids have ever known and all of our family memories are here.”
Gina Snow, another resident, isn’t necessarily against bringing a data center to the county. But she wants the proposal to undergo a CEQA review.
“Clearly we understand that there is economic development and the potential for that to be positive for the county, but at what cost?” she said.
Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, stands on the site of the proposed data center.
::
Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, said the community has good reason to be wary. Various industries have come into the region over the years and made grand promises that never panned out.
“We became a sacrifice zone,” she said, adding industries use the area’s resources while ultimately doing little to permanently improve the lives of most residents.
Flores said the community continues to struggle with a range of problems, including poor air quality, high poverty rates, weak worker protections and crumbling infrastructure. She believes a data center could add new and potentially dangerous challenges.
The valley has long, brutal summers with temperatures that swell to 120 degrees. If the data center strains the grid and causes a lengthy blackout, or low-income residents have their power shut off because they can’t afford the rising bills, Flores fears the situation could quickly turn deadly.
The city of Imperial also has concerns. The city hasfiled a lawsuit calling on the county to halt the project, arguing it should not have received a CEQA exemption.
The controversy has drawn attention from Padilla, whose district includes Imperial Valley. Padilla has echoed residents’ calls for more transparency from the county and introduced Senate Bill 887, which would ban data centers from receiving exemptions from CEQA.
“I am not anti-data center or anti-artificial intelligence,” Padilla said. But, he added, we need to “find a way to do this right and make sure there is adequate review and understanding.”
A dusty haze settles over the city of Imperial at dusk near the site of a proposed data center.
Another measure from Padilla, Senate Bill 886, would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create an electrical corporation tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades.
Other related legislation this year includes Assembly Bill 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would require data center owners to provide an estimate about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license, and Assembly Bill 1577, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption and energy efficiency.
While lawmakers weigh new policies at the statehouse, Camarillo said she hopes the priority will be protecting communities.
“Innovation is important, but innovation for the sake of innovation has never really been something that hasn’t had negative impacts,” she said. “Think about human lives.”
Plus, every time you drive, you can see the escalating average cost for a gallon of gas throughout the state that ranges from $5.77 in Orange County, $5.78 in San Diego County, $5.80 in Los Angeles County and $5.86 in San Francisco County to the high of $6.57 in Mono County, according to AAA.
It can easily make anyone think having fun is unaffordable.
Fortunately, our Travel and Experiences team has put together a list of 75 fun things to do for under $20.
On warm days, it’s hard to beat a ride on the swan boats at Echo Park.
They’re powered by foot paddles, and the pedaling is easy because you’re in no hurry. Maybe you’ll want to do a circuit of the lake (really a man-made reservoir). Maybe you’ll sidle up to the towers of whitewater rising from the mid-lake fountain.
Maybe you’ll wait until after dark (because the swans light up).
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Experience L.A.’s esoteric history at the Philosophical Research Society (Los Feliz)
Cost: Free to visit, workshops and lectures from $10 and up.
Located at the intersection of Los Feliz and Griffith Park boulevards, the Philosophical Research Society has long been a place of mystery, intrigue and, for some, apprehension.
The Mayan Revival campus painted in Southwestern shades of clay, cream and sage was built in 1935 by the celebrated author and esoteric lecturer Manly P. Hall.
Today, it hosts a dizzying array of events each week including poetry readings, death cafes, sound baths, a weekly class on Buddhism, tarot and astrology salons and musical performances — some of which have a suggested donation of just $10.
If you visit, make sure to make time to browse the excellently curated metaphysical bookstore.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
Find the perfect meditation spot at the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine (Pacific Palisades)
Cost: Free.
Whether or not you’re familiar with the work of Paramahansa Yogananda, who founded the Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920, if you live in Los Angeles you owe him a debt of gratitude for the smattering of lush, meditative gardens in Southern California that are still open to the public today.
Among those is Lake Shrine, a beautifully landscaped 10-acre property in the Pacific Palisades surrounding a spring-fed lake that is dotted with quiet meditation spots.
It is free to visit, but you will need to make a reservation online before you go. (Reservations open each Saturday at 10 a.m. for the week ahead, and they can fill up quickly.)
(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)
Cozy up with a flick at the Paramount Drive-In Theater (Paramount)
Cost: $14 per adult, $7 per kid (ages 3-11).
For a night out that feels as cozy as a night in, head to the Paramount Drive-In Theater. In the comfort of your own car, you can spread out, munch popcorn and make all the commentary you want without getting looks from other moviegoers.
Tickets are purchased on arrival, and the parking lot is huge, so you’re bound to secure a good view of the big screen. There is a concession store on site with candy, chips and drinks, but you are free to bring all the snacks you want from home. Recline your seat all the way back, relax and enjoy the show.
You’re reading the Essential California newsletter
Sign up to start every day with California’s most important stories.
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.
The week’s biggest stories
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Heat wave and environmental news
Los Angeles mayor, city council news
Cesar Chavez fallout
California governor’s race
Crime, courts and policing
What else is going on
Must reads
Other meaty reads
For your downtime
(Illustrations by Lindsey Made This; photograph by Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Going out
Staying in
L.A. Affairs
Get wrapped up in tantalizing stories about dating, relationships and marriage.
Have a great day, from the Essential California team
Jim Rainey, staff reporter Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer Karim Doumar, head of newsletters
The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.
“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”
That’s a lot of, um, hooey.
There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.
Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.
So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?
Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.
“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”
Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.
Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.
As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.
Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.
After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.
As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.
There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.
First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”
Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:
— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.
— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.
— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.
— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)
The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.
But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.
“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.
The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”
“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.
President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.
Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.
Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.
Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.
A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.
In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.
Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”
The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”
Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.
“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.
In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.
“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”
At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”
A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.
In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”
Meta, YouTube and Snapchat are already under scrutiny for risks they pose for young people. Now they are facing another hurdle in their home state.
California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for teens and children under 16 years old. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and others introduced a bipartisan bill that would bar social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old from creating or maintaining accounts.
The legislation comes amid mounting concerns about how social networks impact the mental health of young people. Anxiety among parents and lawmakers has heightened as platforms and AI chatbots become more intertwined with people’s daily life.
Last month, tech executives, including Meta’s chief executive and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, testified in a landmark trial in Los Angeles over a lawsuit that alleges social media is addictive and harms children.
The trial centers on whether tech companies such as Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms.
California has passed legislation before aimed at making social media platforms and chatbots safer but faced pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new laws from taking effect. Tech companies are have responded by releasing more parental controls and restrictions for young users.
Other countries have been moving forward with restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia barred children under 16 years old from having social media accounts.
TechNet, whose members include Meta and Google, said in a statement that it hasn’t taken a position on the California bill but doesn’t believe a ban will effectively achieve the Legislature’s goal’s.
“We support balanced, evidence-based solutions that strengthen protections for young people, equip parents with meaningful tools, and ensure accountability across platforms. Our companies have made significant investments in teen safety and parental controls, and we remain committed to building on that progress,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet Executive Director for California and the Southwest in a statement.
The use of social media by young people has divided tech executives.
Pinterest Chief Executive Bill Ready wrote in an op-ed in TIME published on Friday that governments should follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids under 16 years old if tech companies don’t prioritize safety.
“Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16,” he said.”Instead, it’s been designed to maximize view time, keeping kids glued to a screen with little regard for their well-being.”
Lowenthal’s bill cited social media’s dangers such as “exposure to harmful content, compulsive use patterns, exploitation, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.”
“Existing age-based restrictions that rely primarily on user self-attestation have proven ineffective and place an unreasonable burden on children and families rather than on the entities that design, operate, and profit from social media platforms,” the bill states.
A spokesman for Lowenthal didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is asking a judge to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of rival TV station owner Tegna — the latest in a flurry of merger twists.
The state officials sued to block the union of the station groups, alleging the new colossus would violate antitrust rules and a federal law limiting broadcast station ownership.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
Hours after that filing, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau in Washington approved Nexstar’s deal — clearing the way for the nation’s largest TV station group owner to swallow the third-largest station group.
The purchase gives Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, 265 television stations.
On Friday, Bonta and the other attorneys general asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to freeze the takeover until a hearing on the matter.
“Nexstar/Tegna is not a done deal,” Bonta said Friday in a statement. “I will not let these corporate behemoths merge without a fight.”
It was not immediately clear when a judge might rule on the request for a restraining order.
Bonta appeared at a lawmakers’ hearing in Burbank on Friday to explore the impacts of another huge merger: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Bonta’s office has opened an investigation into the Paramount-Warner merger, but Bonta said Friday that no decision has been made on whether he or other attorneys general will seek to block it.
For now, he is focused on derailing the Nexstar-Tegna deal.
“We filed a suit before that deal closed,” Bonta told The Times. “We think our case is extremely strong. There is no way this should be approved.”
At issue is whether the FCC had the power to grant a waiver that would allow Nexstar to control TV stations that reach nearly 80% of U.S. households. In 2003, Congress set the station ownership cap at 39% of the country.
The Department of Justice also gave its blessing to close the deal.
The three FCC commissioners did not vote on the matter — despite pleas from the lone Democrat on the panel who advocated for an open process.
“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote in his social media post.
“Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar – Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level,” Trump wrote. “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”
In a statement Thursday, Nexstar founder and chief executive Perry Sook thanked Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, saying Nexstar was “grateful” they recognized the “dynamic forces shaping the media landscape” and allowed the transaction to move forward.
