california

Californians are more concerned about the Trump administration interfering in the state’s midterm elections than they are about voter fraud, noncitizens voting illegally or foreign interference, according to a new poll.

A majority of voters — 61% — identified potential federal interference as a “major concern” heading into November, slightly more than the 59% who cited possible foreign interference as such, according to the poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.

By comparison, 41% of California voters identified voter fraud and 37% identified noncitizens voting as major concerns, the poll found.

The polling reflects the liberal leanings of the state, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, as well as the nation’s hyperpartisan divide on voting issues and vulnerabilities.

That divide has been driven for years by President Trump’s relentless criticism of U.S. elections, particularly in large blue states such as California, and recently by his administration’s attempts to wrest control over voting processes from the states based on unverified claims of widespread fraud and the fierce pushback against those claims from California Democrats and other liberal leaders around the country.

The White House has dismissed concerns about interference and accused Democrats of obstructing its efforts to protect American elections from fraud, including through the proposed SAVE America Act — which would enforce strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters nationwide.

While 80% of Democratic respondents to the poll said potential federal interference in the state’s elections was a major concern, just 28% of Republican respondents identified it as such.

Voter fraud was identified as a major concern by 84% of Republican voters but just 21% of Democratic voters, the poll found. Noncitizens voting illegally also was identified as a major concern by 85% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats.

Republicans also have substantial concerns about the security of mail ballots and how slowly California counts its vote, while Democrats were far less concerned about those issues, the poll found.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said it clearly reflects the partisan divide around election issues and “shows that in this state, federal interference is a big deal — more so than in other places around the country.”

He called that a “big finding” in line with previous polls that found “Californians are very concerned about prioritizing efforts to defend democracy and to protect election systems,” including in the face of threats from Trump — who routinely has focused on the state in his regular attacks on election integrity.

“For 61% of Californians to say that’s a major concern to them in terms of the threats to the election system, I think that’s very newsworthy,” DiCamillo said.

He also noted the particularly stark difference between state Democrats and Republicans on the issue of noncitizens voting.

“Nearly 90% of Democrats say that’s not a concern, whereas 85% of Republicans feel it is,” he said. “Californians have a lot of noncitizens in the state, but Democrats don’t think they’re infecting the voter rolls, so they’re not concerned about it.”

That was striking, DiCamillo said, given how much Trump has pointed to California to claim that noncitizens are voting.

“Obviously, the Democrats are very strongly opposed to the president, what he’s trying to do, and the Republicans are supportive,” DiCamillo said.

Other findings in the poll also support that conclusion.

For instance, while Trump has claimed without evidence that mail ballots are a major source of fraud and their use should be reined in, the poll found that 72% of Californians approve of mail ballots as a primary method for voting in the state — with 58% saying they strongly approve.

California law requires every registered voter in the state to be sent a mail ballot, and more than 80% of voters have used such ballots in recent elections.

Trump also repeatedly has accused California officials of failing to secure state elections against fraud and of cheating as they count later-arriving mail ballots. But the poll found that Californians by greater than a 2-to-1 margin — 65% to 31% — are confident local election officials are accurately and fairly counting ballots. However, the poll did find that more than half of respondents, 53%, had concerns about delays in California’s vote-counting process.

Overall, 64% of respondents were confident in the integrity of the state’s election system, compared to 34% who were not.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, downplayed the threats of voter fraud and noncitizens voting in the state, but acknowledged they are real concerns for some voters — which is a problem in itself.

“I see election security as both a matter of actual security and perceived security. And the truth is that we have a great deal of actual security in California elections, but, unfortunately, that security is not being perceived by some voters,” she said. She attributed that in part to the “constant drumbeat that we’ve had now for a decade, coming from the occupant of the White House, that our elections are rigged.”

Alexander said California law requires registering voters to prove and attest to their identity and has multiple verification measures to ensure people casting ballots are who they say they are. She said there are “common sense” reasons why noncitizens do not try to vote — including that it requires them to turn over personal information and could be grounds for criminal charges and deportation, which is “a huge disincentive.”

Alexander also said Trump administration interference in the midterms is a real concern, but so is overhyping the threat to the point it discourages voters from casting ballots.

“Not to dismiss the threats — the threats are real — but the more we talk about them, the more we scare voters,” Alexander said. “I’ve encountered voters who’ve said this to me: ‘What’s the point in voting when they’re just gonna cheat?’ Or, you know: ‘It’s all rigged.’ And that’s part of the play here — is to scare people into thinking that voting doesn’t matter.”

To counter that, Alexander said it is “really important that people be aware that there are threats, but to not let those threats be debilitating or to allow them to dissuade people from wanting to participate.”

The poll surveyed 4,207 registered voters in California from Aug. 3 to 9, online in English and Spanish, and has an estimated margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

Barring some extraordinary event — a health emergency, a career-ending scandal, a killer asteroid destroying all life on earth — Xavier Becerra will be the next governor of California.

That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.

The GOP brand has been political poison in this Tahoe-blue bastion for decades now. But under Donald Trump, it’s grown even more toxic. His endorsement, which the president bestowed upon Republican Steve Hilton mid-primary, is the political equivalent of sarin; like the deadly nerve agent, it can kill on contact.

Still, give credit where due.

The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.

“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”

Becerra not so much.

The Democrat has appeared here and there since finishing first in the June 2 primary, securing one of two slots in November’s runoff. He’s offered a few modest proposals, including a plan to deliver two free hours of electricity a day to low-income households and a call for stiffer regulation of artificial intelligence.

A sprint vs. a stroll

That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.

That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.

On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”

Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.

At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.

More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.

Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.

“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”

That’s no surprise.

When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.

The Democratic front-runner said Tuesday that “there will be debates,” though he didn’t say where or when.

An obligation to voters

There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.

Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.

Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”

No matter.

There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.

Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.

But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.

Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump turns to containing the fallout from setbacks in Iran
The deep dive: War was supposed to crush Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance.’ Instead, it’s bloodied but unbroken
The L.A. Times Special: Xavier Becerra won’t deliver the home runs — or strikeouts — racked up by Newsom, Schwarzenegger

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The head of one of Hollywood’s largest talent agencies warned state leaders that a new budget bill threatens job gains from California’s film and TV credit program.

Legislators earlier this year passed a provision in the state budget that extends limitations on corporate tax credits, including a $5-million state tax credit cap each year.

But film industry advocates say the corporate tax credit cap will hurt film producers and undercut the effectiveness of the state’s expanded film and TV tax credits.

Lawmakers more than doubled annual funding for the program last year to $750 million in an effort to boost jobs and stem the exodus of film work from California.

CAA Chief Executive Bryan Lourd called for state leaders to create an exemption for tax credits earned under the expanded film and TV program.

“Without this fix, we risk destabilizing a program that is critical to keeping film and television production in California and the thousands of jobs it supports,” Lourd wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, California State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara).

“California must make itself competitive with the rest of the country and the world if it hopes to have a thriving entertainment ecosystem,” Lourd wrote. “Honoring commitments that have already been made to the entertainment industry is an essential step in achieving that goal.”

Film industry advocates expected producers would be exempted from the tax credit cap.

“It’s a reversal of California economic policy as it relates to the entertainment industry in an unhelpful and uncompetitive direction,” said Hilary Krane, CAA’s chief legal officer, in an interview. . “It undermines people’s ability to plan for the economics of the program because they all counted on a certain amount coming in under the previous rules that they were entitled to and had, but now can’t use.”

Last month, more than three dozen California lawmakers signed a letter calling attention to the issue. Hollywood unions also have raised alarm.

“The result of the changes is that production companies will lose the full value of credits already earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs and other economic benefits to the State,” the Entertainment Union Coalition said last month.

Nick Miller, Rivas’ spokesperson, said the state Assembly is taking a hard look at the issue.

“Our lawmakers strengthened California’s film and TV jobs program last year and will keep fighting for creative industry workers,” Miller said in an email.

Newsom’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

Time is running out for a fix to happen this session, which ends in less than two weeks.

State Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) said state leaders are working on introducing legislation soon to address the issue.

Already, tens of thousands of jobs have come back to Southern California due to the modernization of the film and TV tax credit program, he said.

“We just saw the beginning of that resurgence and we don’t want to nip that in the bud,” Zbur said in an interview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tina Peters was recently released early from prison amid a pressure campaign from President Trump after the former Colorado elections official was convicted of tampering with voting machines.

Now, the top elections official in a conservative California county with a long history of voting controversies is seeking to hire her to help run elections there.

Clint Curtis, the registrar of voters in Shasta County, said on a local radio show Sunday that he planned to hire Peters as the assistant registrar next month, just weeks ahead of the November election.

“Tina Peters, she’s now available, so we’re going to pull her in. She has experience, and she’s able to take the rocks and arrows,” Curtis told the hosts of “Jefferson State of Mine,” a show hosted by leaders of the State of Jefferson secession movement.

When asked about her health, which her attorneys said declined in prison, Curtis, himself a longtime election denier, quipped: “Getting out of prison really helps your ability.”

In response to questions from The Times about the hiring process, Curtis said in an email Tuesday afternoon that “counties are very slow” in bringing in new staffers and that Peters would be brought on “as a consultant.”

“Her duties would be to assist with supervision of the November election,” Curtis wrote. “None of our consultants have access to the voting systems, so she would be insulated from false claims.”

A bank of surveillance screens hangs in the public observation room at the Shasta County elections office in Redding, Calif., in February.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, Colo., was convicted in 2024 and sentenced to nine years behind bars for breaching her county’s voting machines as part of a scheme to show that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump — a claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

She was found guilty of helping an outside computer expert — an associate of pro-Trump conspiracy theorist and MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell — gain unauthorized access to Mesa County’s Dominion election equipment in 2021 and make copies of its hard drive before and after a software upgrade.

Peters was released from prison in June. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, commuted her sentence after months of haranguing from the president. Trump issued a pardon for Peters in December, but since her conviction was for state, not federal, crimes, it fell outside his purview.

‘Monkey business’ and a not-so-open job

In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, said she was “giving consideration to helping in the efforts in Shasta County as there most definitely has been monkey business in the way the election was handled.”

Ticktin, who cited his client’s “effort to get the invasive machines out of our election process,” did not elaborate on which election had alleged problems or what kind of role she had been offered.

The terms of Peters’ parole forbid her from leaving the state without permission from her parole officer, although, after her release, she visited Trump at the White House.

Talk about hiring Peters in Shasta County set off alarm bells across California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office tweeted Monday that Peters “should still be in prison” and that “the state is investigating this.”

“Tina Peters, she’s now available, so we’re going to pull her in,” says Clint Curtis, Shasta County registrar of voters. “She has experience, and she’s able to take the rocks and arrows.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat, wrote on Facebook that talk of her hiring “should be stopped immediately. “

Brent Turner, the Shasta County assistant registrar whom Curtis suggested he would replace, said there’s one glaring problem with that plan: He hasn’t quit.

“I am the assistant registrar, last I checked, and until further notice I’m planning on continuing to serve the public in that role,” Turner said in an interview Tuesday.

Turner said he had not spoken to Curtis for days and that he learned his boss was floating Peters’ name as a replacement from a local reporter who called him Sunday for comment.

On the “Jefferson State of Mine” broadcast, Curtis said of Turner: ”He got sick on me. I was hoping he’d just, like, retire on June 2 and go away and let me fill [the position], but he didn’t.”

Turner said it was “inappropriate” for Curtis to speak publicly about his health and that he had not given him permission to do so.

Miranda Angel, a Shasta County spokeswoman, said in an email Monday that “there is no formal proposal or application” to replace Turner and that “any prospective employee or consultant would go through the same hiring process as anyone else seeking employment with the county.”

An elections office embroiled in controversy

Shasta County made national headlines in 2023 when its Board of Supervisors ditched Dominion voting machines based on unfounded claims of fraud and opted to hand-count ballots for more than 110,000 registered voters — quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so.

Curtis, a 68-year-old attorney whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch to the early 2000s, took over the elections office last spring.

He was appointed by the county Board of Supervisors to fill the position vacated by two previous registrars who resigned for health reasons that they said were exacerbated by the stress of the job.

Curtis stands in the election counting area on Feb. 25 in Redding, Calif. Curtis installed a controversial election observer area filled with cameras trained on election workers’ hands as they feed ballots into machines.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Curtis lived in Florida then, had no previous ties to the area, and had never run an election. He got the position after advocating for hand-counting ballots and bragging in a public job interview that he had worked with Mike Lindell.

In Shasta County, he promptly eliminated nine of the vast, mostly-rural county’s 13 ballot dropboxes. He accused his predecessors in the elections office, without evidence, of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans, and he called on federal authorities to raid his office and seize ballots.

Curtis also publicly advocated for Measure B, a voter-approved measure that would eliminate most voting by mail and require ballots to be hand-counted, among other sweeping changes.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, sued Shasta County over the citizens’ initiative in mid-June, arguing that it violated numerous state election laws and must be struck down before the November election.

Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna this month issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks implementation of Measure B, which voters approved in the June primary.

In that same election, Curtis was voted out of office. He will be replaced in January by Joanna Francescut, the former longtime assistant registrar, whom he fired.

A censure — and another reprimand

When Curtis spoke on the radio broadcast Sunday about hiring Peters — with whom, he said, he has regular phone conversations — he was under formal censure by the Board of Supervisors for his treatment of staff.

This spring, the county released the findings of two personnel investigations into Curtis’ conduct that were spurred by concerns raised by elections employees and their union representatives.

An internal investigation and an external probe by Oppenheimer Investigations Group found that Curtis made phone calls related to his own campaign during county work hours and casually threatened to kill, spank, slap or “throat punch” staffers.

He threatened to have one employee dragged out of the office by their hair, according to an internal investigation report by Monica Fugitt, the county’s director of support services.

“Mr. Curtis has demonstrated a clear pattern of unprofessional and abusive conduct toward staff,” wrote Fugitt, who recommended Curtis be physically separated from the elections staff, working at a different physical location or remotely because of his “pervasive abusive conduct.”

Curtis has denied the findings.

The Board of Supervisors censured Curtis on Aug. 11.

He responded by inviting reporters to the elections office in downtown Redding, where he showed them security footage that, he said, showed employees breaking into a room in the building, the news outlet Shasta Scout reported.

A woman walks past a ballot drop box in the Shasta County city of Anderson on Feb. 25.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Curtis allowed reporters to take video of the footage and said he had not discussed the matter with the staffers, Shasta Scout reported.

The county condemned those actions in an Aug. 14 news release, saying he “has repeatedly been advised of appropriate procedures for addressing and investigating personnel matters and advised of the importance of maintaining confidentiality of such matters.”

Curtis, the county wrote, showed “complete disregard for those procedures as well as employees’ due process rights.”

In an email Tuesday, Shasta County deputy chief executive officer Stewart Buettell said the county and its Board of Supervisors do not have the power to terminate Curtis’ employment because he was appointed to fill a vacancy in an elected position.

“As soon as they assume that office, it’s as if they were elected,” Buettell said. To be removed from the office, he said, Curtis would have to be recalled by voters.

A photo published last week by Shasta Scout shows a pair of doors to a room in the elections office containing ballots from the June election. Curtis sealed the doors with locks, duct tape and red-lettered signs that read: “KEEP OUT PER ROV CLINT CURTIS.”

“I had facilities put this lock on and destroy the keys,” Curtis told the news outlet. “So if someone comes … they have to bring a warrant and a bolt cutter. That’s the only way to get in that room.”

Turner, the assistant registrar, told The Times that “Clint seems to be taking issue with some of the ballots in his own race” that he lost.

Legal challenges flared this week over an Inland Empire school district’s alleged removal of library books and, separately, on its efforts to require parental notification on student gender identity — policies strongly supported by the school board president, Sonja Shaw, a leading contender to become the next state schools superintendent.

One policy of Chino Valley Unified allows parents and others to force the removal of school library books to which they object, resulting in books with sexual content or with LGBTQ+ themes being pulled off shelves, according to a complaint filed this week by a leading public-interest law firm and local parents.

The complaint, filed with the California Department of Education, asks the state agency to investigate whether education codes have been violated. The complaint also seeks to invalidate the policy and have books returned to shelves.

The other Chino Valley Unified policy under legal scrutiny would require school employees to notify parents when students express gender-identity issues at school — even if the students want to keep this information secret from their parents. The Chino Valley school board passed its notification policy in July 2023, but a state judge put the policy on hold and subsequently ruled it illegal.

However, the Chino Valley school board is seeking to reinstate the policy in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. A court hearing on the matter had been scheduled for Wednesday, but has been moved to Sept. 15.

The San Bernardino County school system of 26,000 students adopted both policies under the leadership of school board President Shaw, a conservative Republican running for the office of state superintendent of public instruction. Shaw finished first in the June primary among 10 candidates, seven of them Democrats who appeared to split the Democratic vote among them.

On Wednesday, Shaw had not yet had an opportunity to review the book-policy complaint, but said both policies ultimately look out for children by safeguarding the rights of parents.

“I believe the larger issue is whether parents are going to remain the primary decision-makers for their children or whether Sacramento continues to chip away at that role,” Shaw said. “I will always stand on the side of parents.”

The book policy “is about ensuring that sexually explicit material is not placed in the hands of children in our schools,” Shaw said. “That is a reasonable responsibility for a school board, and I believe parents overwhelmingly expect us to exercise that responsibility.”

The challenge to the policies comes in the context of the November election, which pits Shaw against second-place finisher Richard Barrera, a Democrat.

Barrera said that some parents may agree with some of Shaw’s positions on culture war issues, but not with her entire agenda.

“I would say that the overwhelming majority of parents of students in our public schools find the agenda that Sonja Shaw is promoting to be terrifying,” Barrera said. “The idea that we’re going to restrict access to books for students, the idea that we are going to pick on and bully LGBTQ students, and particularly transgender students, is not a reflection of the values of parents in California.”

Barrera, the president of the San Diego Unified school board, also works as a senior state Education Department staffer, but has no involvement in handing complaints such as the one just filed, the department said.

Books removed from shelves

The Chino Valley school board adopted the book restriction policy in October 2023.

The district policy permits any community member to call for removing a library book. Such a demand, according to the policy, must be acted on immediately, with the book’s removal occurring within three days. A subsequent hearing within 45 days allows for public testimony, board discussion and a board vote, which would be the final decision.

Before the policy was adopted, community members had complained in public hearings about specific books and dramatically read aloud sexually explicit passages at board meetings to make their point. Defenders of the books said the passages were taken out of context in works that needed to be considered in their entirety.

The district began acting on its new book-removal policy before receiving any formal complaints, according to the filing submitted to state officials by Los Angeles-based Public Counsel.

In the fall of 2023, district officials asked schools for an inventory of specific titles public speakers had complained about at board meetings. Also included in the inventory were some books perceived as likely to be challenged.

Shortly after, parents and employees were no longer able to find copies of some of these books on the public-facing, book-search system, these critics told The Times in early 2024.

During this early period, only one formal complaint about a specific book was immediately received, a November 2023 request to remove the Bible “in all its forms” based on the Bible’s sexual content. This request was not carried out, the Public Counsel complaint states.

Other requests were submitted in October 2024 and covered 14 books, including: “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Maas; “Beloved” by Toni Morrison; “Juliet Takes a Breath” by Gabby Rivera; and “More Happy Than Not” by Adam Silvera.

The complaint to the Education Department also alleges the removal this year from at least one library of an unnamed book by Maya Angelou and an unnamed middle school book that touched on sexual identity.

The complaint alleges that the Chino Valley policy is unlawful under state law and unconstitutional under state and federal law. It also alleges that, even if the policy were to survive the legal test, Chino Valley did not follow its own rules. The complaint states there is no evidence of any public hearings or board votes on a challenged or removed book.

The state Education Department had no immediate response to the filing of the complaint.

A consistent theme in the removed books was LGBTQ+ content, according to the complaint. Targeting that content would amount to unlawful discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, who are explicitly protected against discrimination in California, said Elizabeth Graves, senior staff attorney in the educational equity unit of Public Counsel.

Ultimately, books were removed “not because they contain sexually obscene material, but because they contain content protected by law,” Graves said. “The school district appears to be targeting books that are featuring LGBTQ people, or written by LGBTQ authors.”

The state education code, Graves said, “really calls out how important accurate and inclusive education is for students, especially LGBTQ people, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color.”

Graves said that Public Counsel filed its complaint with the California Education Department because it can carry out an expedited complaint process in as little as 60 days.

Shaw said that if anyone questioned the district’s management of its policy, the matter could have been brought directly to district officials. Her issue, she said, is simply sexually explicit, graphic description — not references to sex. Parents can find that explicit material for their children in a public library if they choose, she added.

Parent notification on gender issues

Chino Valley became the first school district in California to adopt a parental notification policy in July 2023. It required that a school administrator, counselor or teacher notify parents if a student requests to be treated as a gender different from the student’s biological sex in any facet of school or in school records.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta quickly sued to stop the policy and San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs barred nearly all its elements. But he did allow parents to be notified of any student requests to change school records; for example, if a student requested to be known by a different name on a class roster.

In March, however, in a California case, a U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled that parents had a right to be told — if they asked — about their child’s sexual orientation issues at school. A lower court in the same case — Mirabelli vs. Bonta — had already ruled that school staff could not be barred from informing parents if they wanted to.

Since then, California Justice Center and Advocates for Faith & Freedom have filed a motion asking the state court to dissolve the injunction blocking Chino Valley’s original parent notification policy.

“Chino Valley is now in the impossible position of being subject to two conflicting permanent injunctions,” said attorney Emily Rae.

“The original policy was important because parents have a fundamental right to know what is happening with their own children,” Shaw said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental role parents play in raising and directing the upbringing of their children. Schools should not replace parents.”

Bonta’s office asserted in court papers that the original ruling should stand because the other recent rulings did not directly apply and because the Chino policy “discriminated against transgender and gender nonconforming students by forcing school personnel to ‘out’ those students to their parents, even if their parents have not asked for such notification; even when disclosure would result in physical, emotional, or psychological abuse; and even when less harmful alternatives … were available.”

SACRAMENTO — A billionaire-funded political group gave a $5-million donation to the campaign opposing California’s proposed wealth tax, the first of many expected in the expensive fight over a ballot question dividing the state.

If approved by voters, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who were residing in the state at the start of this year to pay primarily for healthcare.

The ballot measure has splintered California Democrats and their allies, who are at odds over which public services would receive a portion of the revenue and Proposition 40’s long-term impact on the state budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and groups including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn. oppose the tax, arguing it could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and in effect destabilize the state’s finances.

On Monday, nine Democratic state lawmakers announced their opposition to Proposition 40, writing in an open letter to voters that “while well-intentioned, this measure will blow a massive hole in our state budget in the years ahead and undermine our ability to sustain investments in the very priorities Prop 40 claims to support.” Its signers included Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and John Harabedian (D-Pasadena).

The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and progressive officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) support the tax, which is intended to raise roughly $100 billion over five years to backfill federal cuts to healthcare and other social safety net programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress.

To this point, Building a Better California — a group funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other members of the Silicon Valley elite — has focused on qualifying two ballot measures meant to defang the billionaire tax while maintaining a neutral position on Proposition 40 itself.

That changed over the weekend when the group of billionaires officially came out against the measure and reported the $5-million donation to the anti-Proposition 40 campaign backed by teachers and firefighters unions.

A handful of billionaires have pumped more than $156 million into Building a Better California, mostly from Brin, who has given more than $100 million to the group. It has also received more than $17 million from venture capitalist L. John Doerr, $12 million from Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen and $3 million from philanthropist and former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

In addition to opposing the wealth tax, Building a Better California announced support for Proposition 3, which would permanently extend an existing tax on certain high earners, along with two housing bonds.

The group has already spent more than $127 million on two competing ballot measures written to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax: Proposition 41 would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new taxes from being excluded from the state spending limit. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on assets such as as personal property, intellectual property and retirement accounts.

If Proposition 40 passes but either Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receive more votes, the billionaire tax would be voided.

“A few controversial billionaires like Sergey Brin would rather spend millions to fund shady opposition campaigns than simply pay their fair share in taxes so millions of their fellow Californians don’t lose their healthcare. That’s shameful,” said Debru Carthan, executive vice president of Service Employees International United-Healthcare Workers West, the union that collected the signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for Building a Better California, said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes.

“California’s future rests on both maintaining our economic competitiveness and making smart, accountable public investments that improve affordability and quality of life for all,” Lunardini wrote in a statement. “It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy.”

The $5-million donation is the largest reported by the Proposition 40 opposition campaign, which wrote in a statement that it “welcomes support from everyone — teachers, doctors, hospitals, community clinics, firefighters, housing advocates, blue-collar unions, entrepreneurs, small businesses, Democrats, and Republicans.”

The donation indicates that members of the opposition coalition — and not billionaires — will play a more visible role in campaign ads.

“Two groups in California that have the most credibility with voters are the teachers and the firefighters,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who has worked on past ballot measure campaigns. Making them visible messengers against Proposition 40 “is a very important credibility aspect for the No campaign.”

“Nobody likes political consultants or lawyers. They like firefighters and nurses and teachers,” Republican strategist Matt Rexroad agreed.

LINCOLN, Calif. — One thing Anne Smull, a retired feedstore owner, was looking forward to on election day was voting for the man who currently represents her in Congress, conservative Rep. Kevin Kiley. Now she can’t.

That’s because California Democrats sliced Kiley’s district six ways as payback for Republican redistricting in Texas and elsewhere. The chunk of the district that Smull, who identifies as a conservative, lives in is now grafted onto an overwhelmingly Democratic seat based in the state’s wine country.

During a recent lunch at a cafe in Lincoln, a onetime agricultural town that has morphed into a bedroom community on the edge of Sacramento’s exurban sprawl, Smull was heartbroken to hear she can no longer vote for Kiley.

“He believes in the same things I do,” Smull said. “It feels sneaky and underhanded.”

Republicans started the redistricting competition. Democrats might finish it

Democratic voters in several other states know how Smull feels.

President Trump last year told GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps before this year’s midterm elections to increase the number of winnable seats for Republicans in order to help the party hold on to the U.S. House. The effort was turbocharged by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the spring of this year that neutralized a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for Republicans to redraw more seats across the South that had elected Black Democrats.

Democratic-leaning and heavily minority communities from Texas to Tennessee have been split into multiple congressional districts that dilute the Democratic vote by stretching deep into conservative areas.

In the future, it is likely that more Republican voters in other states will go through what Smull and other conservatives in Northern California are facing. Democrats in Maryland, New York, Illinois and other strongholds have pledged to retaliate in time for the 2028 elections and split Republican-leaning districts the way their California counterparts did Kiley’s.

Democrats have been hindered nationally by stricter rules against partisan line-drawing in their states, but California showed a way around that. California Democrats won voter approval last year to redraw the state’s congressional map, originally made by an independent commission, and formed five new Democratic-leaning seats.

‘We have zero voice,’ says voter angry at the Democratic drive for a new political map

Kiley’s is one of them. The reworked political lines led the two-term congressman to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent in the slightly Democratic-leaning district that now includes his home.

He spoke out against partisan gerrymandering, even unsuccessfully trying to force the Republican-led House to allow a vote on a bill to ban mid-decade redistricting.

“We’ve seen partisan divisions really spin out of control in really harmful ways, and I think Exhibit No. 1 is the redistricting wars,” Kiley recently told a group of voters in the suburb of Citrus Heights.

Democrats contend Kiley’s party switch is purely a political trick to survive in a more liberal district. They note that he still caucuses with House Republicans and has voted for many of the GOP’s priorities, including Trump’s sweeping budget and tax cut bill last year, and that political organizations run by House Republicans are spending money to back his reelection.

Even some of Kiley’s supporters think the election was a factor in the congressman’s decision to become an independent.

“My original thinking was he did it because of redistricting — maybe it’d help him get reelected,” said John Coburn, a 68-year-old retired business owner, at the Citrus Heights event.

Coburn is furious at the Democrats’ redistricting and hopes Kiley wins. Coburn does not care that they did it in retaliation for Texas, where Republicans at Trump’s directive revised that state’s map to carve out up to five new winnable conservative seats.

“I don’t care about Texas, I live in California,” Coburn said, adding that “40% of the state is Republican, and we have zero voice. Zero. It’s not how our Founding Fathers intended.”

For Democrats in the district, a rare political opportunity

In an interview, Kiley said his switch to independent was no political gambit. If he wanted to stay in the House, he argued, he could have had an easier time staying in the GOP, moving to a more conservative district that included parts of his old one and running in a Republican primary there.

“I could have gone there and run and played the same game these other politicians are playing,” he said.

Kiley said that he is caucusing with Republicans to avoid losing his seats on committees and that in the next Congress he will try to change rules so independent members do not lose committee seats because they do not caucus with one of the two major parties.

Among his backers, he noted, is onetime Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, a former technology entrepreneur who co-founded a centrist party for independents.

The Democrat running against Kiley, former state Sen. Richard Pan, scoffs at his rival’s newfound independent status.

“He was a MAGA champion when he first ran for Congress, and now he’s trying to say ‘I’m not,’” Pan told a crowd at a senior community in Roseville, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

Earlier that day, Pan swung by the Placer County Democratic Party office, tucked away on the second story of a brick shopping arcade in Lincoln’s compact downtown.

Placer is a Republican county that stretches from the Sacramento suburbs to the northwestern shores of Lake Tahoe. The entire county is in Kiley’s current district, but it will be divided among three districts in the new map.

Kathleen Crawford, chair of the county Democratic Party, was enthusiastic about the county getting carved up.

“It’s worth it, because we have an opportunity to get Democratic representation, which has been missing from our county,” Crawford said. “I’ve been here 15 years, and this is my first real opportunity to elect a Democrat.”

A never-ending cycle that cuts out ‘the little people’

Lincoln’s downtown is flanked by fruit, vegetable and flower farms, as well as new subdivisions. The community and its neighboring suburbs have become a destination for people fleeing the San Francisco Bay Area’s housing prices. That has helped change the once solidly conservative area into a political battleground where skilled mapmakers can draw winnable seats for Democrats.

Ed Church, a 61-year-old risk manager, was eating lunch at Simple Pleasures cafe in Lincoln when he contemplated Kiley’s shift. A Democrat, Church has not been a Kiley fan and he was bemused by the congressman’s move.

“If that’s how he’d been initially and not so MAGA, I probably could have supported him,” Church said of Kiley’s independent status. Now Church, as a Lincoln resident, is in a purely Democratic district and will not have a say in Kiley’s fate in November. His main criteria in the election will be “who’s going to stand up to Trump?”

Across the street at a gun store, Wesley Johnson, 43, who considers himself a conservative independent, said he was dispirited by the state’s redistricting.

“I feel Northern California is not represented fairly,” Johnson said. “San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles control everything.”

He acknowledged Republicans were doing the same thing in states they controlled and said he did not know how it could stop.

“You’re just cutting out the little people,” Johnson said.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People look for love wherever their heart takes them, but for Assn. of Volleyball Professionals players Chaim Schalk and Toni Rodriguez, they didn’t have to look far to find it.

“I said ‘I love you’ first,” Schalk said.

The beach volleyball power couple is competing in the AVP Manhattan Beach Open this weekend, continuing to focus on the competitive volleyball circuit that first brought them together.

The couple met briefly while playing at various beach volleyball events, but they really got to know each other and clicked while spending three weeks together during tournaments in China, India and the Philippines. Schalk told Rodriguez he would take her out to dinner at her favorite restaurant, but there was a catch. Rodriguez had to win her upcoming tournament in order to go out with Schalk.

American Chaim Schalk digs the ball during a match against Cubans Nosien Diaz Amaro and Jorge Luis Alayo Moliner during the 2025 Beach Volleyball World Championships at on Nov. 20 in Adelaide, Australia.

(Mark Brake / Getty Images)

Rodriguez made Schalk live up to his promise. The couple went to their favorite fast-food joint, Cafe Rio, because it was something they bonded over during their overseas trip.

“She texted me, ‘Cafe Rio on you?’ after winning,” Schalk said. “And then she flew back [to California] the next day, and we went there.”

Rodriguez didn’t need any motivation to win gold to go out with her future fiancé, but it didn’t hurt. She said that Schalk keeps her level-headed when it comes to playing on the beach.

Schalk has played on the biggest beach volleyball stages. He represented Canada at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio. One of his proudest moments was defeating a Brazil team on its home soil.

Chaim Schalk and Ben Saxton of Canada play beach volleyball against Pedro Solberg and Evandro Goncalves Oliveira Junior of Brazil during the 2016 Olympics in Rio.

(Ezra Shaw / Getty Images)

“Beating Brazil in front of 15,000 fans is something that I’ll never forget,” Schalk said.

He called playing in the Olympics the pinnacle of any sport and making Team Canada has been the highlight of his career.

Schalk has had dual-citizenship since birth and has switched his affiliation to Team USA. He hopes to qualify for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles and play alongside Rodriguez. He is a two-time AVP League Champion and three-time winner on the AVP Tour.

His love for volleyball dates back to his time in Canada as a young boy playing with his brothers in their massive grassy backyard.

“I personally love volleyball. I love competing and love trying to win,” Schalk said.

Rodriguez grew up in St. Amant, La., and was focused on volleyball from a young age before playing the sport in high school and at Louisiana State.

American Toni Rodriguez plays a shot against Reika Murakami and Suzuka Hashimoto of Japan during a Volleyball World Beach Pro Tour match in 2022.

(Matt Roberts / Getty Images)

The LSU graduate wanted to play indoor volleyball in college, but she couldn’t because of injuries and instead joined the beach volleyball team.

“Once I got to the LSU beach team and started learning the game and actually playing, I just came to find a new love for the sport,” Rodriguez said. “Once I started playing, there were a lot of opportunities to leave Louisiana and potentially play professionally.”

After three seasons at LSU, Rodriguez moved to California to begin her beach volleyball career. Schalk also left Alberta, Canada, to focus on his beach volleyball career.

“I moved in 2013 to California to train full time and play beach volleyball full time,” Schalk said, who along with Rodriguez lives in Gardena. “I didn’t know I would be here for this long, so it’s definitely different. I love California, and I think it’s a beautiful place to live and we’re lucky to live close to L.A.”

Rodriguez has won two FIVB gold medals. In 2024, she was part of the the first AVP League championship team and joined Molly Shaw winning silver, bronze and gold medals during three consecutive Challenger events in three different countries during a three-week span.

Schalk and Rodriguez have great affection for a sport that took them around the world before they met each other. Schalk said competing in Switzerland near the Swiss Alps was special.

“I have been there about eight times, but that place, for me, is my favorite place I’ve ever played at,” Schalk said.

While they chase AVP and Olympic wins, the couple also are planning a wedding after Schalk surprised Rodriguez with a bold question early in their relationship.

After only officially dating for two days following Rodriguez’s tournament, Schalk invited Rodriguez to Kauai, Hawaii, in January.

Rodriguez had a hunch he might propose because they had formed such a tight bond during their overseas trip.

They went on a hike with Schalk’s brother and kids to a spot with a beautiful jungle view and large swing.

Schalk’s family set up the proposal spot while everyone was walking to the site. Once they arrived, Schalk turned to Rodriguez, got down on one knee and asked her to marry him.

“I blacked out. It was perfect,” Rodriguez recalled.

The couple is set to get married this fall in El Segundo.

It took decades for John Chiang to hustle into the top ranks of California politics, and he relished all the schmoozing along the way.

On Lunar New Year, Chiang turned up at a firecracker party in Westminster. Weeks later, he woke early for a cattlemen’s breakfast in Sacramento. When the Fresno Rotary Club sought a luncheon speaker, Chiang made time.

His nonstop networking has paid dividends. He won five elections in a rout, most recently in 2014 for state treasurer.

Yet to many Californians, Chiang is just a vaguely familiar name, often mispronounced. (It’s Chung, not Chang.) It shows up on ballots, somewhere near the middle.

But now that he’s running for governor, Chiang is competing on a much bigger stage. Voters pay close attention to the top of the ticket, appraising character and personality.

For the first time in his career, the way that Chiang’s reserved, low-key demeanor comes off on television will matter — all the more so in a race against fellow Democrats Antonio Villaraigosa and Gavin Newsom, two of the state’s most charismatic politicians.

A strait-laced finance man, Chiang, 55, dismissed the former mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco as “stylish” — more showhorse than workhorse.

Chiang, who lives in a condo around the corner from a South Bay mall, wears baggy suits from Nordstrom Rack. He called himself “Torrance stylish,” then burst out laughing.

“I’m quite OK with being a season behind,” he said.

At a time of constant drama in the Trump White House, Chiang hopes that Californians will turn to a more ordinary style of leadership, as they did when they elected Gray Davis governor a generation ago.

His manner can come off as unpolished. Chiang, unlike his nimble opponents, can get mired in explaining the likes of “surplus money investment pools” — not surprising for a onetime high school mathlete who majored in finance and won election to California’s Board of Equalization on his way up to state controller and treasurer.

“He’s sort of an accidental politician,” said Michael Genest, who was state finance director under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Chiang has already banked nearly $9 million for the governor’s race, ensuring he’ll have plenty to spend on ads before the June 2018 primary.

For now, he is playing up his defiant streak. In 2008, when he was controller, he refused to obey Schwarzenegger’s order to cut the pay of state workers to minimum wage until lawmakers passed a budget.

State Treasurer John Chiang, holding the microphone, flaunts his off-key singing at a karaoke stop in Santa Ana with a group of young Democrats on June 23. (Video by Michael Finnegan / Los Angeles Times)

“I was the last person standing, and I said, ‘Gov. Schwarzenegger, you don’t do that to 200,000 good people,’ ” Chiang told union leaders at a labor gathering last month in Orange County.

In 2011, Chiang enraged legislators by docking their pay during another budget impasse, saying they’d breached a law that punishes them for late spending plans. He boasts that friends in the Legislature stopped talking to him.

“It made me the most unpopular person in Sacramento,” Chiang told a crowd in Anaheim.

Critics see a pattern of crass opportunism. “It’s all about what’s best for himself and what will generate headlines — not what’s best for the state,” said Matt David, a Republican strategist who was deputy chief of staff to Schwarzenegger.

The son of immigrants from Taiwan, Chiang grew up with three younger siblings in Palos Heights, Ill. His father was a plastics engineer, his mother a full-time parent.

They were the first Asian family to move into the mainly white upscale Chicago suburb in the 1960s, when Chiang was just starting grade school. He recalls rampant bigotry — taunts, fights, vandalism and “ugly racial epithets.” It left him feeling isolated but taught him empathy.

“The hurt goes deep,” he said. “It makes me who I am.”

At home, Chiang’s parents spoke mostly English, but also Taiwanese Hokkien, Mandarin and Japanese. Every few years, the family would visit relatives in Taiwan, which was under Japanese occupation when Chiang’s parents were children.

Chiang remembers his mother cooking delicious Chinese food for his school lunches. But to fit in, he begged her to switch to American sandwiches, preferably on Wonder bread.

“I was petrified bringing lunch to school,” Chiang said. “Everybody had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.”

At 12 years old, he was captivated by the Watergate hearings. “All I knew is the president lied, and he had secret tapes, and it was like, ‘Oooooh, the president has secret tapes.’ ”

He was stunned by the prominence of a Japanese American, Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, in the congressional investigation of President Nixon. It was a jarring counterpoint to the racism in his own neighborhood.

“You’re just trying to get dignity and respect, and you’re thinking, ‘Oh, how did that guy get to be a United States senator?’ ”

State Treasurer and Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Chiang attends the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum on June 1.

(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

Chiang graduated in 1984 from the University of South Florida in Tampa, then interned on Capitol Hill while earning a law degree at Georgetown University in Washington. He worked for one Democratic congressman from Illinois (Lane Evans) and two from California (Norman Mineta and Robert Matsui).

“I was always interested in public policy,” Chiang said. “I fell in love with it in Washington, D.C.”

In 1988, he moved to Los Angeles to work downtown at the Internal Revenue Service. He settled in Chatsworth. But the job — screening corporate pension plans — left him “emotionally barren,” Chiang said.

He quickly left the IRS to work on the campaign for Proposition 100, a measure to reward good drivers with lower car-insurance rates. Voters rejected it, but Chiang was hooked on campaign work.

For a decade, he bounced from one to the next: Gray Davis for controller, Kathleen Brown for treasurer, Mel Levine for U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate, Don Perata for controller, Brown again — this time for governor.

Chiang was an all-purpose operative, raising money, writing speeches and rounding up political support. He also took staff jobs for Davis at the controller’s office and for Boxer at her Senate office in L.A.

“He’s incredibly competent, he’s very smart and he’s very likable — kind of rare in the business,” said Marc Litchman, who in the ’80s and ’90s raised money with Chiang for Westside and San Fernando Valley candidates.

“A lot of people fold under the pressure of all that rejection or people dodging you, and John, he took it in stride,” he said.

Chiang’s genuine fondness for political events — nights, weekends, no matter — was striking to Bob Blumenfield, a longtime friend now on the L.A. City Council.

“It’s almost frightening how much of his life he’s given to being everywhere,” Blumenfield said.

Following Chiang’s path was his more outgoing younger sister, Joyce. She, too, got a law degree at Georgetown University. After a stint at the congressional office of Democrat Howard Berman of the San Fernando Valley, she went to work as a lawyer at what was then the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Chiang saw a future for his sister in elected office.

But one evening in January 1999, she vanished on her way home to the apartment that she shared with their brother Roger in Washington’s Dupont Circle. She was 28 years old. A few months later, her body washed up on the Potomac River. Police ultimately concluded the cause was homicide, but no killer was caught.

“She was the person I was closest to in the world, so her loss is devastating,” Chiang said, his voice cracking.

Trouble struck the family again in 2005, when Roger Chiang admitted to embezzling more than $360,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, where he worked as outreach director. He served a year in prison.

State Treasurer John Chiang has described himself on the campaign trail as a “tough, strong fiscal watchdog.”

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

John Chiang, who has no children, is separated from his wife of 10 years. In his scant spare time, he likes to visit his six godchildren, play poker or watch sports or “Game of Thrones” with friends.

When he campaigns, Chiang describes himself as a “tough, strong fiscal watchdog.” He takes credit for uncovering $9.5 billion in waste, fraud and abuse in state and local government spending.

“It’s not just about the numbers, it’s about values — where you put the money,” Chiang told a dozen young Democrats eating taquitos and sipping margaritas at a karaoke stop in Santa Ana. “That’s why I’m tough with the buck — because it helps you reduce student debt.”

When the karaoke started, he stepped on stage and gamely launched into a rendition of the Eagles’ “Hotel California,” exposing his off-key singing. He tried to mute it by passing the microphone to others on stage.

Trump presidency eases Gavin Newsom’s path in his second run for California governor »

Chiang likes to engage crowds by asking each person to share a dream before posing a question, a request that befuddles many.

“My dream is to eliminate German cockroaches,” one woman declared to a roar of laughter at a Disneyland pest-control conference where Chiang was the featured speaker.

Eventually, Chiang will market himself in 30-second television commercials to give Californians a better sense of who he is. For now, he’s mostly dashing from one event to another — an Israeli Consulate reception, an Encino Chamber of Commerce lunch, a gala for FilipinoAmerican lawyers. That approach got him this far, and he’s sticking to it.

About this story: This is one in a series of articles about the candidates vying to succeed Jerry Brown as governor of California in the 2018 election. Learn more about them at latimes.com/CA2018.

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

@finneganLAT

ALSO

Can California’s fractured GOP get it together to nominate a candidate for governor?

What’s Delaine Eastin thinking? The long-shot candidate for governor explains

Sign up for the free politics newsletter

Updates on California politics

Health officials in California are defending the traditional childhood vaccination schedule against efforts by the Trump administration to weaken it.

The longstanding childhood vaccine schedule is safe, California’s top health official said, and continues to be recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics — the nation’s leading group for pediatricians — as well as the other states in the West Coast Health Alliance: Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.

“They’re safe. They’re important for kids to be thriving and healthy in schools,” Dr. Erica Pan, director of the California Department of Public Health and the state public health officer, said of vaccines. And she credited California’s robust vaccine requirements as a condition of enrollment for schoolchildren as a reason why the state so far has kept a lid on the huge outbreaks of measles seen in other parts of the nation.

Her full-throated defense comes after President Trump issued an executive order Monday recommending that the singular measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine should be separated into three and that all childhood immunizations should be given at separate visits “to the maximum extent feasible.”

“We want it in three separate vaccinations, given at separate times,” he said during the signing ceremony. “Together, there could be a possibility they’re quite lethal. And separately it looks like they are not at all lethal, but just very effective.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics blasted the order as “unscientific and dangerous,” and criticized comments made by administration officials suggesting a link between autism and vaccines — a claim that has been discredited by many studies.

“Dozens of studies involving millions of people show there is no link between vaccines and autism, and yet federal leaders continue to promote this outdated, disproven idea to scare families,” said the academy’s president, Dr. Andrew Racine.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has been equally unequivocal.

“The MMR vaccine does not cause autism,” the group says on an online fact page, adding that the measles vaccine prevents thousands of deaths a year worldwide.

Pan said Trump’s executive order does not change vaccine requirements for schoolchildren in California. And insurance companies continue to cover vaccinations for schoolchildren.

When Trump was asked whether there was any evidence for his claims regarding the MMR vaccine, he answered: “No. What I’ve heard is that there are some people that say it is that way, and I say, ‘Well, let’s say there’s a 5% chance of it. Let’s split it up.’ ”

There is no evidence to back up those assertions, medical organizations and mainstream experts say. The first version of the combination MMR shot was approved in 1971, and versions of it have been given to hundreds of millions of children safely over several generations, with more than 90% of children receiving the shot nationally, experts say.

Combining protection against the three diseases has been considered a miracle of modern medicine. Before the vaccine era, hundreds of children a year in the U.S. were either killed by measles or suffered swelling of the brain as a result of the disease. Tens of thousands were also hospitalized each year.

Mumps can cause deafness and inflame the brain, pancreas, testicles, ovaries and breast tissue. And rubella risks causing severe birth defects in pregnant women.

“There is no data supporting doing this in separate shots,” Pan said. “And, in fact, it will take more visits and more pokes in the arm, literally, for children to do this.”

With vaccination rates declining in many parts of the country, measles has resurged in the U.S. in the past two years, resulting in the first child deaths from the disease in 22 years, as well as hundreds of pediatric hospitalizations.

So far this year, there have been 2,566 cases of measles nationwide, which is already more than the 2,289 reported in all of 2025, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most recent case count is also higher than any calendar year since 1991 — the final year of the nation’s last measles epidemic.

Beyond scheduling difficulties for parents, clinics and doctors’ offices, no company even makes separate immunizations for measles, mumps and rubella, Pan said. “There’s no scientific basis for it. There’s no current availability to do that.”

Trump’s executive order further recommends that children should get vaccinated against 11 diseases, a reduction from the 18 currently recommended by the CDC. The order also suggested that his administration would challenge certain states’ laws that require vaccination as a condition of entry into schools.

California in 2015 enacted a law that strengthened vaccine requirements for schoolchildren. The law ended the ability of parents to cite personal beliefs in seeking to exempt their children from certain vaccinations.

Children can still be exempted and attend school in California if they have a medical reason. And California law does allow parents to skip immunizations for children who are enrolled in independent study programs and do not receive classroom-based instruction.

California’s law was passed following a large measles outbreak centered at Disneyland that resulted in 131 cases in California alone, and spread to six other states, as well as Canada and Mexico. At least 12 of those infected in California were infants too young to be vaccinated.

After the law passed, California saw its measles vaccination rates improve. In 2013, the vaccination rate among California kindergartners hit a low of 92.3%, below the 95% threshold doctors say is needed to keep a lid on outbreaks. Since the law took effect, that rate has ranged between 95.1% and 97.3%.

The most recent figure was 96.1% for the 2024-25 school year.

States that have suffered large measles outbreaks have poorer vaccination rates. South Carolina, for instance, has been home to an outbreak linked to about 1,000 cases — considered one of the largest in the U.S. in more than 30 years. That state’s most recent kindergarten measles vaccination rate was 91.2%, well below the optimal 95% threshold.

There are five immunizations required as a condition of entry into kindergarten in California: polio; DTaP, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis; hepatitis B; MMR; and varicella, or chickenpox.

California’s most severe measles epidemic in recent memory occurred between 1988 and 1990 — an era before health officials recommended children receive a second dose of the measles vaccine. That epidemic led to 75 deaths in California and more than 3,000 hospital admissions. A major problem officials identified at that time was that poor parents could not afford vaccinations for their children. One of the nation’s largest outbreaks in 1989 involved mostly preschool-aged children in Los Angeles.

There was also a national measles epidemic between 1989 and 1991, which, according to a study published by the CDC, led to 166 suspected measles deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations.

Recommendations to give children a second dose of the vaccine, and the introduction of the federal Vaccines for Children program in the 1990s to help parents pay for immunizations, were credited with driving measles circulation down to historic lows.

Doctors say that it has been striking to see the U.S. go from a place where ongoing domestic measles transmission was effectively eliminated in 2000 to being on the precipice of the disease regaining a foothold.

“We’re seeing in this country cases, hospitalizations and deaths higher than we’ve seen in over 30 years,” Pan said. “We did such a great job — we eliminated measles by the year 2000, and now we’re going backward.”

California voters are sharply divided over a ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal already triggering a fierce and expensive political fight as the November election approaches, according to a poll released Friday.

More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.

The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.

Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.

“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”

The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.

Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.

Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.

The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.

Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.

The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.

Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.

“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”

Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.

“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

California regulators have approved the sale of Cox Communications to cable giant Charter Communications — the final hurdle in a marathon review to clear the $34.5-billion cable consolidation.

With Thursday’s sign-off by the California Public Utilities Commission, the mammoth merger is expected to close next week.

The deal will make Charter’s Spectrum the dominant broadband internet and cable television service in Southern California, with millions of customers scattered throughout Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Palos Verdes Estates, Newport Beach, Irvine, Riverside and San Diego.

Charter’s acquisition of Cox, unveiled 15 months ago, will solidify Charter’s status as the nation’s largest cable company, eclipsing Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp., which serves San Francisco and other Northern California communities.

“This transformative deal will benefit millions of consumers who will soon have access to greater value and opportunities to save, including our fully converged mobile-broadband bundle savings guarantee, combined with our industry-leading Customer Commitment and the 100% U.S.-based sales and service employees Spectrum is known for,” Charter said in a statement.

After weeks of behind-the-scenes wrangling, the CPUC voted unanimously to approve two settlement agreements with Charter that allow the merger to move forward. The agency attached conditions that it hopes will protect consumers and expand broadband access.

“This decision secures significant commitments that will benefit Californians through expanded affordable broadband options, major infrastructure investments, improved customer protections, and meaningful support for digital inclusion,” Commissioner Matthew Baker, who helped negotiate the agreements, said in a statement.

Federal regulators approved the deal months ago, as had other state regulators.

“This proceeding was a heavy lift for everyone,” Commissioner Darcie L. Houck acknowledged during Thursday’s hearing, which was held in San Francisco.

Through the settlements, Houck said she hoped Charter would address a disparity in which low-income residents are often stuck with higher phone and internet bills than residents in more affluent areas. Higher-income neighborhoods often benefit from increased competition as multiple providers jockey for business.

“There are many areas of the state that do have low-income communities that are paying higher costs for telecommunication services,” Houck said. “I’m hopeful that the provisions in this settlement agreement will help ensure more equity in pricing.”

Atlanta-based Cox has long been viewed as a lucrative prize. In addition to serving coastal communities in Southern California, it also has customers in growing population hubs such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson.

To win CPUC approval, the Stamford, Conn.-based cable giant agreed to offer more affordable packages for low-income residents, including several tiers of the California LifeLine service, for up to five years.

Advocates had pushed for a longer commitment.

Charter promised to invest $30 million in education and awareness initiatives in California, including community outreach and digital literacy training. In addition, Charter agreed to spend at least $275 million on upgrades to its equipment in its existing Spectrum service area — including completing a 1-gigabit service buildout — within three years.

The company also must provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for dozens of eligible community centers, including schools and libraries.

Spectrum will be required to provide automatic bill credits for customers for qualifying service outages that last at least two hours. And the company must honor eligible “price for life” service agreements held by some residential subscribers.

Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey has told investors that his firm was aiming to close the merger this month. Several commissioners noted the looming deadline as they opted for the settlement that Baker helped negotiate.

Regulators said the two companies generate more than $10 billion in revenue from their California customers. In addition to serving more than 5 million homes, they also provide telephone service to 1.5 million subscribers in the state.

California regulators have approved Charter’s $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Communications.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

After the deal closes, Cox customers will be switched to Spectrum service, most likely by mid-September. They should also get SportsNet LA — the Dodgers’ television channel — as part oftheir lineups.

For more than a decade, Cox has refused to carry the channel, owned by the Dodgers organization, due to its high license fee — leading to one of the television industry’s longest blackouts.

SACRAMENTO — Proposed legislation to protect animals from “Frankenstein”-like medical experimentation died in the state Senate on Thursday, and supporters blame election year politics for its demise.

Assembly Bill 1382 by Assemblymember Leticia Castillo (R-Home Gardens) would have banned the sale of genetically modified animals in California, such as glow-in-the-dark rabbits and horned “unicorn” horses.

While the business of cosmetically modified, futuristic-looking pets remains in its infancy, animal rights groups worry that eventually the creatures will be created, sold and later discarded in crowded municipal shelters.

Castillo’s bill passed unanimously in the Assembly earlier this year and sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee in June with bipartisan support.

On Thursday, the legislation died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The chair of that powerful committee is Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) whose sister, Clarissa Cervantes, is challenging Castillo in the Nov. 3 election.

Cervantes never brought up the bill during Thursday’s hearing, which effectively kills it. Cervantes’ office didn’t respond to requests about why the legislation died.

Judie Mancuso, the founder of Social Compassion in Legislation, the bill’s sponsor, called the outcome “ludicrous.”

“When you’ve worked in the Capitol as long as I have, you understand that good bills can become political assets or political liabilities during an election cycle,” said Mancuso.

Castillo pledged Thursday to continue her focus on animals and cosmetic genetic engineering.

“This bill was never about politics — it was about protecting animals from being turned into novelty products,” Castillo said in a statement. “I’m disappointed AB 1382 did not move forward, but I am not done fighting for these animals. The technology that makes ‘designer pets’ possible isn’t going away, and neither am I.”

A 2025 Wired article entitled “Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit” profiled a Texas company seeking to create gene-edited pets. Josie Zayner, the founder of the company, told the Times in July that she opposed Castillo’s bill.

Castillo, at a hearing earlier this year, said she understands the concept of gene-editing animals for health reasons, but doesn’t want to see the alterations for cosmetic reasons.

Glow-in-the dark fish were exempt from her bill, which proposed civil penalties of at least $5,000.

Though the Judicial Council of California, the policy-making body for the courts, reviewed the legislation and didn’t have any fiscal concerns about it, the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis warned of “potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system” to resolve any civil cases related to the bill.

“The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case,” the analysis stated.

The Democratic-controlled legislature uses appropriations committees to cull through hundreds of bills placed on what is referred to as the “suspense file.”

Officially, the suspense file is a tool for legislative leaders to evaluate costly bills by weighing them against one another and deciding what to advance to a vote by the Senate and Assembly. Unofficially, it’s used as a way for Democrats who control the Legislature to kill controversial bills out of the public eye.

California Democrats are making an aggressive push to unseat Castillo from the Assembly in the November election, Politico reported.

Castillo defeated Clarissa Cervantes in 2024 by nearly 600 votes to represent parts of Riverside County and San Bernardino County. Castillo lost to then-Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes in 2022.

After the bill was moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year, animal advocates reached out to state Senate Pro Tempore Monique Limón’s office to question the move.

“It’s my belief that there is some kind of political game going on,” Michelle Kelly, chief executive of the nonprofit welfare organization Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation, told the Times last month.

“Why would anyone not want to move forward with this bill?” Kelly said.

A representative for Limón declined to comment.

PlayOn Sports continues to expand its high school sports empire in California, winning the bidding for broadcast rights for state playoff games and state championships.

The 10-year deal was announced Thursday by the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports in the state.

Previously, Spectrum signed a 15-year contract for $8.1 million in 2011. The contract expired this summer, with the CIF receiving bids from several organizations.

The CIF will be receiving $165,000 from the NFHS Network in the first year of the agreement that has a 3% escalator each year. PlayOn Sports will pay $810,000 in the first year that also escalates 3% each year of the contract. The total will be $11.1 million.

PlayOn Sports has become a powerful force in the state, now owning MaxPreps, NFHS (National Federation of State High School Assns.) Network, GoFan.co and state playoff broadcast rights. The NFHS Network will be the exclusive content distribution partner. State football, basketball and girls volleyball will be put on linear television.

MaxPreps is the last one standing in California after SB Live (formerly Scorebook Live) stopped sponsoring the CIF following the 2024-25 season and laid off its full-time writers in California while turning to freelancers who get paid by their story clicks as part of a digital agreement with the owners of SI.com.

CIF media rights contract with PlayOn Sports and the NFHS Network.

(Los Angeles Times)

MaxPreps is a free site driven by individual schools uploading their rosters, scores and stats. It has started streaming games with the help of the NFHS Network. GoFan.co has been adopted by most schools as the way to buy digital tickets to games and charges a fee to those buying tickets.

What the new CIF contract means is more opportunities for the NFHS Network, an on-demand high school sports site that streams games for a fee in which fans can buy access to watch one game or pay a monthly or yearly fee for unlimited access. Sometimes the NFHS Network uses automatic cameras supplied to schools or were purchased by schools. Unlimited online access is $99.99 a year.

Nine of the 10 sections in the state leave it up to schools to decide regular-season broadcasts. The Southern Section is the one section that has its own media contract and requires schools to pay a fee for streaming and then returns compensation to the schools later.

For those who worry that PlayOn Sports has so much control it could easily raise prices and face little pushback, CIF Executive Director Ron Nocetti said, “Any deal we have with any company that involves cost [with schools], we always get to be part of that conversation.”

Given the resilience and diversity of our local mosquito population and our warming climate, Los Angeles doesn’t really have an easily defined mosquito season.

That was one of my biggest takeaways — and bummers — from my conversation with Chris Barker, an epidemiology professor at UC Davis who has studied mosquitoes for almost 30 years, including at his lab.

“I hate to say it, but there are mosquitoes year-round,” Barker said, “and in Southern California in particular, many of your mosquitoes are active year-round, and they don’t go through a reproductive pause, so they’re really just waiting on conditions to be right for biting and for development. In that sense, the warmer [weather], the better for the mosquitoes, and the worse it is for us.”

For this week’s edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I spoke to Barker about how hikers can best avoid nature’s rudest insect this summer. I wanted to understand what common misconceptions hikers have about mosquitoes, any behavioral changes we can make and what types of trails are most likely to have active mosquito populations. (Spoiler alert: It’s a lot of them.)

First, let’s quickly discuss the mosquitoes that you will find in Southern California, as Barker emphasized to me that we shouldn’t just imagine mosquitoes as one bloodthirsty monolith.

“There are many species of mosquitoes that exhibit a wide range of behaviors, and some species never bite people,” Barker said. “Knowing just a little bit of mosquito biology can help a hiker know when and” where to hike.

Types of mosquitoes found around L.A. hiking trails

In California, there are more than 50 species of mosquitoes, living from below sea level in the desert to above 10,000 feet in our mountains, according to the UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Thankfully, our local population is smaller than that and includes:

• Three mosquitoes in the Aedes genus: Often dubbed “ankle biters,” the black-and-white-striped female aedes mosquitoes bite during the day, often around the legs, often multiple times; the most prevalent in Southern California, Aedes aegypti, generally lives where people are, as it depends heavily on manmade water sources to lay its eggs; different species are vectors for different diseases, including Aedes aegypti, which can carry dengue fever.
• Six mosquitoes in the Culex genus: Adults are most active from dusk to dawn; they prefer to bite birds but will bite humans; otherwise, they will rest in cool, shaded dense vegetation; the Southern house mosquito in this genus can transmit West Nile.

Culex mosquitoes bite at dawn and dusk and tend to feed off birds. The Southern house mosquito in this genus can transmit West Nile.

(Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District)

• Anopheles franciscanus: Living in warm sunny pools with algae; not known to carry disease in California; peak biting during dusk and dawn; included in this list to make us all feel a little better, just in case you worry as much as your local outdoors journalist about mosquito-borne diseases.
• Ochlerotatus sierrensis: Also known as “western treehole mosquitoes,” these little jerks lay their eggs in tree holes, especially oaks, laurels and eucalyptus, and emerge in spring, ready to unapologetically ruin your backpacking trip; these mosquitoes will bite in the day and evening, but are especially active at dusk.
• Ochlerotatus washinoi: Also known as “woodland pond mosquitoes,” which makes them sound more charming than they are, these aggressive daytime biters are typically found in floodwater habitats in early spring; not known to carry disease in California.

A quick 101 on West Nile virus

Outside of an itchy bite or, in rare cases, a severe allergic reaction, the most significant health threat that mosquitoes pose to hikers around L.A. is West Nile virus.

West Nile virus is typically contracted by humans through the bite of an infected mosquito. Most people infected with the virus, an estimated 80%, never know it, because they don’t get sick. About 20% of those infected experience flu-like symptoms, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Less than 1% develop serious illnesses that affect the central nervous system and usually require hospitalization.

Similar to the lack of clarity around who develops long COVID, scientists have yet to identify why certain people develop serious neurological conditions from West Nile. Advanced age, especially in people 65 and older, is thought to play a role, given that with age, the body’s immune system is slower to respond to threats, according to the National Library of Medicine. Other risk factors are thought to include being male; having diabetes, heart disease or chronic kidney disease; or being immunocompromised, according to research.

In recent years, reported West Nile human cases have typically peaked in early September, according to data analyzed by the L.A. County Department of Public Health. This year, West Nile has been detected in traps and in dead birds across L.A., but especially in Cerritos and Long Beach, according to the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District.

Given all that we know now about our local mosquito population and risks, let’s discuss Barker’s tips and tricks for how hikers can best avoid getting bit.

How L.A. hikers can best avoid getting bitten by mosquitoes

People walk in and around the Arroyo Seco.

(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)

1. Consider what water source is near.

I personally love hiking along the Arroyo Seco or San Gabriel River, where it’s often shady and cooler than other parts of Angeles National Forest. Unfortunately, mosquitoes love those areas too.

Mosquitoes prefer standing water, but not permanent water, Barker said. For certain species, this could be a segment of the river where the water has stopped flowing, leaving a nice warm pool for mama mosquitoes to lay their eggs, or even a small puddle.

“When I go hiking … especially in the mountains, I always look in the rock homes next to the streams that have captured snow melt water as it recedes,” Barker said. “Those rock holes keep water through much of the summer, and if you look in those rock holes, you often see hundreds or thousands of mosquitoes in individual rock holes. They’re the immatures that are still developing and will come out and eventually bite people and other animals in the area.”

I was honestly happier before I knew that.

2. Consider the day’s forecast and its effect on mosquito behavior.

“Often these mosquitoes are biting from late afternoon into early evening — so all the times we love to be outdoors,” Barker said.

Like us, mosquitoes are most active when temperatures are warm but not extremely hot. “On our hot days in the summer, mosquitoes will wait until the late afternoon, evening or even morning periods to bite instead of the hottest part of the day,” Barker said.

That said, if there’s a light breeze or it is windy, you’re far less likely to get bitten, as mosquitoes are thought to only fly up to 1 to 1.5 mph.

Dunsmore Canyon in Glendale.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

3. Take extra precautions on morning and evening hikes.

Mosquitoes are often most active during these time periods — the ideal summer hiking time. As such, Barker advised hikers to wear baggy light-colored pants and hiking shirts, so that you will remain cool enough under the sun but your skin will be more protected.

You can also pre-spray your clothing with Permethrin, an insecticide that kills and repels mosquitoes.

An Aedes mosquito, commonly called an ankle biter, prefers humans over animals. While Aedes can carry dengue, they do not transmit West Nile virus.

(Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District)

4. Reapply mosquito repellent.

I generally set a timer for around 50 minutes when out hiking to remind myself to reapply sunscreen, but I rarely remember to reapply bug repellent.

“Most people do kind of a one-and-done application and happily go off and hike, and if you hike for hours, especially if you’re using repellent with either a lower DEET concentration or some other alternatives, you often have to reapply those at more frequent intervals,” Barker said.

Mosquitoes inside a storage container are tested after capture by public health workers for West Nile virus. This particular station is in Pacoima.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

DEET has long been found to be a highly effective mosquito repellent, but as I reported back in 2024, DEET has a perception problem. Unlike some repellents, it isn’t naturally occurring, which has caused some members of the public to take pause.

“They want something that’s natural. They forget that strychnine [and] ricin are all natural products,” said Walter S. Leal, a UC Davis distinguished professor in molecular and cellular biology, in a 2024 interview, referencing poisons derived from plants. “Being natural does not necessarily mean it is good, and being synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad.”

Additionally, people often incorrectly associate DEET with the banned insecticide DDT. “This is a big mistake,” Leal said. “There is no chemical similarity between the two.”

The view from a bench at a lookout point near the Saddle Peak Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

5. Try coastal hikes to avoid mosquitoes.

“Coastal environments sometimes have fewer mosquitoes,” Barker said. “In L.A., you have that strong temperature gradient as you move away from the ocean, and things get warmer in the inland areas. Cooler areas slow mosquito development, and you tend to have fewer mosquitoes right along the coast.”

This excludes areas near tidal marshes, like the Ballona and Los Cerritos wetlands, where certain mosquitoes can become “quite numerous” if not controlled by local vector agencies.

The Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve in Marina del Rey in 2023.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The coastal breeze also helps hikes along the ocean — like several routes you’ll find in the Santa Monica Mountains or Palos Verdes Peninsula — have fewer mosquitoes.

“And some of the coastal mosquitoes fly inland to find their blood meal hosts before they come back and lay eggs,” Barker said. “So right along the coast is not a bad place to be from a mosquito-biting perspective.”

Did somebody say Type-O Tuesday?

A Joshua Tree and rocks are lit up by the sunrise at Jumbo Rocks Campground in Joshua Tree National Park.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

6. If weather allows, hike in the desert to avoid mosquitoes.

“There is no real escape from mosquitoes, I would say, except possibly in the deserts in areas with less water,” Barker said. “That’s your best escape in California.”

If you head out to Joshua Tree, this generally means hiking before 10 a.m. and after 5 p.m., as you will otherwise almost certainly get overheated.

7. Be mindful when taking breaks.

It’s harder for mosquitoes to bite you when you’re moving or when there’s a breeze. Keep an eye out when taking breaks, as this will more likely be the time you get bitten. And often where we like to take breaks is where mosquitoes also like to rest.

A field sample of mosquitoes that could carry West Nile virus is seen at offices of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health in Hemet.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

“Mosquitoes do tend to rest in areas with vegetation or other vertical structures that protect them from harsh conditions like direct sunlight or strong winds,” Barker said. “The female mosquitoes also search for their blood meal hosts in those areas, which include us.

“Unfortunately for us,” Barker added, “they like a lot of the same areas we do.”

3 things to do

A group of hikers at a Just Trek event.

(Victor Martinez)

1. Celebrate community in Malibu
Just Trek, a local hiking community, will host its seven-year anniversary party at 9:30 a.m. Sunday in Malibu. The group will take a two-mile hike and then hang out at a local beach near a seafood restaurant. Donations appreciated. Register at partiful.com.

2. Behold native botany in L.A.
The L.A. Parks Foundation will host From Trail to Seed, a botany-focused nature walk, from 8 to 10 a.m. Saturday at the Fern Canyon Trail in Griffith Park. Botanist Terry Huang and park ecologist Ryan Kinzel will lead the group as they take a moderately challenging route through the park. $20 donation requested. Register at los-angeles-parks-foundation.givecloud.co.

3. Use your nature skills in Baldwin Hills
The Nature Nexus Institute needs volunteers from 8 to 11 a.m. Saturday for a habitat restoration event in the Baldwin Hills. Volunteers must wear long pants and closed-toe shoes. The work site will include traversing uneven terrain. Learn more at the institute’s Instagram page.

The must-read

Jackie the eagle.

(Friends of Big Bear Valley)

Jackie, arguably the world’s most famous bald eagle mama, died Monday morning after a mysterious illness that veterinarians at the Ojai Raptor Center worked hard to combat. She was 14. Jackie and her mate Shadow transformed into avian all-stars after Friends of Big Bear Valley installed live cameras of their nest. Millions of people across the world tuned in to witness the two eagles raise their young and live their lives in our local mountains. That included Anny Liu of Altadena, who started watching Jackie and Shadow and their little eaglets after losing her community to the Eaton fire in 2025. “Jackie and her family gave me hope and gave me giggles and smiles that I thought were lost with the fires,” Liu wrote to The Times via a reader callout. “My heart felt lighter when I watched her even to this day as we try to rebuild. Never in my life did I expect an eagle would help me so much emotionally and mentally.”

May we continue to allow ourselves to feel these deep connections with our animal neighbors, as it leads to us wanting to protect their homes and, in turn, protect our world.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

Do you want to help repair damage from the devastating fire that burned across Santa Rosa Island? The California Institute of Environmental Studies needs volunteers to help implement emergency fire recovery work on the island, including rolling erosion control wattles on steep slopes to better protect the Torrey Pine forest from erosion caused by winter rains. To learn more, you can email Destinee Rabelo, the center’s restoration ecologist field lead, by using the email linked in the organization’s Instagram post. Have fun out there!

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

SACRAMENTO — As the campaign for California governor heads into the general election, Democrat Xavier Becerra maintains a strong lead over Republican Steve Hilton, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Buoyed by the state’s liberal voting base, Becerra had support from 55% of likely voters surveyed — compared with Hilton’s 37%. The remaining 7% were undecided.

Like in a previous IGS poll conducted in late May, support for each candidate falls overwhelmingly along partisan lines: 88% of Democrats prefer Becerra and 91% of Republicans plan to back Hilton. No-party-preference voters also lean heavily toward Becerra, a former Biden administration Cabinet member, 58% to Hilton’s 30%.

The two will face off in the Nov. 3 general election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred from running again and considering a 2028 bid for president. Becerra, whose resume includes stints as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and state attorney general, is heavily favored to win the seat over Hilton, a former Fox News host who advised a prime minister in his native Britain.

“After the unsettled and chaotic primary, this is shaping up to be a fairly standard California general election, where Democrats enjoy a comfortable edge statewide,” said Eric Schickler, a political science professor and IGS co-director. “Hilton would need to make major inroads among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to make this a highly competitive race.”

According to the poll, majorities of voters across age, gender and racial categories prefer Becerra — with particularly strong support among women, younger voters and Black Californians.

Becerra emerged from the primary ahead of more progressive opponents, including billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and quickly earned the backing of their onetime supporters, said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

“These are people who say, ‘I identify as a progressive.’ ‘I identify as a democratic socialist.’ They’re overwhelmingly for Becerra, and it’s mainly because they really don’t think very much of the Republicans as a party. It’s not so much about Hilton himself,” DiCamillo said.

Regionally, the poll found voters in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, along with the Bay Area and Central Coast, prefer Becerra. Hilton leads in the state’s more sparsely populated and conservative-leaning areas, including the Central Valley and North Coast/Sierra region.

Politically purple Orange County and the economically stressed Inland Empire are more closely divided but lean toward Hilton.

When asked why they support each candidate, voters largely cited conventional partisan issues.

More than half of Hilton backers, 55%, pointed to his support for traditionally Republican policies such as cutting taxes and reducing government regulation. It was followed by 28% who said they prefer Hilton because he is not part of California’s political establishment.

Hilton’s platform includes making Californians’ first $150,000 in annual earnings tax-free, slashing government regulations and ramping up oil production in hopes of achieving $3-per-gallon gas prices.

“Those are the benefits, but the underlying mission that I’ve set [for] myself as the next governor is to transform our business climate to make California competitive again, so that we do get the investment and the job creation and start to turn things around. I think it’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction,” Hilton said Tuesday during a political conference in Sacramento.

Becerra supporters were evenly divided over their top reasons for supporting him; 38% cited his support for Democratic policies such as expanding healthcare and protecting LGBTQ+ rights, while another 38% expect him to aggressively fight the Trump administration.

The poll suggests that, in California, President Trump factors more heavily into Democratic voters’ political decisions than Republicans’.

“One of the reasons Becerra is doing so well is because of his opposition to Trump,” DiCamillo said. “For Hilton supporters, not so much. His endorsement by the president is only cited by 4% as a reason why they’re supporting Hilton.”

The former Health secretary has an extensive plan to lower healthcare costs and frequently touts the more than 120 lawsuits he filed as California attorney general against the first Trump administration. At the Tuesday political event hosted by Politico, Becerra said, “California will become the backstop for healthcare” after Trump signed a tax bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

To prevent an estimated 2 million people from losing their health insurance because of the cuts and rising premiums, Becerra pitched a deal directly to insurance companies: “I will ensure people stay covered. You ensure that you help me reduce the cost. I ensure that you get paid.”

Thirteen percent said they’re supporting Becerra because he is a Democrat and 7% said the same about Hilton’s Republican affiliation.

Just 4% of Latino respondents and 1% of the total sample of likely voters said they would vote for Becerra because he is a Latino candidate and a child of immigrants.

Each candidate saw a small bump in support since the May poll, which asked registered voters just before the primary election to pick between them in a then-hypothetical matchup. In that survey, 52% chose Becerra and 31% supported Hilton.

Just under half of voters, 49%, have a favorable opinion of Becerra while 43% have an unfavorable view. Hilton’s favorability rating is underwater, with 39% of likely voters viewing him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

The numbers present a challenge for Hilton, who is trying to overcome the state’s pronounced Democratic tilt by appealing to independent voters frustrated with issues such as homelessness and California’s high cost of living.

“That might, for him, be the swing block,” DiCamillo said. “But among no-party-preference voters, his image rating is negative, 59% to 31%, whereas Becerra’s image rating is pretty much the same as it is statewide, which is positive.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Aug. 3 to 9. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 2,310 respondents considered likely voters in the November election, out of a larger group of 4,207 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

Everyone knows the stars of Southern California’s driving landscape: Pacific Coast Highway, the cinematic connector of beach cities; Angeles Crest Highway, a stunning and winding mountain route; and “The Snake,” Mulholland Highway’s infamous roadway that reopened late last year.

A sign along California 33 near Ojai.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

But there’s a less-traveled route that feels just as quintessentially SoCal: California 33 to Hudson Ranch Road, passing through Ojai, Maricopa, New Cuyama and Frazier Park.

Parts of this road curl in on themselves into tight, technical twisties — catnip to car enthusiasts and motorcyclists. But this two-lane motorway also showcases the splendor and diversity of the rugged region, from the forested mountains and canyons in Ventura to the jagged rocks and chaparral of the desert vistas, making it appealing to thrill seekers and sightseers alike. While roadways like the 5 serve to get you from one point to another quickly and efficiently, this one begs you to relish the journey.

“A road like this forces your mind to focus on the immediate needs of car control, while rewarding it with the beauty of the natural world,” says Dave Coleman, a Mazda R&D engineer from Long Beach who incorporates Hudson Ranch Road into his drives to and from the Bay Area. “While driving, there just isn’t enough mental bandwidth left to worry about the stressful things in life.”

This route brings people together, including me and my car enthusiast friends, who regularly go on these driving excursions — gas prices be damned. “We drive these roads for the excitement and euphoria, just like people go to Disneyland,” says Matt Kometer, a SkyLink supervisor from San Pedro who drives a 2026 Mazda MX-5 Miata. And, unlike Disneyland or the traditional getaways that involve a hotel stay or a flight, these outings can be put together in a manner of hours.

I was a passenger on a recent Sunday pleasure cruise with a caravan of nine cars, which started in Ojai and ended at the base of Mount Pinos in the Los Padres National Forest. That’s 28 miles as the crow flies, but our route, with a detour for lunch in Cuyama, swelled the journey to more than 100 miles.

An 2026 Audi RS 3 heading to the lunch stop in Cuyama.

(Caroline Pardilla)

If you’re planning a trip of your own, a few things to note before you hit the road: Always check the road conditions, top up the tank because there’s only one gas station in Cuyama, download maps because cell service is spotty, and, if you’re caravanning with friends, it’s nice to bring walkie-talkies to stay in contact. The tunnel section of 33 in Wheeler Springs will be closed Aug. 28-31. Check the Caltrans website for updates.

Here’s a play-by-play of our day on the road.

10 a.m.: Breakfast at Pinyon on Ojai Avenue

Arriving from all corners of the L.A. Basin, the drivers meet up and fuel up at Pinyon Ojai, a pizza restaurant on Ojai Avenue. The shop serves single-origin coffee from Ventura’s Beacon Coffee and breakfast sandwiches featuring house-made bagels. Street-side seating affords prime car spotting, which today includes a right-hand-drive Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUV and an immaculate brown-on-tan Mercedes-Benz SL Pagoda two-seater. Those who time their trip for the second Sunday morning of every month can check out the cars and coffee event a few blocks away at Westridge Midtown Market.

In the restaurant, the friends catch up, chatting about the cars they drove here, the progress of their current car projects and the route for the day. There is an air of anticipation. For many in the group, it’s their first time driving this route. Miatas feature heavily in this crowd, but there are also high-performance rides, like a Porsche 911, a first-generation Audi R8 and an Audi RS 3.

Traveling the canyon on the two-lane highway through Wheeler Springs and Wheeler Gorge is beautiful but slow going, past houses and campgrounds as well as high rock walls that threaten to rain down scree. Three narrow, dark tunnels along the way throttle speeds because of the sudden contrasts from broad daylight. Highway 33, at a modest 3.5% grade, meanders over and along creeks that are invisible from the road but marked by riparian vegetation.

Drivers gather around their cars while stopping along State Route 33.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

After the road opens up, the drivers make short work of the curves while maintaining a respectful distance from one another. Occasionally, a leisure driver bunches up the group until they pull over at the next turnout to let the faster drivers pass. The series of switchbacks with hairpin turns offer a satisfying run up to Pine Mountain Summit. “That’s some world-class sports car fun there,” says Alex Vendler, a cinematographer from Glendale who drove up in a 2003 Miata. The 5,160-foot-high summit allows us to catch our breath and take in the views of the San Rafael Mountains in the west.

Chris Floren of Torrance poses in front of his “Viccup,” a 1960s truck draped over a Ford Crown Victoria.

(Caroline Pardilla)

1 p.m.: A break and more car talk at roadside motel Cuyama Buckhorn

The Buckhorn Restaurant at Cuyama Buckhorn, a midcentury roadside hotel refurbished in 2018, serves as the perfect respite. It’s about 10 miles off our route but is an air-conditioned oasis of burgers, pie a la mode and endless ice water.

If there’s a downside to stopping in the “hidden valley of enchantment,” it’s the distinct lack of shaded parking. But at least there are plenty of spots in front of the hotel. Through the diner’s large front-facing windows, we watched a cowboy mosey past on his horse, checking out the variety of vehicles.

A group of friends has lunch at the Buckhorn Restaurant at Cuyama Buckhorn.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Even though there are 12 of us walk-ins, the hostess immediately pushes several tables together to accommodate the group. The dynamics of this long table invite several different conversations to break out — all about cars. “I have a Miata, and I want a Miata,” says Vendler. Apparently, his tablemate William Benedict, a software engineer from West Hollywood who drove the R8, was skeptical about all the love for the Mazda roadster. Elsewhere, motorsports manager Chris Floren of Torrance is getting props for the surprising prowess of his sleeper “Viccup” — a Ford Crown Victoria police car with a ’60s-era pickup body draped over it. Another group discusses how “One Battle After Another” features the most Nissan Sentra SE-R content of any movie.

After last-minute gulps of water, everyone filters back into the heat of the desert and hurries to air out the cars’ ovenlike cabins. There is a mini photo shoot with Floren’s truck in front of the vintage hotel sign, and then we jump in the cars and backtrack up the 33/166 toward Hudson Ranch Road.

The Hudson Ranch Road is more fun in a Mitsubishi Evo IX.

(Caroline Pardilla)

3:30 p.m.: A ‘roller coaster’ of a road and a reunion in Pine Mountain Club

Unlike Maricopa Highway 33, Hudson Ranch Road features coarser asphalt, no guardrails and more passing zones than turnouts. Kometer said it should be a tarmac rally stage while professional stunt driver and Long Beach local Sarah Fairfield, who piloted the second ’26 MX-5 on this trip, equated it to a roller coaster. The road was originally built in the ’30s to accommodate traffic heading to the ski resort, which closed in the ’70s. Now, the group deems it the highlight of the day. “It let me enjoy the act of driving without having to go too fast,” says Karl Buchka, an aerospace engineer from El Segundo who drove up in the 911.

Although the friends were separated on this leg, having each taken the route at their own pace, they reunite at Pine Mountain General Store in Pine Mountain Club. The Village Center convenience store beckons with shaded parking and a freezer full of frozen treats. Between bites of a chocolate ice cream bar, Coleman proposes continuing on toward Santa Clarita, via the twisties on Bouquet Canyon and Spunky Canyon roads. With competing commitments, however, most of the drivers reluctantly bow out.

A look back at the caravan on the 166/33, heading toward Hudson Ranch Road.

(Caroline Pardilla)

In any case, the daylong cruise served its purpose of resetting the week and reconnecting the friends. “A lot of what this hobby or lifestyle or whatever is about is ultimately an excuse to spend time with friends, and to make new ones,” says Jason Kavanagh, a turbopump engineer from Mid-City who brought a Mitsubishi Evo IX to the outing. “So, yeah, the road is a means to that end.”

The drivers at Pine Mountain Club Village. From left, Matt Kometer, William Benedict, Alex Vendler, Dave Coleman, Sarah Fairfield, Jason Kavanagh, Chris Floren and Derek Dicker.

(Caroline Pardilla)

Reporting from Sacramento — A Bay Area lawmaker wants to knock down what he believes is a key barrier to California meeting its ambitious climate change goals: one of the state’s most prominent environmental laws.

Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-Concord) has introduced legislation that aims to make it harder for lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to stop construction of roads and public transit.

CEQA requires developers and public agencies to disclose a project’s environmental effects and take steps to reduce or eliminate them. But Grayson says the law can grind to a halt transportation projects that are needed to reduce the amount of cars on the road.

His legislation, Assembly Bill 1905, would make it easier for road or transit projects included in a state-approved regional growth plan to begin construction before any CEQA litigation is resolved.

Since state climate regulators will have already signed off on those road and transit projects when approving a region’s growth plan, the projects shouldn’t face multiple threats of environmental litigation, Grayson argues.

“What I’m looking at is how do we cut down on traffic congestion where we’re just spilling greenhouse gases, creating clouds of greenhouse gases and impacting the environment negatively,” Grayson said.

But Grayson’s approach is already attracting concerns from high-profile environmental organizations. Environmental groups often credit CEQA, which took effect in 1970, with preserving California’s natural beauty, and argue it is complementary — not contrary — to the more recent climate change laws.

A court should rule in a CEQA lawsuit before construction starts, said Kyle Jones, a policy advocate for Sierra Club California.

“It just seems prudent that you’ve gotten all your legal barriers out of the way,” Jones said.

California has many laws that force private developers and public agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their housing, commercial, industrial and transportation plans and projects.

In 2008, the state Legislature began requiring regional governments, including the Southern California Assn. of Governments, to draw up plans to accommodate population growth and reduce greenhouse gases with proposals for new housing and transportation primarily in already developed areas. The goal is to reduce sprawl and emissions from long commutes. Regional governments are now revising their plans to comply with the state’s new aggressive targets to cut carbon emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030.

But actual growth doesn’t have to follow the plans, and individual projects can stall for many reasons, including environmental litigation. Under Grayson’s bill, however, any road, transit or other transportation project included in an approved regional climate plan would receive relief in potential CEQA lawsuits.

Currently, a court can stop construction on a project if the judge finds its required CEQA analysis failed to account for all effects on the environment. Under Grayson’s bill, a court could do so only if the project was found to have serious life or safety risks.

State lawmakers have approved this legal standard before to speed the development of a new Sacramento Kings basketball arena. Those rules weren’t tested in a lawsuit against the arena. But state and local officials have said the legal standard allowed construction to go forward without fear of litigation tying up the project and potentially costing the city the team.

In Los Angeles, Grayson’s bill could affect large road and transit projects including a Metro Gold Line extension into eastern Los Angeles County and tunnels through the Sepulveda Pass.

But Sierra Club California and the Natural Resources Defense Council are among the environmental organizations that believe the bill goes too far. State climate regulators don’t heavily scrutinize individual projects when approving regional growth plans, representatives of both groups said.

For instance, a judge might find that a transportation project’s environmental review didn’t account for all the effects the development could have on air quality, but under AB 1905 that judge couldn’t stop the project because of it, said David Pettit, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Without the threat of halting construction, agencies won’t need to take seriously any subsequent demands to improve the air surrounding the project, he said.

AB 1905 “may look good on its face, but it’s fantastically unrealistic when you look at the effects of when concrete is already in the ground,” Pettit said.

Grayson said the inspiration for his bill came from the California Transportation Commission, a state agency that advises Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature on transportation policy and spending. In its most recent annual report, the commission recommended an idea similar to Grayson’s bill as a way to speed up project construction.

The recently passed gas tax and other fee increases are expected to bring in more than $5 billion annually for road repairs and mass transit upgrades. Grayson said it’s important to spend that money quickly, and making it easier to defend against CEQA lawsuits is one way to do it.

“If we’re ever going to make a huge impact it is going to be now with the amount of revenue at our disposal,” he said.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

Which California megaprojects get breaks from complying with environmental law? Sometimes, it depends on the project

Lawmakers have put a lot of energy into getting new stadiums built — without much success

California lawmakers pitch a break from a key environmental law to help L.A. Olympic bid, Clippers arena

Updates on California politics

In a push toward returning Anaheim to the name of his hometown Angels, Assemblyman Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) last March introduced what he called the “Home Run for Anaheim Act.”

Five months later, the bill has cleared both houses of the state legislature without a single vote against it. Gov. Gavin Newsom has two months to sign the bill into law, barring a veto that would be surprising because of the lack of opposition.

The bill does not mandate the Angels — playing under a Los Angeles name in Anaheim’s city-owned stadium — revert to the Anaheim Angels name.

However, at a time teams in all sports seek to boost profits by surrounding venues with shops, restaurants, hotels, and other attractions, the bill provides Anaheim with an inducement for the Angels: If the city obtains an exemption from a state law requiring affordable housing to be prioritized in any such development — potentially maximizing revenue for the team — then the team must be called the Anaheim Angels.

Angels owner Arte Moreno has twice reached deals with the city to develop the land, only to see the city walk away both times. In the last deal, he rejected the city’s request to rename the team the Anaheim Angels.

Moreno has shown no public interest in a third negotiation with the city, and the Angels’ current stadium lease extends through 2032, with the team having options to extend the lease through 2038.

By year’s end, the city has said it anticipates the release of a long-awaited property assessment, which is expected to show Angel Stadium needs hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades to remain viable for the long-term. The city and team may not agree on who should pay for them, and real estate development around the stadium could be part of the solution for funding a new or renovated stadium.

Moreno turns 80 this week. Should he decide to sell the Angels, the city could use the exemption as leverage in discussions with a new owner. Any new owner could have leverage of his own: Once the Angel Stadium lease expires, the owner would be free to move out of Anaheim.

The bill required five votes between the Assembly and Senate. The final vote came on Monday on a consent calendar, the place for matters considered so routine that no legislator even wishes to discuss them.

Paramount CEO David Ellison may pull his operations out of California if the state does not end its attempt to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros Discovery and agree to settlement talks as soon as October.

The rumours were first reported by the publication Variety on Tuesday. They signal Ellison may be willing to leverage economic pressure on California’s ailing film industry in order to push through the merger.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently confirm the validity of the report.

In July, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he was leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit to block the consolidation.

Should Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery combine, Bonta warned that the resulting company would control 27 percent of theatrically released films in the United States and a third of the country’s basic-cable output.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices,” Bonta said. “It also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

But Variety reported that Ellison told Paramount’s senior executives that he would begin the process of moving the company out of California on October 1 if Bonta does not agree to settlement talks.

There could be downstream effects as well. The report also alleged that Ellison would pull Warner Bros Discovery out of California, too, if the $110bn merger goes through.

Variety indicated that Paramount is considering relocating to the US states of Tennessee, Texas or Georgia — none of which are involved in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit.

A growing enterprise

The dispute over Warner Bros Discovery’s fate stretches back to late 2025, when the company’s sale was first announced.

Critics quickly observed that the sale had the potential to shift the balance of power in Hollywood, with Warner Bros Discovery wielding influential properties including the news channel CNN, the production company New Line Cinema and the television-streaming service HBO.

The streaming giant Netflix initially emerged as a frontrunner to take over Warner Bros Discovery, but by February, Paramount succeeded in inking an agreement.

It was the second major merger Paramount had lined up in less than a year. In 2025, it had also succeeded in consolidating with the media production company Skydance, in a deal that generated scrutiny about the editorial independence of its subsidiaries.

Paramount’s decisions that year to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and enter into a $16m settlement with US President Donald Trump were widely perceived as efforts to curry government favour for the merger.

Paramount is considered a titan in US filmmaking and media production, as one of the oldest studios in the country. Its portfolio includes CBS News and Paramount Pictures.

A pair of lawsuits

The impending merger with Warner Bros Discovery has led to a fresh round of scrutiny for Ellison and the Paramount leadership.

Last week, Ellison addressed some of those concerns in an opinion column in The New York Times.

In it, he questioned whether the states’ antitrust lawsuit was “really about market share”, speculating that it was instead about control over major news outlets like CNN. He also sought to portray himself as politically independent.

“I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison wrote.

“When it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views.”

But the states have argued that combining Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount would create a monopoly, stifling competition.

If the merger succeeds, the states say that only four distributors would control 86 percent of the country’s films.

The merger could also mean job losses. As of the end of 2025, the headcount at Paramount stood at 17,600, while Warner Bros Discovery had 35,500 employees.

A day after the 12 states filed their lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) followed suit.

In its July 14 complaint, the guild argued that the merger would mean fewer jobs and more pressure on writers to accept less favourable working terms, owing to reduced competition in the media market.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA complaint said.

In Los Angeles County alone, the merger could result in a loss of nearly 2,500 jobs, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity, published in June.

As many as 6,000 employees around the world could also see their positions cut.

By comparison, when the Paramount and Skydance merger was completed in 2025, the company laid off roughly 2,000 people.

Costly standoff

On July 24, Paramount Skydance agreed to pause the merger until a ruling in the states’ case is ultimately made or until June 1, 2027 — a move the WGA celebrated.

“It remains our view that this merger is unlawful, and we will continue the fight to block it,” WGA said at the time.

The WGA did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Slowing the merger could be costly for Paramount Skydance. Under the terms of the merger, the company would have to pay a so-called ticking fee of $7m per day, or $650m per quarter, if the deal does not close by September 30.

But the standoff with Ellison could also be costly for California, which is experiencing a downturn in the number of productions filmed in the state. New York, another state involved in the lawsuit, could see a backlash, as it houses studios for CBS News and Paramount’s executive offices.

Representatives for the state of California and Paramount Skydance did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Paramount Skydance’s stock is trending upward on the heels of Tuesday’s report. The stock was up 0.4 percent in midday trading, while Warner Bros Discovery was up 1.1 percent.