california

A controversial wealth tax won backing from the California Democratic Party on Sunday, the latest episode in the measure roiling the left and its allies.

The party’s executive board voted Sunday to endorse Proposition 40, which, if approved by voters this November, would impose a 5% one-time tax on billionaires’ assets to pay for healthcare.

The measure has proved divisive. While it has support from progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), others including Gov. Gavin Newsom, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, and a growing list of labor unions have come out against it, arguing the one-time nature of the tax and billionaire flight could cause more harm than good to California’s state budget.

“This endorsement puts to rest the idea that California Democrats are not united by the billionaire tax — they are,” said Dave Regan, President of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the labor union that gathered enough signatures to put Proposition 40 on the ballot.

Regan cited an internal poll which found more than 80% of registered Democrats support the tax, “and now the Democratic Party of California has officially embraced that strong support through this endorsement.”

Public opinion polls have shown the measure with slim majority support. According to a May poll from the Public Policy Institute of California, 54% of likely voters and 76% of Democrats said they would vote for the tax.

Proposition 40 seeks to raise $100 billion over a five-year span to backfill cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year. Its supporters argue that the federal tax cuts benefit the wealthy at the expense of low-income people and that Proposition 40 would reverse the damage.

Its opponents, which include the California Teachers Assn. and tech founders spending millions to defeat the measure, argue it could destabilize the state budget — which already taxes wealthy earners at higher rates — by pushing billionaires to leave California for other states.

In a statement, the No on Prop. 40 campaign said Newsom, Becerra, and organizations including the California Professional Firefighters union and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California oppose the tax “because it’s bad for our budget, bad for our economy, and bad for our future. We need smart, durable solutions to our biggest challenges, not unreliable, untested schemes that shortchange healthcare, education, and public safety.”

Democratic executive board members endorsed the measure Sunday during a meeting in San Diego. The party also voted to oppose two competing ballot measures that seek to undercut the billionaire’s tax, along with a voter ID measure and a proposal to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act for housing and infrastructure projects.

Democrats voted to endorse two housing bonds — a $11.25-billion bond to build affordable housing and a $25-billion down payment assistance program — and an $8.4-billion immunology research bond.

The party is also supporting a measure to make permanent an existing tax on high-income earners which funds education and health care.

“Every endorsement we make is earned, not given,” California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks said in a statement. “California Democrats take a deliberative approach to our endorsement process that puts our values first and ensures our members have a meaningful voice in shaping the future of our state.”

July 31 (UPI) — Federal officials on Friday released an updated framework for the Colorado River, requiring Arizona, California and Nevada to significantly reduce their water use in the coming years.

The plan, released by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, reduces the water available for use by the three states by 3 million acre-feet in the coming decade.

One acre-foot is enough water for as many as four households to use for a whole year. The cuts represent the largest proposed cuts for those states to date

“The [report] contains a framework that includes sideboards that are unacceptable for the state of Arizona,” the Arizona Department of Water Resources said in a statement to The Colorado Sun. “Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.”

The Colorado River’s resources are divided among seven states, combined into two groups: Upper Basin states include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, while Lower Basin states are Arizona, California and Nevada.

Upper Basin states have a target for voluntary cuts of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year, or 5% of their annual water use.

The Colorado River provides water for some 40 million people.

Federal officials said drought conditions over the past 25 years have dwindled the water capacity available to the states that rely on the river.

“The department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”

For California businesses, 2020 will be a year of reckoning.

Sweeping new laws curbing longtime employment practices take effect, aimed at reducing economic inequality and giving workers more power in their jobs.

Under one, companies could be forced to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees with broad labor law protections. Under another, bosses could no longer force workers into closed-door arbitration proceedings, a tactic which protects businesses from costly lawsuits.

The new laws are about “job quality — what it means to work in a just workplace,” said California Labor Secretary Julie Su. “California leads the way on labor standards and we’re not going to let employers do end runs around those standards. We want to support businesses who look at their role in a holistic and humane sense.”

Many new measures, she added, are “not big splashy things, but day-to-day things.” She cited a law giving working mothers a place to express breast milk besides a bathroom. And a law making it easier for firefighters and other first responders to gain workers’ compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Other new statutes ban discrimination based on hairstyle, such as Afros, braids, cornrows and dreadlocks; grant organ donors additional guaranteed leave; and extend whistleblower protection to patient rights advocates at county mental health centers.

The California Chamber of Commerce, a leading voice for business, picked its fights. It did not list Assembly Bill 5, the independent contractor bill, on its annual “job killer” list, preferring to help negotiate for a slew of professionals, such as doctors and real estate agents, to gain exemptions.

“We felt it was important to participate in the compromise,” said Chamber President and Chief Executive Allan Zaremberg. “This is a work in progress, and it will continue to be.”

But the chamber, along with the National Retail Federation and other business groups, filed suit against Assembly Bill 51, the first-in-the-nation law preventing companies from making workers sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. And it helped defeat other bills favored by the Legislature’s labor-friendly majority, including one extending unemployment benefits to striking workers and another curbing the University of California’s ability to hire temporary workers.

“A lot of employers feel the rules are complex and tough to deal with,” Zaremberg said. “Our job is to make sure laws are reasonable and fair … and they can afford to stay in business. From that perspective, it has been a successful year.”

Here are a few of the changes coming to California workplaces in 2020:

Minimum wages

On Jan. 1, the statewide minimum wage steps up to $13 an hour for employers with more than 26 employees, and to $12 an hour for those with 26 or fewer employees. The increases are mandated by a 2016 law that gradually raises the floor to $15 an hour for nearly all workers by 2023.

Several local jurisdictions have higher minimums including the city and county of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Malibu and Pasadena, all of which will raise them on July 1 to $14.25 an hour for small employers and $15 an hour for large employers.

“People talk about prosperity and GDP growth, but that’s not enough,” Su said. “One in 3 California workers makes less than $15 an hour. That is not how we want to build an economy.”

Some 2.6 million Californians will be due a raise in January under the statewide floor, according to a UC Berkeley study. California will have the nation’s second-highest minimum next year after Washington state’s $13.50.

Meanwhile, several large businesses have already raised their floors to $15 an hour or more, including Costco, Spectrum, Amazon and Disneyland Resort.

Independent contractors

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court dropped a bomb on a vast swath of companies, from Uber and Lyft to yoga studios and hair salons, which have built their businesses on independent contractors. To classify workers as contractors rather than employees subject to minimum wage and overtime laws, companies would have to satisfy a strict three-pronged test.

Under the “ABC test,” a business may only contract with independent contractors who satisfy all three of these conditions: a) they are free from control and direction of the hiring entity; b) they perform work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and c) they are customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that of the work involved.

The court decision set off a scramble in the Legislature. Backed by labor unions that see an opportunity to organize newly empowered employees, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) authored AB 5 to codify the decision, expanding it to areas such as workers’ compensation and unemployment and disability insurance.

Even under a previous, looser standard, state officials estimated misclassification was costing California some $7 billion a year in payroll taxes. Companies also avoid paying federal Social Security and Medicare taxes for contractors.

“Structural reform was necessary because more and more companies want to reduce their obligations,” Gonzalez said. “We’re playing whack-a-mole trying to protect workers while companies try to get more profit for shareholders.”

A lobbying frenzy led to exemptions for some professions in which workers have more negotiating power or autonomy than in low-wage jobs. Among them: lawyers, accountants, architects, dentists, insurance brokers and engineers.

But the Legislature declined to exempt app-based ride-hailing or food delivery companies, whose workers complain they often earn less than minimum wage and are subject to arbitrary dismissals. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart, arguing that they are technology companies, not transportation employers like taxi businesses, set aside $110 million to mount a ballot initiative exempting them from the law.

Supporters of AB 5, a California law requiring companies to reclassify many independent contractors as employees, rally in August in Sacramento.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Trucking associations, freelance writers and photographers filed suits to avoid the new law’s strictures.

“AB 5 fundamentally disrupts the right of Californians to have independent working relationships with their clients or employers,” said Sen. Mike Morrell (R-Rancho Cucamonga). By favoring some industries over others, he added, “Sacramento Democrats embrace a slide towards socialism.”

Gonzalez said she is open to changes in the bill next year, including an exemption for musicians — but not for app-based ride-hailing and delivery giants. “We will continue to clarify this law, but rest assured, it won’t be repealed,” she added.

Arbitration

Former Gov. Jerry Brown twice vetoed bills to curb the exploding practice of mandatory arbitration, which allows companies to make employees resolve disputes in a private, closed-door session rather than in public court proceedings.

Brown argued that a U.S. Supreme Court decision allows the practice. And businesses contend that in conflicts over wages, discrimination, disability, harassment and other issues, arbitration saves them, and workers, the needless expense of class-action lawsuits.

But in the last year, allegations of sexual harassment and assaults by serial perpetrators, many of whom were protected by arbitration agreements, fueled public outrage, as in the cases of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves. At Google, 20,000 workers staged a global walkout demanding an end to forced arbitration. Other tech workers, including at Los Angeles’ Riot Games, followed suit.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new version of the law, which avoids invalidating existing agreements. “AB 51 just prohibits firing or threatening employees who refuse to sign,” said UC Berkeley law professor Catherine Fisk. “Forced arbitration is clearly used as a device to prevent workers from bringing claims. So it allows companies to violate the law.”

But Zaremberg argues: ”Our employment laws are more complex than those in the rest of the country. People make honest mistakes every day trying to comply with them. With arbitration, they can be resolved through an expedited process.”

An estimated 67% of California workplaces had mandatory arbitration policies in 2018, higher than the national average, and the number may have grown this year as attorneys advised companies to get ahead of the new law.

A new activist strategy this year — filing thousands of individual arbitration claims against Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Postmates — hit companies with millions of dollars in processing fees. Companies used to dealing with employee grievances one by one refused to pay. A new law, Senate Bill 707, imposes stiff penalties on businesses that stall payments, and allows workers to then take their grievances to court.

#MeToo

#MeToo scandals lent impetus to other measures besides the arbitration statute.

Under current law, workers have a year to file complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation in court. AB 9 extends the deadline to three years. Brown had vetoed the bill in 2018, saying claims should be filed “while memories and evidence are fresh.” Victim advocates contend a year is often insufficient for workers to come to terms with what happened to them and seek counsel.

Often companies will require a worker who gains a financial settlement for harassment or discrimination to quit his or her job. Assembly Bill 749 prohibits “no re-hire” clauses affecting the “aggrieved employee.”

Assembly Bill 547 requires training for janitors to be conducted by their peers. “We’ve seen reports of rape on the night shift,” Su said. “This law means immigrant women with lived experience will make the training real. So companies can’t just pay lip service to training, letting people go through the motions and check a box.”

Child-care workers

Home-based child-care workers are not covered by federal labor law. Now, some 40,000 private family day-care providers, paid by California to service more than 360,000 low-income children, will gain the right to bargain collectively with the state under Assembly Bill 378.

The new law sets the stage for California’s largest union election since 1997, when home-care workers were granted the right to bargain over wages and working conditions. Child-care workers, who are largely Latino and African American, earn close to minimum wage — pushing many out of the industry. The new law will lead to “creating quality jobs, not poverty jobs,” said Assemblywoman Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), the bill’s author.

Corporate diversity

Senate Bill 826, enacted last year, requires publicly traded companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by January 2020. By the end of 2021, boards with five directors must include two women, and boards with six or more directors need to include three women.

Noncompliant companies could be fined as much as $100,000.

Several European countries have similar laws. But California’s is the first U.S. board diversity mandate. When the law passed, 188 of 650 affected California companies had all-male boards, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission compiled by Clemson University scholars.

Two conservative groups, the Pacific Legal Foundation and Judicial Watch, have filed lawsuits to overturn the statute, but businesses have largely complied. According to Clemson finance professor Daniel Greene, just 32 companies had failed to add any female directors as of Dec. 26.

WASHINGTON — The nation is set to have its least competitive congressional election cycle in years by some measures, with California partly driving the shift.

The redistricting carried out in California and nine other states since 2024 has left the nation with an unusually low number of truly competitive districts, narrowing the battle for U.S. House control in this year’s historically consequential midterms cycle to a few dozen races at best.

In California, that looks like a paradox: The state has both a shrinking number of political battlegrounds and a handful of critical races that could help decide which party controls the House. Both are a result of Proposition 50, the Democratic-led, voter-passed redistricting effort designed to offset new maps drawn by Republicans in Texas and other states.

Only three California races are rated as competitive by Cook Political Report, the nonpartisan analyst, compared with 12 races in 2024 and nine in 2022, according to a Times analysis of Cook data.

California was also the biggest driver in the nationwide decline of competitive seats, according to a separate Cook analysis released Wednesday. Six of the 14 U.S. House seats that dropped out of the swing-seat zone in 2026 were in the Golden State.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing the consequence” of the state’s redistricting, “of having fewer competitive districts,” said Michael Latner, a professor of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

That doesn’t dilute the key role California is expected to play in Democrats’ effort to win the House majority, however. The new map made some blue seats safer and gave the party the chance to flip up to five red seats.

“The path to the House majority still runs through California,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said the party is investing heavily to flip those seats.

‘Not backing off’

The fight for the majority at the halfway point of President Trump’s second term is fierce. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face headwinds fueled by voters’ feelings on the economy and the war in Iran. Democrats have built their campaigns around Americans’ economic frustration in an attempt to win the House majority and regain some power in Trump’s Washington.

Having more safe seats positions California to have a greater effect on the election, said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, and in Congress afterward, where the state is expected to have a large blue delegation.

The less-competitive map is a return to the 2000s for California, when the state’s two parties agreed on a congressional map that created safe districts for both, Kousser said.

That decade saw fewer competitive House races before new maps created more battleground areas in 2010 and 2020, the result of regular redistricting that occurs every decade after the U.S. census.

The shift in the state’s competitive seats caused by Proposition 50’s partisan redistricting was so acute because the existing 2020 map was relatively neutral, Cook senior editor David Wasserman said in the report. In Florida, Missouri and Texas, by contrast, the maps Republicans replaced were already partisan, making the shifts less extreme.

Three of the seats Democrats targeted with Proposition 50 are rated as solidly blue, while two present fights: the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao, the state’s only toss-up race per Cook, and the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Darrell Issa in the San Diego area, where the redrawn district now slightly favors Democrats.

Just one seat Republicans hope to flip is rated competitively by Cook, that of Democrat Adam Gray in the Central Valley. Democrats are slightly more favored there under the new map, but it presents a challenge for both parties.

Both parties view California’s three most competitive races as key to win, and each is putting resources toward a few additional contests.

“We’re not backing off a single seat in California,” said Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We’re on offense.”

Shrinking battlegrounds nationwide

This year’s push by Republicans to redo state maps ahead of the November election — and California’s move to respond in kind — was without precedent. Ten states approved new maps; before this year, only two states had voluntarily redrawn maps between censuses for partisan advantage since 1970, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

It was partly enabled by a spring Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for states to redraw their election maps to eliminate voting districts that were drawn with race as a consideration.

The 10 new maps supercharged an ongoing national trend of polarization that has seen the number of competitive seats shrink over the last 30 years. The country used to see election cycles with as many as 50 seats rated as toss-ups, said Erin Covey, who leads the Cook Political Report’s U.S. House coverage, something that has not happened since 2010. As of this week, just 18 of 435 House districts are rated as toss-ups by Cook.

California is not alone in having fewer battlegrounds; no state has a high concentration of competitive seats this cycle. Michigan had four under Cook’s ratings, and Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York and Texas each had three as of this week.

That could be unhealthy for democracy, experts said. Voters can feel as though their votes matter less, and it may contribute to negative public opinion about how the electoral system functions, Latner said.

“The very premise of a free republic is that you are going to have differences in views,” Latner said. “The way those differences get resolved is through electoral competition.”

The erosion of “free and fair competition … is a threat to all voters, regardless of their partisanship,” he added.

Eyes on key races

In California’s most competitive race, Valadao is being challenged in the redrawn 22nd District by progressive college professor Randy Villegas. Republicans are bullish about their chances to retain the seat.

In the neighboring 13th District, which the new map aimed to make safer for Democrats, Gray faces former Stockton mayor and Marine veteran Kevin Lincoln. Also important for both parties is the battle for the 48th District, the seat vacated by Issa. Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, faces Democrat Marni von Wilpert, a San Diego City Council member.

Republicans have also targeted Rep. Derek Tran’s Democratic seat in the 45th District, another former battleground that Proposition 50 made safer for Democrats, and three other seats that Cook rates as solidly Democratic.

Democrats’ safer flips target Northern California’s 1st and Sacramento County’s 6th districts. They also expect to gain a seat in the new 41st District, which now covers parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The new map gave Democrats a Democratic voter registration edge there and forced Republican incumbent Ken Calvert to run in the newly drawn 40th District against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim.

California’s statewide minimum wage is set to rise next year.

Starting on Jan. 1, 2027, the statewide minimum wage will rise to $17.40 an hour, an increase Gov. Gavin Newsom boasted about on Friday.

Newsom — who has been eyeing a 2028 presidential run — said in a statement that California’s fiscal policies helped turn the state into “one of the strongest economies in the world” while the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress fail to address “everyday cost pressures for working families.” The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009.

“For years, Donald Trump and Republicans have blocked efforts to raise the federal minimum wage while handing tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations,” Newsom said. “California has chosen a different path — one that rewards work, grows the economy, and puts working families first.”

Not everyone agreed. Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton took to social media on Friday to decry the minimum wage increase as an “attack on workers” that will “crush small businesses.”

The current minimum wage in California for all employers is $16.90 an hour, though some workers must be paid more to comply with city and county rules and other state laws.

California’s minimum wage automatically increases each year to keep pace with inflation. The current system was established in 2016, when then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a first-in-the-nation plan to gradually boost the state’s hourly minimum wage to $15 an hour, then adjust the wage annually based on inflation starting in 2024.

“This is about economic justice, it’s about people,” Brown said during the bill signing.

The specific amount of the minimum wage increase is tied to inflation — as measured by the federal consumer price index — and capped at 3.5%, according to state law. The state director of finance is responsible for calculating the adjusted minimum wage on or before Aug. 1 each year.

California has the highest minimum wage out of all 50 states, according to the governor’s office. (Only Washington, D.C.’s, minimum wage ranks higher, at $18.40.)

The state in 2024 raised minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour. The fast-food wage requirement applies to chains with more than 60 locations nationwide.

Researchers have been split on the economic impacts of the pay increase for fast-food workers, which chains like Pizza Hut and Cinnabon have fought. (Earlier this year, a major Carl’s Jr. franchisee cited the $20 fast-food minimum wage when he applied for bankruptcy protection.)

California also has higher minimum wages for healthcare workers at large facilities as a result of a union-backed bill Newsom signed in 2023. Under the legislation, many healthcare workers’ minimum wages in July rose from $24 an hour to $25 an hour.

Some cities in California, including Emeryville and West Hollywood, have opted to impose even higher city minimum wages exceeding $20 per hour.

Most states have minimum wages above the federal minimum. Five Republican-led states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee — do not have an independent state minimum wage and default to the federal minimum.

While a 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, a deep partisan split over the issue remains.

The jet went down near the Miramar airbase in San Diego and aerial video showed a plume of black smoke rising from the wreckage in a dirt field.

An F-35B stealth fighter plane has crashed in California, but its pilot ejected and is expected to survive, the US Marine Corps said.

The jet went down on Friday near the Miramar airbase in San Diego. “The pilot ejected, was transported to a local medical facility in stable condition for evaluation and treatment of non-life-threatening injuries,” the Marine Corps said in a statement.

Aerial video from a news helicopter showed a plume of black smoke rising from the wreckage in a dirt field, with multiple military and firefighting vehicles and people standing nearby. What appeared to be white flame retardant covered the ground, and at least one person was spraying the wreckage with a fire hose.

Candace Hadley, a spokesperson for San Diego Fire, said firefighters were on scene to respond to a vegetation fire that sparked near the crash site. She referred additional questions to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

The base used to host the Navy fighter pilot training school depicted in the original Top Gun movie and was known as “Fightertown USA” in its heyday. The school was relocated to Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada in 1996 after the base was transferred to the Marine Corps.

The US Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force together have more than 630 F-35s, according to a 2024 analysis by the Government Accountability Office. The F-35B is one of several versions, and has an engine designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings. A single F-35B costs about $109m. The report estimated that the overall F-35 programme will cost roughly $2 trillion after the military buys more than 1,800 more jets and operates them for decades to come.

At least seven other military aircraft have crashed in the United States this year, according to the Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network database.

The most serious incident involved a B-52 bomber that crashed shortly after taking off in California’s Mojave Desert in June, killing all eight people on board.

SACRAMENTO — Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressuring his Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, to participate in a series of debates in the weeks leading up the Nov. 3 election to determine California’s next governor.

In a video shared by his campaign Friday, Hilton listed six debate invitations he has received from cable broadcaster CNN and television news stations around the state, beginning in late September.

“I have accepted every single one of these debates,” said Hilton, standing behind a debate-style podium and gesturing at an empty one beside him with Becerra’s name on it . “This guy, Xavier Becerra, has not accepted any of them. That is completely outrageous. We have to have a debate in this governor’s race. So come on, Xavier.”

The video shows Hilton walk out of frame and return with a cardboard cutout of Becerra, which he plunks behind the second podium while urging the candidate to “man up and show up.”

Becerra’s campaign said he will debate Hilton and blasted the Republican for “chasing” publicity.

“Snowflake Steve is melting faster than he can plan another press conference. While he’s there chasing media and doing Donald Trump’s bidding, Xavier Becerra is building a coalition of Californians ready to elect a governor who won’t bring Trump’s chaos to their front door,” Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement to The Times.

Hilton, a British immigrant who once advised a U.K. prime minister, is endorsed by President Donald Trump and finished second in the June open-party primary election with 24.6% of the vote.

Years of hosting a weekly show on Fox News has made Hilton comfortable on camera and the debate stage; he appeared at-ease during a series of debates earlier this year while lobbing attacks at his Democratic opponents and blaming the party for the state’s long list of problems.

Becerra served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Before that, he spent four years battling the first Trump administration as California attorney general and more than two decades representing a Los Angeles congressional district.

The longtime Democratic politician became the come-from-behind winner of the primary, finishing with 28.1% of the vote after polling near the middle or bottom of a crowded field for months. His meteoric rise came after another front-runner, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out after a former staffer and other women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct.

Becerra has kept a relatively low profile since the election with few public appearances.

Hilton has held several campaign events in recent weeks to court independent and Latino voters. As a Trump-endorsed Republican, he faces a steep climb in California, where the president is deeply unpopular and a GOP candidate has not won a statewide election since 2006.

Last week he accused Democratic leaders of “abandoning” residents in Boyle Heights, where flies, rats and the stench of rotting food have lingered weeks after a frozen food warehouse was damaged by fire.

Hilton also recently took out full-page ads in The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle to make the case to voters who dislike Trump but are dissatisfied with the status quo in California.

SACRAMENTO — One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

I am not someone who regularly goes out on a weekday.

But when I heard just how ideal the viewing conditions will be for the upcoming Perseid meteor shower, I texted multiple friends, inviting them on a late-night adventure into the woods. That’s exactly my kind of party.

The Perseid meteor shower, which can produce up to 100 meteors an hour in its most active period, is expected to peak from the evening of Aug. 12 into the early morning of Aug. 13. Last year during the shower’s peak, the moon was 84% full.

That’s part of what makes this year special. The night sky will be at its darkest during the Perseids peak because we’ll have the new moon, the lunar phase when our moon’s illuminated side faces the sun.

In this 30-second camera exposure, a meteor streaks across the sky during the annual Perseid meteor shower in West Virginia in 2021.

(Bill Ingalls / Associated Press)

In this edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I will explain not only where near L.A. you can drive, hike or camp for the best viewing of this meteor shower, but also, thanks to a conversation with an astrophotography expert, how you can get better photos regardless of whether you’re using your cellphone or dedicated camera.

First, though, let’s talk about what exactly a meteor shower is and why they occur.

🌑 Tips for viewing the Perseid meteor shower 🌃

I spoke to Bruce Betts, chief scientist at the Pasadena-based Planetary Society, a member-financed group focused on advancing space science.

Betts explained that Earth gets hit every night by an estimated 100 tons of material, equivalent to about 13 Randy’s Donuts signs blasting into the planet (which is a fun visual). This means there are meteors every night, around 10 an hour in a place with no light pollution.

A meteor shower occurs when Earth is moving through a debris field left by a comet. But nothing hitting Earth is thankfully as large as a 25-foot-high fiberglass doughnut.

“It’s mostly small-sized stuff — sand-sized, pebble-sized, dust-sized,” Betts said. “It’s going to burn up hundreds of thousands of feet up in the atmosphere. When you see it fizzle out, it’s way up there typically.”

I cannot be the only person who, learning this information, felt surprised that tiny specks of space dust can produce such dazzling experiences for us earthlings. But these particles are moving incredibly fast — tens of thousands of miles per hour — and as they move through our atmosphere, they’re heating up and vaporizing.

In the case of the Perseid meteor shower, you’re watching debris left behind by the comet Swift-Tuttle as it neared perihelion, its closest approach to the sun.

Earth orbits through that debris field every August. The Perseid meteor shower is named as such because as you’re watching, it appears as if the meteors are emanating from a point in the constellation of Perseus called the radiant point.

Meteors streak across the sky, seen above the Temple of Zeus during the Perseid meteor shower near Cavdarhisar, Turkey, in 2025.

(Emrah Gurel / Associated Press)

🌃 Getting the best Perseid-viewing experience 💫

To see the most meteors during the Perseids, you have to get to a point where you’re looking through less atmosphere, which around L.A. includes smog, smoke, clouds and, of course, light.

“The real problem is light pollution,” Betts said. “And that is, lights on the surface that are then reflecting off particles and stuff, a technical term, in the atmosphere. If you can get above that stuff, you start seeing better.”

Betts compared it to being in a bright room where there’s a dim light on. You won’t notice the dim light until you turn the rest of the lights off, and suddenly, that dim light is the brightest thing in the room.

During the Perseids peak, you don’t have to escape the light pollution of L.A. to see meteors. From outside your home, you will probably still see the largest blasts of light between 9 and 11 p.m. This is best for anyone who must be at their workplace at 8 a.m. for a meeting that could have been an email.

For the rest of us, let’s dive into where the best spots near L.A. are.

The 2023 Perseid meteor shower, as seen from Sequoia National Forest.

(Preston Dyches / NASA)

🏔️ Where to view the Perseids near L.A. 🌠

Below you’ll find my recommendations for spots that should provide good opportunities for viewing the Perseids. Please take good care when driving mountain or unfamiliar roads, and make sure someone outside your party knows where you’re headed and when you’ll be back. A meteor shower is still viewable when stranded with a flat tire, but far less fun!

• Mt. Wilson Observatory: Located about an hour northeast of downtown L.A. in the San Gabriel Mountains, the observatory has a large paved parking lot at about 5,650 feet elevation that features nice views of the surrounding area. The only caveat is that the main gate usually closes at 5 p.m. in the summer, so you’ll need to park inside before then.
• The Vetter Mountain Lookout: The lookout, at about 5,900 feet elevation, is reachable via a 5-mile round-trip hike and offers stunning panoramic views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The trailhead is about an hour drive northeast of downtown.
• Chilao Campground: Also about an hour drive from downtown, this large first-come, first-served campground sits at 5,300 feet and offers great views of the night sky. Nearby Mt. Hillyer, which can be reached via a 6.4-mile round-trip hike from near the Chilao Visitor Center, could also be a nice spot to observe the meteor shower.
• Crystal Lake Recreation Area and Campground: Crystal Lake is a 120-site first-come, first-served campground north of Azusa (about 1½- to two-hour drive northeast from downtown). At 5,539-feet elevation, it’s a great spot to camp and take in the shooting stars.
• Mt. Pacifico Campground: This is a rustic 10-site campground that sits at 7,100-feet elevation and is deep in the San Gabriel Mountains. It’s about a 1½-hour drive from downtown L.A. and involves taking narrow mountain roads. High-clearance vehicles are required to make the final mile into the campground.
• Musch Trail Camp: Musch Trail Camp is a small but charming campground in the Santa Monica Mountains. Located in Topanga State Park, it has picnic tables and a small restroom with flush toilets and sinks. It’s around a 45-minute drive mostly west from downtown.
• Leo Carrillo State Park: Along with its hiking trails and campground, the park in Malibu features 1.5 miles of beach, where you can watch the sunset before the sky darkens enough to see the meteor shower.
• Red Rock Canyon State Park: A two-hour drive from downtown L.A., this park has colorful desert cliffs and a 50-site campground with great views of the night sky.
• Joshua Tree National Park: I mean, duh.
• McGill Campground/Chula Vista Walk-In Campground: A two-hour drive from L.A., either of these campgrounds in Los Padres National Forest will provide you with a memorable experience, as the area is known for its stargazing. McGill is mostly by reservation while Chula Vista is a walk-in spot with first-come, first-served sites. If not prepared to camp, you can also watch nearby from the Mt. Pinos parking lot, but it’ll likely be quite crowded during the Perseids, as it is the closest darkest spot to L.A.

Or, you could try a spot where you can safely and legally drive and/or hike into that you recall being fairly dark at night. There are online tools that can help you find your own spot, including light pollution maps.

Regardless of where you go, please remember to practice the Leave No Trace principles, including packing out any trash you bring, not taking anything from the forest that you didn’t bring and not playing loud music, as it not only bothers hikers but also the animals who live in our natural areas.

A Perseid meteor appears at the top left of the frame in this 25-second exposure, as seen from White Tank Campground in Joshua Tree National Park in 2024.

(Raul Roa / Los Angeles Times)

📸 How to photograph the Perseid meteor shower 🤩

Many of us have tried and failed to take photos of the night sky. I spoke to accomplished astrophotographer Jeremy Evans, a delegate for Dark Sky International who affirmed that it’s no easy task to capture the beauty of celestial bodies.

“Carl Sagan said astronomy can be a humbling and character-building experience because it is a little overwhelming to look up at that vastness of the sky and either explore it, photograph it [or] study it, [regardless of] whether through a telescope, camera or naked eye,” Evans said.

Here’s what Evans, who has photographed the Perseids for the past 20 years, recommends (after you’ve found the darkest area possible to view the shower).

1. Point your camera to the southwest

Perseus, the constellation that the upcoming meteor shower is named after, will rise in the northeast between 9 and 10 p.m., depending on your latitude.

Photographing a meteor shower can feel like a game of Whac-A-Mole, Evans said. Instead of trying to chase meteors across the sky all night, set your camera to face the southwest for the Perseids.

“Most of the [Perseids] meteors, based on my experience, fly from northeast to southwest, so I like to have my camera pointing toward the southwest, and catch those meteors flying overhead and into my frame,” Evans said. “The good thing about that is, when they start burning up and giving you that trail of ionized gases, they’re usually flying over the southwest at that point. You can point your camera to the northeast, but you might not get the fire balls and the tails.”

2. Adjust your camera’s settings

• If using a dedicated camera (as opposed to a phone camera), turn off image stabilization. Otherwise, you might be plagued with blurry images all night.
• Choose a wide lens. Evans generally recommends using a wide lens with a focal length between 14 and 24 mm. “You can use a fish eye,” Evans said. “However, a fish eye will show most of the night sky, but then the meteors are going to appear a lot smaller.”
• Determine your shutter speed. Some astrophotographers use the “500 rule,” an equation that helps them figure out the ideal shutter speed. It’s essentially dividing your camera lens’ focal length into 500 to get your shutter speed. For Evans, that’s often 500 divided by 24, which he rounds down to equal a 20-second exposure. (If your shutter speed is too slow, the stars can come out blurry)
• Turn off the flash.
• Turn off your camera’s auto focus. You will need to manually adjust your lens, as your camera most likely won’t be able to automatically focus on the starry sky. (More on that below.)
• Turn on shutter delay. If you don’t have an external remote, turn on the setting that allows for a multi-second delay after you press the button. This allows your camera to stabilize after you press the shutter. Wiggling camera = bad pics.

3. Set up your tripod.

Evans said a tripod is arguably your most important piece of equipment, and it’s worth investing in if you’re wanting to regularly practice astrophotography. Cheap tripods are often flimsy and can fall over and wiggle from a light breeze.

That said, I’ve taken good images of the stars by propping my DSLR up using soup cans on a metal bear box while out camping. I’ve also used boulders, including during a recent trip to capture the aurora. Really, whatever you’re using just needs to be as solid and unmoving as your least favorite relative’s political beliefs.

4. Use this trick to focus your camera.

Evans recommends pointing your camera at a bright object at least a quarter mile away, like a street light or other fixed object. You could also use a bright star or, if setting up early enough, Venus. Regardless, use this distant object to manually focus your lens.

If your DSLR has a “Live View” option, you can magnify the bright object using that feature, making it even easier to focus on the object. When you zoom back out, the object should be a fine point of light.

“And then be careful not to bump your lens,” Evans said.

5. Pack enough battery power.

Evans recommends bringing at least two batteries for your DSLR if you don’t own an external power source for your camera.

If your battery is more than 2 years old, it’s likely lost a significant amount of its capacity, Evans said. In that case, you’ll want to ideally pack a third battery, depending on how long you plan to stay out.

“When you’re taking a series of photographs in the day, you’re using a shutter speed of 1/500 of a second on average, and then when you go from 1/500 of a second to keeping that shutter open for 20 seconds, you’re using a lot more power,” Evans said, meaning a battery that usually lasts for several days might only provide enough battery to shoot night photography for, at most, a few hours.

🌠🌑🌃

Betts and Evans told me that they hope that people going out to view the Perseids results in more people not only enjoying the night sky but also wanting to protect it, namely from light pollution. I hope so too.

And I hope wherever you go, you witness the beauty of shooting stars burning in the night sky. It’ll be arguably the most fun you can have on a Wednesday night in August.

3 things to do

A great blue heron.

(Lois A. Sheppard)

1. Wander the wetlands in Seal Beach
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust will host a guided nature walk from 8 to 10 a.m. Saturday in Seal Beach. Guests will learn about the Los Cerritos Wetlands, looking for herons and other birds who frequent the area. Close-toed shoes are required. Register at eventbrite.com.

2. Care for oaks near Calabasas
The Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains needs volunteers from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday in Topanga State Park to tend to fire-damaged oak trees. Participants will water, weed and mulch oak trees, and plant acorns to replace trees that have died. Attendees should wear durable shoes and bring drinking water. Register at eventbrite.com.

3. Cycle along Slauson in South L.A.
T.R.U.S.T. South LA, People for Mobility Justice and Metro will host a community bike ride along the Slauson rail-to-rail bike path from 6 to 9 p.m. Tuesday. The group will meet in front of Augustus F. Hawkins Nature Park. At registration, guests can request a voucher for a Metro bike if unable to bring their own. Register at docs.google.com.

The must-read

Jackie, an internet-famous bald eagle, sits on an egg in her nest shared with partner Shadow in Big Bear.

(Friends of Big Bear Valley)

As of Monday, Jackie, the beloved Big Bear eagle, appears to be improving. In mid-July, Jackie was rescued by L.A. County’s San Dimas Raptor Rescue team and transported to Ojai Raptor Center for emergency care. Fans of Jackie, one half of the avian power couple whom thousands of people regularly view via live webcams near their nest, have since anxiously waited for news. “She is eating on her own, her energy and alertness have noticeably improved, and she has become much more feisty during feedings,” the Ojai Raptor Center posted on social media.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

Cool new feature alert! Times digital subscribers can now save trails highlighted in our hiking guides directly to their profiles on latimes.com. This allows subscribers to create their own curated lists of not only hiking trails but also restaurants, music venues and more. For example, you could save whale-watching sites, trails and beaches you wanted to check out, and then use the map function to see which spots are close to each other. And if you’re feeling especially spunky, you could throw some restaurants into the mix. I am personally excited to play around with this new feature because the No. 1 thing I like to do after a hike is eat, and our food writers are always finding great spots. 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 — California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.

Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.

Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.

The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.

“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.

The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.

The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.

The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.

The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.

A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”

At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”

A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.

Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”

Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.

Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.

“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”

Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.

“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.

Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”

Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.

Jared Leto faces allegations of criminal sexual conduct by several women who allege the sexual incidents with the musician and Oscar-winning actor occurred when he was in his 30s and 40s and they were teenagers.

In a BBC documentary titled “Jared Leto: Hollywood’s Dark Secret,” multiple women spoke about their experiences with the “House of Gucci” star and Thirty Seconds to Mars frontman, detailing allegations of inappropriate text messages, sexual assault and statutory rape from 2002 to 2016. Among the allegations, one woman said she was 17 years old when Leto sexually assaulted her in a motel bathroom. Another woman alleges Leto continued to sexually pursue her in Los Angeles despite knowing she was 17 years old, younger than the age of consent in California.

Leto, in a statement shared with The Times on Wednesday, denied the allegations raised by the BBC documentary: “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my entire life,” he said. “These claims are absolutely and categorically false.”

Journalist and documentarian Jessica Sartenaer said in the segment published Wednesday that the BBC began its investigation into allegations against Leto after noting an Instagram story from a prominent DJ based in Los Angeles. In a since-expired Instagram story, DJ Allie Teilz, resurfaced a 2012 Facebook post in which she accused Leto of trying to “force himself” onto her backstage at a concert. Teilz captioned her repost: “Jared Leto was a creep then..still a creep now, going on 15+ years of being Hollywood’s most persistent predator,” according to the BBC documentary.

Numerous social media users reportedly responded to Teilz’s posts with their own claims about Leto’s alleged predatory behavior, many noting they were subject to Leto’s misconduct when they were teens. A woman identified as “Etta” told the BBC she was 14 when Leto approached her outside of a modeling agency and invited her to an Oscars party. Etta provided email correspondences to the outlet and said the “Morbius” actor encouraged her to stay in contact via text after the invite. Text messages turned into phone calls and conversations about her modeling career quickly turned sexual, according to the documentary. Leto allegedly asked Etta about her virginity, her kinks and sexual capabilities.

Etta said in the documentary that Leto’s legal team allegedly contacted her and urged her to sign a nondisclosure agreement about her relationship with the actor, though she never did.

The documentary portrays Leto as a celebrity who leveraged his fame to connect with young fans and control them. The woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by Leto at age 17 in a motel bathroom told the BBC she met Leto in 2002 at a mall in Las Vegas. Leto would have been in his early 30s at the time. He invited her to meet him at a nearby motel. She waited in the room while he stepped into the shower, but he eventually called her over and began kissing her, according to the BBC. The woman, identified as “Isabelle,” accused Leto of forcing her hand to his genitals and using her hand to masturbate. Isabelle pulled away and moved to leave the room, but Leto allegedly looked outside the motel room for any potential bystanders before letting her out, she recalled to the BBC.

The BBC also published allegations by “Clara,” the woman who said Leto knowingly had sex with her when she was 17 — he was 34 at the time — at his house in California. Clara said she connected with Leto after his associate requested her phone number. She and her friend were invited to spend time with the band at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood, where the age of consent of California became a topic of conversation. Leto, who allegedly shrugged off the conversation, invited Clara and her friend back to his home and told the friend to wait in another room while he had sex with Clara. Clara visited Leto’s home a total of three or four times, according to the BBC. She also alleged that Leto often requested that she call him “daddy” and that she pretend to be a little girl.

Leto in 2013 allegedly invited another woman, named Alex, to his band’s concert at London’s O2 and to an after-party. She was 19 at the time but told Leto she was younger out of a need to protect herself, the BBC reported. Leto allegedly replied: “Age is just a number, and anyway, we’re in Europe.” Alex alleges Leto threatened to sexually assault her in a hotel room later that evening.

The BBC also spoke to men who who worked closely with Leto’s band, Thirty Seconds to Mars. One man said Leto was often texting girls to invite them to spend time with the band. Leto also allegedly asserted control by ignoring the girls he invited and speaking to them rudely. The man also recalled that Leto took one fan, who was dropped off by her parents, “off to the bedroom.” Afterward, she called her parents to pick her up.

Leto has long faced quiet scrutiny for his alleged behavior with women and girls. In 2005 the New York Post published a story accusing the actor of “aggressively pursuing many” teen models. Last year Air Mail published accusations against Leto of impropriety by nine women, though he denied those claims at the time.

Still, the actor-musician has moved on from those allegations seemingly unscathed. Leto, who won his Oscar in 2014 for “Dallas Buyers Club,” most recently appeared in “Masters of the Universe” and is set to tour with his band next year.

SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.

A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.

He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”

“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.

Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.

Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.

The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.

Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.

They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.

The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.

The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.

The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”

The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”

Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.

Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.

A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.

July 28 (UPI) — Hurricane Genevieve remained a powerful Category 4 storm Monday night in the Pacific, according to forecasters who said it was bringing life-threatening surf and rip-current conditions to the Baja California Peninsula.

The storm was located about 505 miles southwest of the southern tip of Baja California, the National Hurricane Center said in its 8 p.m. MST update. It was packing maximum sustained winds of 145 mph and was moving northwest at 12 mph.

No coastal watches or warnings were in effect, though forecasters said swells generated by Genevieve were affecting portions of the southwestern coast of Mexico and the Baja California Peninsula.

“These swells are likely to cause life-threatening surf and rip current conditions,” the NHC said.

Although it remained a major hurricane, forecasters expected it to steadily weaken over the next several days, during which it is forecast to move northwest to west-northwest.

The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance after court documents revealed that the Trump administration targeted California and other blue states solely for political reasons when it slashed funding for the initiatives last year.

Large companies, startups, utilities, universities and other nonprofits were among those that lost out on $7.6 billion in clean energy funding terminated by the White House in October. They include the University of California, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and California’s nascent hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES.

At the time, Trump administration officials said the grants were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But in court documents filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the cuts, the Department of Energy states the selection of grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It also concedes that neither the inclusion of ARCHES, nor any other grants in the October tranche, was “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”

California and the 15 other states that lost funding did not vote for Trump in the 2024 election.

Legal experts said such an action is unheard of.

“The government has stipulated that grants were cut off to states that voted against Trump. As far as I know, this blatant politics in cutting off grants is unprecedented. It also is illegal,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and co-counsel in the lawsuit.

More projects were cut in California than any other state, about 79 out of nearly 300. They were all for clean energy, many to address climate change, and include investments in new battery plants, upgrades for the electrical grid and initiatives to take carbon out of the air. About $1.2 billion was slated for the hydrogen hub.

Money was also to go to West Biofuels in Woodland, CALSTART in Pasadena, Charge Bliss in Aliso Viejo, Rejoule in Signal Hill, Southern California Edison, the Imperial Irrigation District and Aera Federal LLC, among many others.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of faculty members and researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, who were among those to lose research grants. A separate lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 13 other states in February.

The acknowledgment of political motivation is “startling — and it is particularly so when the administration has had these larger narratives about how they’re canceling grants that are about waste, fraud and abuse,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley and initiating counsel in the university case. “If they want to favor oil, coal and nuclear, and disfavor clean energy innovation, that’s their prerogative as the executive. But here we have stipulations saying that none of those things were true for these staggeringly consequential DOE grants.”

The lawsuit alleges that the government’s actions violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which prevents arbitrary discrimination, as well as the 1st Amendment in that it is targeting researchers for how their state voted.

“None of it was about a change in priorities,” Polsky said, noting that similar grants in red states were not canceled. “None of it was about fiscal stringency. None of it was about anything except punishing people who didn’t vote for Trump.”

Judge Rita F. Lin could order the federal funding to be reinstated, and indeed has already done so through some temporary preliminary injunctions. But many of the grantees are now in “purgatory” as the case proceeds toward a final ruling, Polsky said.

Many of the projects are complex, multi-year efforts that involve a hodgepodge of agencies, experts and partnerships, such as ARCHES, the state’s billion-dollar hydrogen hub awarded under President Biden. Officials with ARCHES could not immediately be reached for comment.

News of the funding cuts first broke last fall in a post on X from Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” Vought wrote. “The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

At a House hearing in June, however, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said decisions were not made based on politics.

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Secretary Wright looked me in the eye, under oath, insisting the decision to cancel California’s clean energy projects was ‘not political,’” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “The Administration’s own court filings tell a different story. These decisions jeopardize good-paying jobs, undermine American energy innovation, and drive up costs.”

Padilla is among 30 California lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), who separately challenged the funding cuts as unlawful — writing in an October letter to the Energy Department’s independent Office of the Inspector General that the decision targeted blue states “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.” The office subsequently launched an investigation into the claims.

“Any Trump official who lied and told the nation these clean energy grant cancellations had nothing to do with politics should resign,” Schiff said in a post on X after the latest court filings were revealed. “As the administration has now been forced to concede — these cancellations had everything to do with politics. Of the worst kind.”

A final ruling is expected in early November.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Last week, news broke that an artificial intelligence thingamajig broke free from the constraints of its maker, OpenAI, and committed what could be considered a string of white-collar felonies if it were human.

Because the AI thingamajig is in fact not human, the incident raised a big kerfuffle but is largely being treated as a giant oopsie we can learn from, without needing the pesky intervention of new rules or laws to stop it from happening again.

Such is the state of AI regulation in America right now.

California Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) would like to change that. Last week, he introduced the bipartisan Frontier Act with Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.). While the bill might not make either safety advocates or big tech companies entirely happy, it offers up the most comprehensive and strongest regulations of this dangerous industry that we’ve yet seen at the federal level.

Roman Yampolskiy, an AI expert and professor at University of Louisville, called the Frontier Act a “positive step because it acknowledges that frontier AI presents risks requiring dedicated oversight.”

Now, the challenge becomes passing it, and passing it in a meaningful, not-watered-down form — no easy task in a dysfunctional Congress driven by money and Donald Trump, and paralyzed by its own sycophancy to both.

If anyone has a shot, though, it’s Obernolte, who is that rarest of birds, a legislator who understands science, and his colleagues.

Obernolte represents Inland Empire areas around San Bernardino, but grew up in Fresno back in the era when the movie “War Games” was just hitting theaters.

Those of a certain age will remember how far-fetched it seemed when Matthew Broderick’s high school genius character accidentally breaks into a military AI system to play chess, but “Joshua,” the computer, takes it too far and tries to blow up the world. Now, of course, that just sounds like a regular Tuesday.

By the time he was in high school himself, Obernolte was giving that Broderick character a run for his money. An apparent computer savant, Obernolte was competing in artificial intelligence contests as a teenager, back when most of us were still playing Pong on Atari. Then he headed off to Caltech and then UCLA for advanced AI degrees. He said AI was his “first calling,” sparked when his father bought him an Apple II computer when he was 8.

He ended up dropping out of UCLA after getting his master’s because his side hustle making video games, including “NFL ’95,” turned out to be more lucrative than being a starving student. He ended up founding his own video game company, FarSight Studios, and building up a personal net worth close to $100 million.

Not bad for a kid from Fresno. In Congress, he has stuck close to the MAGA power base and was one of seven California legislators to vote against certifying the 2020 election results, a vote he took in his first days in office. He has been endorsed by Trump multiple times, and now sits on a bunch of committees and subcommittees of relevance.

For the past few years, he has pushed hard, if unsuccessfully, to create a framework for regulating AI, combining his deep understanding of the technology with his equal understanding of MAGA distaste for intervening in business.

Now, though, we’re in a moment, thanks to more than one big oopsie by technology companies. Just a few months ago, Anthropic and the Pentagon had their own tense encounter after Anthropic questioned how its AI was being used by the military. Huffy Pete Hegseth is still huffing over that one.

The public is increasingly skeptical of allowing the AI industry to govern itself, which is pushing legislators to rethink their hands-off approach, even as AI money pours like Niagara Falls into elections. Even Trump seems more inclined to consider it, signing an executive order recently that largely called for voluntary restraints on AI companies.

The introduction of the Frontier Act “shows how far the Overton window has shifted just in the past few months,” wrote Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow with the nonpartisan Institute for Law & AI. “Not too long ago, a bipartisan bill this good and serious would have been a pipe dream. But things change quickly.”

Obernolte said the bill has been “a long time in the making,” but he hopes to package it with other legislation and is “cautiously optimistic” he can get something passed and signed by the end of the year.

As written now, the bill would allow the federal government to set minimum safety requirements and set up a framework for licensed, independent auditors to monitor compliance. That third party verification has been a key push by safety experts.

The bill would also give the government emergency powers to pause an AI model if it has a “present or impending catastrophic risk.”

It also borrows from state laws including California’s Proposition 53 that require some (not enough) transparency on the part of AI companies when things do go wrong.

To the consternation of some, the bill still contains curbs on what states can regulate on their own — basically carving out AI regulation as federal turf. This has been a huge sticking point in the fight over AI regulation because AI companies hate state laws and want them squashed. Their argument is that a patchwork of rules across states is too complicated.

“You don’t want to have 50 different state requirements for every single product that gets sold on a market, and that is particularly true of AI,” Obernolte told me.

To some extent that’s reasonable — but the problem so far has been that states such as California and New York have been the only level of government willing to try at regulation. California in particular has created some of the most comprehensive AI regulations to date and has about 30 pending bills on this issue this legislative season. The Frontier Act threads the needle on this by creating lanes where states can still pass their own laws — such as around consumer safety that would protect children or stop pornography.

But preventing catastrophic risk would largely be dependent on the federal oversight, which is great when the federal government is up to the task. Currently, we can’t even keep measles in check. So that’s a bit worrisome.

And Obernolte’s bill isn’t the only one vying for attention. Another Californian, Rep. Ted Lieu, introduced a bipartisan measure of his own with Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas). Dubbed the AI Kill Switch Act, it would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to shut down problematic models.

Yampolskiy, the Louisville professor, said that bill had promise as well, because it’s important for companies to have a way to “rapidly disable or contain systems that exhibit dangerous or unexpected behavior.”

But, he warns, that’s just one part of the “complete solution” we need. Regulation is going to require more than one law.

For Obernolte’s part, he’s shown a willingness to work on a practical solution, not just a political one. That alone is worthy of notice. The Frontier Act is a genuine attempt to govern a nascent industry that is too powerful and unpredictable to be left to its own devices.

“I’m hoping that this is we’ve landed somewhere that everyone can understand and be happy with,” Obernolte said. “AI is not something that needs to be a partisan issue, and I don’t think it should be.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How Jimothy the raccoon became the internet’s latest animal obsession
The California angle: Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him
The L.A. Times Special: Mayor’s press team uses disappearing WhatsApp messages, avoiding scrutiny
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Reporting from Sacramento — A war between a healthcare union and the dialysis industry it wants to organize has morphed into one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in California history.

Proposition 8, sponsored by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers, would shrink the profits of hundreds of dialysis clinics across California. If enacted by voters, the measure would require clinics to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state on business revenues that exceed 115% of certain costs to deliver care.

A coalition led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, the two companies that control a combined 72% of the dialysis market in California, has given $110 million to a campaign to beat the measure — contributing to the most money raised for such a campaign in state history.

Opponents view Proposition 8 as an existential threat to the dialysis industry and its patients, and say the 95,000-member SEIU-UHW is using the ballot measure to deliver an ultimatum to its foes: Acquiesce to the union’s demands or pay for an expensive campaign.

“Proposition 8 puts California patients at risk in an effort to force unionization of employees,” DaVita Chief Executive Kent Thiry said in a statement. “There is an established and accepted process for employees to vote a union up or down. Instead of following that process, SEIU-UHW is pursuing a dangerous initiative that puts patients at grave risk.”

Thiry’s group warns that dialysis clinics may open for fewer hours, or would shutter altogether if the measure becomes law.

Dave Regan, head of SEIU-UHW, says his union wants to rein in a dialysis industry he says is “predatory.” The union has raised $18.8 million for the Proposition 8 campaign.

DaVita and Fresenius reported billions in operating income last year and have been accused by critics of various tactics to increase profitability, such as steering patients to private insurance or not giving employees enough time to adequately clean stations.

DaVita has been ordered to pay damages and settled lawsuits for more than $1 billion in the last five years, including $253.5 million in damages awarded in June to the families of two patients who died of cardiac arrest after receiving care at its California clinics. The company has said it would appeal that decision.

“The reason Prop. 8 is on the ballot is because they have a terrible business model and they’re gouging patients and insurers,” Regan said.

After years of expensive squabbles in the Capitol, Regan traveled to Denver, home to DaVita headquarters, to meet with Thiry for the first time on the eve of the June deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives this year.

Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced), the leader of a moderate bloc of Democrats in the Legislature, acted as intermediary. Gray said he spent weeks trying to bring the two sides together in hopes of breaking a stalemate and finding common ground.

But the eleventh-hour conversation over dinner came too late to negotiate a cease-fire and call off the proposal.

Regan initially described the visit as a “social meeting” he attended at Gray’s request. He later said the timing was coincidental and he never intended to strike a deal with Thiry to pull Proposition 8 from the ballot.

“Nothing consequential even came up,” Regan said. “Nothing was proposed. There was no kind of an agreement of any sort and it was a social discussion.”

Thiry said it “was definitely not a social meeting,” but declined to elaborate.

Now voters are left to decide the fate of the 80,000 patients who receive dialysis treatment at nearly 600 licensed clinics each month in California, according to figures from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

SEIU-UHW argues its measure will provide an incentive to dialysis companies so they invest more money into patient care. Under the measure, clinics could keep more of their profits if they increase costs for care.

Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition campaign, said the industry believes that voter approval of Proposition 8 would force most clinics in California to operate in the red.

“You can’t keep doing that week after week, month after month, year after year,” she said. “This is going to devastate the clinics in California and, by extension, all the patients.”

An analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor, said reducing revenues would make for-profit clinics “less profitable or could even be unprofitable.”

Proposition 8 excludes the salaries of managerial staff and some overhead charges from the cost calculation for patient care, which would further reduce profits.

“This to me is classic labor trying to, not just regulate a business, but affect how they operate,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who is not involved in the Proposition 8 campaign.

Scrutiny of dialysis clinics sparked a legislative proposal to establish staff-to-patient ratios in the industry for the first time. The bill, sponsored by SEIU-UHW, stalled in the state Legislature last year.

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed another bill this year aimed to halt an alleged dialysis industry practice of encouraging patients to sign up for private insurance and funneling money to nonprofits to help patients pay off premiums. Dialysis corporations make most of their profits off group or individual insurance plans, which are billed much more than Medi-Cal or Medicare for the same services.

“Right now they have every financial incentive to keep staffing and other direct patient services at a bare minimum because then they reap every dollar in profit margin,” Regan said.

SEIU-UHW has a history of turning to the ballot amid labor disputes.

Regan called off a pair of ballot initiatives in 2012 to limit charges for care at private hospitals and require nonprofits to spend at least 5% of revenues on charity care after the California Hospital Assn. agreed to a partnership that could help the union’s organizing efforts.

The partnership soured and the union filed two measures the next year to limit prices for care at private hospitals and executive salaries at nonprofit hospitals.

The union pulled the initiatives back in 2014 as part of a new agreement with the hospitals to campaign together to raise Medi-Cal reimbursement rates in exchange for an easier path to organizing thousands of potential union members, among other provisions.

A Sacramento judge shot down another SEIU-UHW ballot initiative to cap hospital executive pay in 2016. That same year, the union pushed a ballot initiative to increase pay for workers, which helped spark a legislative deal to raise California’s minimum wage.

This year alone, the union filed 11 ballot initiatives in California — seven at the local level and four statewide initiatives. Most of the initiatives failed to qualify or the union abandoned its effort.

One of the local measures would have placed revenue caps on the Watsonville Community Hospital. The union withdrew the initiative after it reached a collective bargaining agreement with the hospital, said Duane Dauner, the former chief executive of the California Hospital Assn. and a leader of the campaigns against the local initiatives. The hospital also agreed to form a committee to monitor and control pricing, said Sean Wherley, a spokesman for SEIU-UHW.

SEIU-UHW also sponsored five local initiatives in cities with Stanford Health Care community clinics. Measure F in Palo Alto and Measure U in Livermore, the only two to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, would limit the amount of money hospitals can charge for patient care. Stanford claims the union pushed the measures to pressure its hospitals to make it easier to unionize.

Wherley said the union is not organizing at Stanford’s healthcare facilities.

“He thinks initiatives are the solutions to bypass ordinary labor relations activity and tries to literally force the hospitals, doctors, dentists and others into unionization or he will proceed,” Dauner said of Regan.

Gray, the state legislator, pointed to several state policy battles this year, including a ban on soda taxes and a deal on consumer privacy protections, as examples of other special interests using the ballot as leverage.

“I support direct democracy, but I certainly think the initiative process, by everybody, has been used in ways that certainly weren’t intended,” Gray said.

Regan said SEIU-UHW didn’t qualify Proposition 8 to pressure the dialysis industry to strike a deal. He said the union wants to improve healthcare, and ballot initiatives are an effective way to make important policy changes.

He pointed to 17 minimum wage and Medicaid expansion initiatives the union supported in other states since 2016 that he said were not linked to organizing efforts.

“Most of the stuff that we do is in pursuit of the common good, whether it’s the minimum wage or Medicaid expansion,” Regan said. “The dialysis industry should be required to do more than criticize the union because they don’t want to talk about their business models or profits.”

Get the latest California politics news »

taryn.luna@latimes.com

Follow @tarynluna on Twitter and sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter.

NEW YORK — Miguel Rojas’ off day in Washington started early. Before visiting the White House, he and fellow World Series hero Will Klein and manager Dave Roberts met with members of Congress on Thursday morning.

“Other than going to the White House, there were a lot of people from California, senators from California that are not just people who work for the government, but they’re Dodgers fans as well,” Rojas said Friday before the Dodgers’ series opener against the Mets. “So it’s pretty cool to give people that watch games and support us throughout the year [an opportunity] to get to see us.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) posted on X, “Think we can do this every year, @Dodgers?” with three photos — one of himself with their back-to-back World Series trophies, another posing with a World Series ring on his finger, and a group shot that included Rojas, Roberts, Klein and Dodgers president Stan Kasten.

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood), whose district includes several San Fernando Valley neighborhoods, posted on social media that she thanked Rojas for hitting his tying home run in Game 7of the World Series.

“Thank you to Miguel and the team for stopping by Capitol Hill,” she posted on X. “We can’t wait to welcome them back again next year (with a THIRD trophy, perhaps?…).”

The Dodgers’ visit to the White House on Thursday frustrated the portion of their fan base that wanted their team to stand up against the president’s anti-immigration policies.

Only two players on the active roster who were part of the 2025 World Series team did not attend: shortstop Mookie Betts, who told reporters he’d rather spend time with his family, and reliever Edgardo Henriquez, who declined to comment via Dodgers PR.

“This is something that I don’t really think about [being] political,” Rojas said of visiting Capitol Hill and the White House. “…I’m representing the Dodgers, and I’m going to these events just because I’m part of the Dodgers, and the Dodgers are deciding to go there. And I feel, as a professional, your job doesn’t just stop when the game is over. You have to do some things outside the field that sometimes are tied to success and to the things that you do on the field. So, for me, it’s a privilege to get the opportunity to go to a place where you will never be if you don’t have success in sports.”

Roberts, who has also talked about separating the visit from politics, kept his review brief.

“It was good,” he said. “It was an honor to be there.”

Ohtani update

Dodgers two-way star Shohei Ohtani is scheduled to throw a bullpen session Saturday, his second since receiving an injection in his left knee at the beginning of the All-Star break.

“That’s the beauty of where we’re at right now,” Roberts said. “We’re not going to push him. There’s constant conversation going on each day. But the main thing is with Shohei and this pitching thing is to remain nimble.”

Even if Ohtani’s bullpen goes well, Roberts said he probably won’t be ready to return to the rotation next week.

“That’s too early,” Roberts said. “I feel good that it won’t be next week.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general are suing the Trump administration over imposing what they contend are “unlawful” conditions on federal grants intended to help states prepare and respond to disasters.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on Thursday, argues that the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate what the attorneys general see as an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies, according to the complaint.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated. The legal action was filed by a coalition of 24 attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, both Democrats.

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

At the crux of their legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers.

For the homeland security grant, the Trump administration has attached “radical” new terms based on Trump’s preferred policies, the states contend.

These terms include verifying the citizenship of all individuals in state voter databases, transitioning their voting systems to equipment that reads hand-marked paper ballots and conducting post-election audits “according to nonexistent guidelines to be set by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to the complaint.

And the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have threatened to make states “promise to devote their scarce resources to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement” in order to receive both the homeland security and the emergency management grants, according to the complaint.

At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes.

“These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes,” he said. “They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.”

The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.

“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”

After an 18-month closure prompted by the Palisades fire and subsequent damaging floods, Temescal Gateway Park reopened Friday, restoring access to beloved trails in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Hikers can walk along Temescal Creek, crossing a few charming wooden bridges, or take one of the steep ridge line trails to gape at the ocean as they gasp for air. But the popular Temescal Canyon Trail, which takes hikers to Temescal Falls, remains closed.

In this edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I will quickly outline what you need to know about returning to Temescal Canyon. My visit Friday was actually my first, but given the serenity I found in this coastal alcove, I will absolutely return. (Note: As of this morning, Google Maps still showed the park was closed; that is inaccurate.)

The Michael J. B. Allen memorial bench sits on a nice overlook in Temescal Canyon.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Temescal Gateway Park is a 141-acre expanse in Pacific Palisades that features a babbling brook, oak and sycamore canyons and trails that zigzag up the mountains, providing views of the Pacific Ocean and its coastline. It is owned by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy but managed by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.

From the park, you can hike into Topanga and Will Rogers state parks, although some state park trails remain closed. Those include:

People who frequented Temescal Canyon before the Palisades fire will notice the inevitable changes that come after a fire. Trail crews removed several fire-damaged trees, including multiple mature oaks, as dead trees can and do fall unexpectedly, according to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. The agency plans to continue reforestation projects in the park as money becomes available.

You can easily enter the park through its entrance off Sunset Boulevard. Upon entry, you’ll need to pay the $12 day-use fee at one of the machines stationed around the parking lot if you’re parking on the property. (And it’s not something to roll the dice on — I saw at least one couple get ticketed.)

A burned wayfinding sign on the Temescal Ridge Trail, which was left from the Palisades fire.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I parked under a large coast live oak and headed northwest onto the Temescal Ridge Trail, which is exposed and has minimal shade but offers multiple options for day hikes, including:

• A quick out-and-back up Temescal Ridge Trail to one of the route’s popular lookout points.
• A 3.1-mile lollipop loop, taking Temescal Ridge Trail about 1.4 miles north to Bienveneda Trail, which loops you back around to the Temescal Ridge Trail at 2.3 miles into your journey.
• Or even farther up, as Temescal Ridge Trail leads to other longer trails in the Santa Monica Mountains.

A hiker heads up Tesmescal Ridge Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I huffed up the trail and was pleased with how quickly I could see the ocean. Several burned trees and shrubs remain, but they’re surrounded by an abundance of plant life coming back, including cliff aster and laurel sumac.

Along the route, I was pleasantly surprised by the exuberance of my fellow hikers. Multiple people stopped me — a fun experience for a reporter — to just share how wonderful they felt being back in the park. “Isn’t this great?” one hiker shouted to me as she headed up the ridge line. A couple from Minnesota told me they’d flown in the day before and were eager to get back to Temescal Canyon, their favorite spot to hike in L.A.

A burned tree with native plants growing up and around it.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

My next stop was along the Sunset Trail, a 0.4-mile trail that runs along Temescal Creek. While I marveled at the gnarled and twisted old oak trees along the trail, I met a 14-year-old Parson Russell terrier named Finnegan. She seemed just as happy to be back as the people I encountered, especially on this shady trail next to running water.

Workers have installed three wooden bridges that cross over the creek, giving this short jaunt a whimsical feel. It ends near the road, and I turned back north, taking the sidewalk past picnic tables and rock shelters in a sycamore grove.

The Sunset Trail along Temescal Creek.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I would have loved to visit the Temescal Canyon Trail to see Temescal Falls, but as I mentioned, that trail remains closed.

Isabela Noriega, a project manager at the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Agency, said the agency will work with California State Parks officials to begin restoring the route, as only a portion of the trail is within the boundaries of Temescal Gateway Park and the rest is on state land.

“You’ll remember the fires happened Jan. 7, and then we got storms in February,” Noriega said. “So there was a lot of erosion [and] dirt debris that washed out the trails. [It’s] two disasters piling up on top of each other that we’re working to deal with.”

Instead, the third trail option you’ll have is the Rivas Canyon Trail, a fun jaunt up the hillside that features several sets of wooden stairs. You can access the trail at either of its trailheads (see map).

I started at its southern trailhead, which is behind a few buildings and near some machinery and felled trees. From there, I walked north along a wide path shaded by oak trees before taking the first set of stairs up.

One of multiple sets of stairs along the Rivas Canyon Trail.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

You’ll continue up the stairs, the views of the ocean growing better as you gain elevation. I was able to spot four sailboats as I hiked.

Although the trail is well maintained, there was a short stretch that was thick enough with cliff asters to make me grateful I wore pants. There were also a few spots where I paused to lightly stomp because low-lying branches of native shrubs covered the trail. These shady sites are great nap spots for rattlesnakes, which are common to the area.

Burned trees surrounded by native plants growing back after the Palisades fire scorched the hillside.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

About half a mile in, you’ll reach the Michael J. B. Allen memorial bench, built in honor of a UCLA professor and avid hiker. This is a nice spot to take a break and have a snack.

Right after this first bench, the trail is speckled with rocks that reminded me of dinosaur eggs or little bits of the moon. These moments always make me wish I’d paid far more attention in geology class, as I can generally only provide such riveting commentary as “Look at that pretty rock” or “Hey, is that a geode?” (It’s never a geode.)

Stairs lead to the overlook point where there’s a memorial bridge for local trail legends Rob and Mary Ann Webster.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I continued east to the second memorial bench, built in honor of Ron and Mary Ann Webster, two beloved advocates of the Santa Monica Mountains. It’s often said that, if you’ve hiked in the Santa Monicas, you’ve likely stepped foot on a trail Ron designed.

The view from Rivas Canyon Trail in Temescal Canyon.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

I decided to end my day on the Websters’ bench. The self-care app I use had recommended I spend 15 minutes outside that day reading, and this felt like a fine spot to finish a fascinating piece about how to properly measure a mountain.

I paused, though, first to take in the view.

All around me, there were reminders of both the fire and its aftermath — burned-out trees and plants. But past the hillsides dotted with native plants returning in force, I saw the wooden frames of several houses being rebuilt. It was a reminder that this park’s reopening is another signal that nature, ourselves included, will continue onward.

3 things to do

A stargazer calibrates a telescope to look at the Orion Nebula during a star party hosted by the Los Angeles Astronomical Society in L.A.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

1. Savor s’mores and the stars in Chinatown
Los Angeles State Historic Park, a 32-acre expanse of public land in Chinatown, will host a “Park After Dark” event with the L.A. Astronomical Society from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday. Telescopes will be set up, and park workers will help guests make s’mores around a community campfire at the park’s roundhouse bridge. Learn more at the park’s Instagram page.

2. Doddle along the dunes in Santa Monica
The Santa Monica Helping Hub and the Coastal Alliance will co-host a dune walk from 9 to 11 a.m. Sunday in Santa Monica. Conservation biologist Ashley Oelsen, the alliance’s founder, will lead guests through the dunes and share why the stretch of beach is ecologically significant, serving as important habitat for threatened shorebirds and native coastal plants. Register at eventbrite.com.

3. Bend under the Buck Moon in L.A.
We Explore Earth, a local outdoors nonprofit, will host a full-moon hiking experience from 6 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday in Elysian Park. Attendees will start meeting at 5:45 p.m. before heading on the hike at 6:25 p.m. After taking the Elysian Park west trail, participants can continue the evening with yoga, live music and stargazing with telescopes. Free, but donations of $5 to $10 are appreciated. Register at eventbrite.com.

The must-read

Crowds hike their way up the Mist Trail, one of the more popular trails in Yosemite National Park.

(William Hale Irwin/For The Times)

I am seemingly always planning my next adventure, including frequently pondering how soon I can return to Yosemite National Park. I last went in August and swam in the Merced River, hiked to Taft Point, saw Tunnel View at sunset and even went skydiving. But this past summer, that itch has felt more like a siren’s call as, like many outdoors lovers, I’ve been saddened by reports of serious overcrowding at one of America’s crown jewels. Over the past few weeks, I spoke to park-goers who’ve been to Yosemite this season, and I asked them: “Is it possible to still have fun there?” The answer, as I wrote in this story, was essentially, “Yes, but only if you plan accordingly.” Thankfully, they shared some tips on how to do that.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

A bald eagle believed to be Jackie, one half of the celebrity raptor couple in Big Bear, was taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center in Ojai after being rescued this past weekend. Times staff writer Lila Seidman reported that a team with the San Dimas Raptor Rescue arrived around 1:30 a.m. Saturday in Big Bear Lake and found a weak and tired eagle on the lake’s shoreline. The eagle was then transported to the Ojai Raptor Center, where the reason for her deterioration remains unknown. “Queen Jackie is in the best of care! And will be able to return soon!” one YouTube user wrote Tuesday evening in the livestream’s chat. “Sending all our love & prayers to her and the kiddos and her amazing hubby super Shadow holding it down!”

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.

Trump-endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton formally launched his general election campaign Wednesday by pitching himself to California’s abundance of anti-Trump voters.

In a speech, Hilton said Democrats had “abandoned” working-class and Latino communities and crushed small businesses. He criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for leading the state into decline, pointing to low literacy rates and slow responses to crises such as the Boyle Heights warehouse fire.

Hilton, a British-born conservative political commentator and former Fox News host, faces an uphill battle in California, a Democratic stronghold. In June, Hilton clinched second place in California’s gubernatorial primary behind veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra.

In an effort to persuade voters who are dissatisfied with the status quo, Hilton bought a full-page ad in the Wednesday editions of the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle.

The ad read, “Can you be anti-Trump and still vote for me?,” followed by a checklist readers could use to “test” if they shared common ground with Hilton.

“I can’t stand Trump, but I’m not happy with the way things have been run in California lately,” reads one line in the ad.

“I want to fight climate change, but $6.00 gas is crazy!” reads another.

At a news conference Wednesday, Hilton said the ad is aimed at voters who “know that we need change in California.”

Trump’s unpopularity in the state “doesn’t matter because we’re not talking about national policies here,” he said. “This is about what we can do in our state to make life better for Californians.”

Hilton then framed himself as a “pragmatic, problem-solving change-maker” focused on affordability, promising to lower gas prices, electricity costs and taxes and the cost of homes.

“We may not agree about national politics, but I think we can agree that we need change in California, and I’m going to bring that change,” he said.

The news conference, which marked the formal launch of Hilton’s general election campaign, took place at a Boyle Heights auto body shop across the street from the Lineage cold storage facility that was destroyed by a fire last month.

The location was chosen because it is a “symbol of Democrat failure,” Hilton said. The nauseating stench of rotting food filled the surrounding neighborhood. Swarms of flies buzzed about, occasionally landing on top of Hilton’s head.

Hilton said he’s not expecting Trump to campaign on his behalf in California. But, he added, “I’m proud to be endorsed by the president and I think it’s a very good thing to have a governor who has a good relationship with the federal administration.”

No Republican has been elected to a statewide office since 2006. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California published earlier this month showed Becerra with support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton.

Hilton insists his campaign is different from previous Republican bids.

“We’ve got to the point in California where people are looking for a positive alternative,” Hilton told The Times. “We’re going to be fighting very hard … already in the last year and a half I’ve fought a campaign like no one’s seen in California for 20 years. I’ve been to nearly every single county in our state.”

To understand political consultant Clinton Reilly–the hard-charging, number-crunching, message-honing, score-evening, candidate-firing, vitriol-spewing millionaire who is running Democrat Kathleen Brown’s campaign for governor–the autumn of 1993 is a good place to start.

One year before Election Day, Reilly was looking for work. Fresh from Los Angeles, where he had helped Richard Riordan beat the odds and become mayor, the San Francisco-based strategist had no major California clients. The problem was, in partisan races at least, he worked almost exclusively for Democrats, and the Democrats at the top of the ticket–Kathleen Brown and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein–had already hired their campaign teams.

Shut out, Reilly then did what no other political player in California would dare to do–he met with Joe Shumate, a top adviser to Gov. Pete Wilson, and discussed if he could play a role in reelecting the state’s top Republican. Weeks later, he talked to Congressman Michael Huffington about managing his campaign for Feinstein’s seat. Reilly had consorted with the Republican enemy. In his business, that just isn’t done. “It’s like the Hatfields and McCoys,” says Wilson’s campaign manager, George Gorton. “You switch sides, and neither side trusts you.” Then, Reilly switched sides again. Last March, a few months after talking to Wilson’s forces, he stepped in to rescue Brown’s floundering campaign.

It was the kind of maneuver that has made Reilly one of California’s most feared and envied political consultants–and one of the most brilliant. If you don’t believe it, just ask him. To hear Reilly talk, he is to other consultants what L’Oreal is to Prell–the one candidates hire because they’re worth it. He’s the big gun, the closer, the one you call when money is no object. And Reilly lives up to his own hype just often enough to make it seem true.

In more than two decades, Reilly has run winning campaigns for some of California’s best-known politicians, including Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Tony Coehlo, Bill Honig, Robert Matsui, Nancy Pelosi and David Roberti. He has helped elect the current mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Even his sharpest critics say Reilly knows the California electorate–where it lives, how it thinks, why it votes–as well as any political operative in the state. Reilly knows how to reach people, and that’s what politicians pay him handsomely to do. The 47-year-old son of a Bay Area milkman wears Italian suits, drives a lipstick-red Jaguar and lives just down the street from Robin Williams in a three-story Seacliff home that looks out at the Golden Gate Bridge.

More powerful than many candidates he’s helped elect, more influential than most Democratic party officials, Reilly epitomizes the modern campaign consultant. His loyalty lies not with his party but with himself, and his egotism is legendary. So is his paranoia. He is “Nixonian,” says one colleague. “Queeg-like,” says another. State Sen. Quentin Kopp, a former client, refers to him fondly as “Satan.”

In what is essentially an anonymous profession, Reilly has a knack for attracting attention, and not all of it flattering. In 1988, he managed–and lost–what remains the most expensive political campaign in state history, the insurance industry’s $63.8 million effort to beat back reform. (Reilly’s firm netted at least $6 million). In 1989, after working for months on Feinstein’s gubernatorial campaign, he noisily fired the candidate, faxing a press release to the media that claimed she lacked the gumption to become governor. (They haven’t spoken since.)

Last year, Reilly went to the San Francisco Examiner for a talk with Publisher William R. Hearst and Executive Editor Phil Bronstein. Reilly left on a stretcher with a broken ankle that required nine screws and a metal plate to fix. Though subsequent litigation never established whether Bronstein or Reilly was the aggressor, it did reveal that Reilly injects testosterone, a tidbit that only enhanced his fearsome reputation. (According to Reilly, his doctor prescribes the injections to correct a hormone imbalance.)

“When the opponent knows you have (him) on your side, a chill goes up their spine,” says San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan. “He’s certainly better to have inside the tent than outside.”

Now, Reilly faces his toughest test. Can he reinvigorate Kathleen Brown’s once promising campaign and propel her to victory? If he succeeds in electing the first woman governor of California, one thing is sure. Nothing will stand in the way of Clint Reilly. Except, perhaps, himself.

Reilly is holding court in the restored San Francisco warehouse that houses the Clinton Reilly Group. He sits in a conference room at one end of a long, sleek table. As always, he wears an expensive suit–today, it’s navy blue–a starched white shirt, a designer tie and patterned socks. The ovals of his wire-rimmed glasses are perched high on his pale, prominent nose. Unsmiling, he fiddles with an Evian bottle cap and crosses and uncrosses his legs.

Nine members of Kathleen Brown’s campaign staff sit around the table, and judging by the accumulation of empty coffee cups, they’ve been there for hours. The question at hand: how to energize the electorate–”to turn it on,” says Reilly, “so it votes.” The answer sounds simple: Demonize Pete Wilson. “Why is PW a bum?” asks the hand-scrawled heading atop a big sheet of paper. The answers are taped to the walls. “California in decline . . . . Never done what he’s said he’d do . . . . He’s a blank . . . . 12 years asleep at the wheel . . . . He’s a hypocrite.”

After half a day’s brainstorming, however, something is still missing. Reilly summons a female assistant who hurries off, returning a moment later with a folder stuffed with mailers from previous Reilly campaigns. He picks out a lustrous Riordan-for-mayor brochure. “The declining city,” he says, displaying a glossy four-color photograph of graffiti-scarred Los Angeles streets. “Everybody sees it. It’s not a core issue, it’s a symbolic issue. Then, you’ve got crime,” he says, pointing to another slick image: a gloved hand, aiming a revolver directly at the camera. What the Brown campaign lacks, Reilly says, are visual cues that show voters why California needs a change.

“That’s one of our problems. It’s the worst recession since the Great Depression. But how do you portray a middle-class Depression?” he asks, thinking aloud. “It’s not bread lines. It’s a whole new image for the ‘90s. And we need to capture that. We need to show people how four more years of Wilson will hurt them.” This is the Reilly trademark, distilling a race down to a few stark ideas. Political consultants like to boast of their ability to identify the themes that underlie a given election, but what sets Reilly apart is his capacity to condense those themes in evocative, elegantly produced television ads and mailers.

“The guy’s a genius,” Riordan says. “He’s weird. But he’s a genius.”

To bring home the threat of crime during the 1993 Los Angeles mayoral race, Reilly created a mailer about rape in Hollywood, the district that Riordan’s opponent, City Councilman Mike Woo, had represented for years. The text of the ad was mostly statistics. But its frightening series of photos caught the eye: a young woman, her face out of focus, with a spreading stain of red that looked alarmingly like blood. “Mike Woo,” said the punch line. “A Record on Crime That Could Kill You.”

Other consultants specialize–in mail, in television, in polling, in campaign management. Reilly prides himself on running a full-service firm, which he has deliberately modeled on a commercial advertising agency. He even went so far as to locate the Clinton Reilly Group in San Francisco’s ad district. It is, he says, a “real company” that makes a profit by meeting his clients’ every need, from speech writing to graphic design. Other consultants may ride the peaks and valleys of the campaign cycle by downsizing during the off-season. Reilly employs as many as 15 people regardless. Which, of course, costs money.

“He always talks about overhead,” says Dick Pabich, a Democratic political consultant. “We joke about his middle name: Clint ‘Overhead’ Reilly. You can’t have a 10-minute conversation without it coming up.” Not coincidentally, Reilly tends to work with deep-pocketed candidates. “His talent is he is able to convince his clients that they have to spend a lot of money,” says Ron Smith, a Republican political consultant. “I hope that comes off as a compliment.”

What do candidates get in return? His formidable ability to target key voters–a discipline known as “narrowcasting.” Using a computer-generated breakdown of the electorate, Reilly identifies groups of like-minded voters (white Democratic women who voted in five of the last six elections, for example). Then, he fills their mailboxes with custom-made Reilly brochures that dovetail with pointed Reilly television commercials. “(You don’t) talk vanilla to people who want chocolate or strawberry or rocky road,” he says.

Most important, Reilly’s clients get Reilly himself: a shrewd but unforgiving perfectionist, a relentless taskmaster who, during a campaign, rarely sleeps. “He is a nocturnal animal,” says Jack Davis, a San Francisco consultant. “He does his best work in the darkness.” There are many tales of his 3 a.m. telephone calls, and until about a year and one-half ago, he did not own a wrist watch. “He didn’t want to know what time it was,” says his younger brother, Kevin. “It was a way to extend his day and give it that little bit more that he could give it.”

When talking about the campaigns he has run, Reilly has a habit of referring to “the candidates I’ve elected,” speaking in a shorthand that strips the candidates themselves of any credit. The message is clear: Reilly is not merely an employee but a partner. Politicians aren’t the only ones with something to lose. Reilly’s reputation also is on the line.

“When it’s all over, you can’t give excuses for why you didn’t win,” says Reilly, sitting on an oversized couch in his cream-colored living room. Freshly cut roses sit in a vase, and the housekeeper has left a neat stack of logs in the fireplace, which Reilly has lit. “You basically have to live with the result for the rest of your career, for the rest of your life. So pretty soon, you start to say (to candidates), ‘Hey, look! If you don’t have the money, you’re not going to win, so get the money!’ You start saying to campaign workers, ‘Hey look, this isn’t a trial run here.’ ” He pauses. “They don’t like it sometimes. And they don’t like you.”

This take-no-prisoners behavior has taken its toll on Reilly. It has isolated him; few people call him a friend. “People either hate him and despise him or hate him and admire him,” says one former Reilly employee who puts himself in the latter group. “We used to refer to his mansion as Xanadu. The implication was that he was wandering around talking to the pictures.”

“ ‘Why do they walk away from me?’ ” Tony Coehlo, the former congressman from Merced, remembers Reilly lamenting. “ ‘I’ve helped them win and now they’re attacking me? Why?’ He gets hurt, really hurt, when people turn against him.”

Instead of dissuading clients, Reilly’s obsessiveness only adds to his allure. “You have to understand how much these people want to be elected. They’re people who want it so bad,” says one former Reilly employee. “They hire Clint because they know he has a monster in him, and that’s what they think they need to win.”

At Christmastime, 1969, Bess and Joe Reilly received a letter from the eldest of their 10 children. Clinton Thomas Reilly was 22 years old–the right age, he wrote, to tell his parents “thanks.” But the seven-page letter contained more than gratitude. It revealed the aspirations of a driven idealist who yearned to “drain myself in the service of others.”

“I am a restless man and cannot settle for least best,” Reilly wrote in careful script on lined notebook paper. “There is a strange will for perfection–not in detail but in vision–which threads my action during the day and often keeps me awake at night. . . .”

Reilly had recently left the seminary, ending nine years of study, and had decided to work in politics. “Where would I be now if your entire lives had been dedicated to the pursuit of money?” he asked his parents. “Would I be in a graduate school of business somewhere, waiting to become an executive trainee for a large corporation? What a dull–unexciting life that would be–and what a barren future that would hold.

“I am also aware that little can be done without money. Since I am primarily a doer, I plan to make enough of it to stay alive. My meager talents are worth plenty to someone! And I promise to make him pay!”

Reilly was born in Oakland in 1947, and he says he was drawn to politics even as a child. In the fifth grade, he was elected class president under the banner “Take a Hint, Vote for Clint”–a slogan crafted by his campaign manager and younger sister, Jill. Years older than their other siblings, Clint and Jill were inseparable, best friends, and when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at the age of 11, “it was like a bullet that hit you and didn’t hit me. I had a feeling of a certain responsibility that came to me.”

Reilly’s mother, a recent convert to Catholicism, was raising her children in the Church. As Jill fought her illness, her faith became more intense. “She wanted to be a nun,” her mother says, and soon after Jill’s death, Clint announced his desire to enter the seminary. The Reilly family moved to a new home in the working-class city of San Leandro, and when Clint was 14, he went to live at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Mountain View. Pursuing the priesthood, he earned his college degree in philosophy and under the supervision of his favorite professor, the Rev. Eugene J. Boyle, he got his first taste of social activism.

In 1968, while in college, Reilly led a group of seminarians in producing a local version of the Kerner Commission report, the analysis of racial tensions that was written in the wake of the 1967 summer riots. The resulting 577-page “Little Kerner Report” concluded that white San Franciscans were “sleeping through a revolution.” (Mayor Joseph Alioto scoffed, calling the report “the product of 21-year-old students who have been secluded in their seminary and not in contact with the objective facts.”) A year later, Reilly left the seminary just three and one-half years shy of taking his vows. After a brief stint working for Planned Parenthood, he threw himself into politics.

“I think initially, intuitively, I wanted to get involved in politics because that was a place where you could improve people’s lives and make the biggest impact on the direction of the world,” says Reilly. “It was a pure motivation.”

In 1974, Reilly urged Father Boyle, well known as a liberal activist, to run for the state Assembly against another Democrat, John Francis Foran. “Loyal to the People,” was the slogan Reilly devised for Boyle, and the underdog candidate was gaining ground by the day. Then, at the last minute, Foran sent out a campaign mailer that showed a photograph of what was purported to be Boyle’s residence: a building that looked like a cross between the White House and “The Beverly Hillbillies” mansion. “Why doesn’t Father Boyle practice what he preaches?” the mailer asked. In truth, the building was the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley. Nobody lived there. Still, the hit piece succeeded. Boyle lost by a few hundred votes, and Reilly’s days as a political ingenue were over.

“That was a real turning point for Clint,” says John Thiella, a State Board of Equalization staffer who worked with Reilly on several campaigns during the ‘70s and ‘80s. “(Afterward), he understood that it wasn’t just the right ideology and goodness that led to success. You had to do some harsh things to win.”

Reilly puts it differently: “I learned the power of money.”

He certainly wasn’t making any. For most of the ‘70s, Reilly estimates that his campaign work earned him only a few thousand dollars a year. To make a living, he opened a high-class junk shop that sold traffic lights, milk cans, apple crates, Mao buttons–anything that would bring in cash. Reilly’s break came in 1979 when he ran San Francisco Supervisor Quentin Kopp’s campaign for mayor, forcing heavily favored incumbent Dianne Feinstein into a runoff. Kopp lost, but Reilly was on the map.

By his own admission, Reilly was drinking heavily during this period. “He was a Remy Martin kind of guy,” says his friend Jack Davis. In the middle of the Kopp campaign, Reilly was arrested for drunk driving and resisting arrest, according to police records. Then, while he was running the 1980 reelection campaign of then-Van Nuys Congressman Jim Corman, a Democrat, something happened between him and a girlfriend that would haunt him for years.

“Did you ever hit (your girlfriend)? Did you ever grab (her) in anger? Did you cause injury to (her)?”–lawyers for the San Francisco Examiner would pepper Reilly with these questions 13 years later, in response to the lawsuit he filed after his ankle injury. During legal proceedings, Reilly’s lawyer advised him not to answer. Still, by the time the newspaper settled–paying Reilly somewhere between $400,000 and $900,000–the alleged incident with his former girlfriend had become part of the Reilly lore. As the San Jose Mercury News put it: “Is . . . Clint Reilly a testosterone-crazed, woman-beating bully . . . ?”

“I just don’t feel it’s fair to ask me to answer that question,” he says, grimacing as he paces his office at Kathleen Brown’s headquarters. “I have acknowledged that I had a drinking problem, and that I also had problems coping with the pressures of the work. I stopped drinking in 1981 and sought counseling and even continue today to see the counselor that I saw back then. A number of things I did were destructive. And I felt it was real important for me to sort of look at myself and my behavior and make significant changes.”

Reilly insists that he had gotten ahold of himself by the time he opened his firm in 1982. With more than 30 campaigns behind him, it was time to make money. “I began to say to myself, ‘Well, gee, somebody who gets a job for $125,000 as a result of what I do and who may have that job for life. Because of his own good efforts but also what I did for him, he’s earned a ton of money, he’s gotten a lot of personal psychic rewards, he’s gotten to be a famous person. Now why in the heck should I do this for 2,000 bucks a month?”

He started demanding more money and getting it–at least six figures a campaign. Still, some candidates flinched. In 1982, after Reilly orchestrated a decisive primary victory for Barbara Boxer in her first congressional race, Boxer fired him for exceeding her campaign budget and leaving her in debt. “It’s very expensive to have a manager like Clint,” she said at the time. It could also be maddening. In the midst of the campaign, Reilly demanded that Boxer mortgage her house to raise more cash. When she refused, he went to her husband, who told Reilly to get out of his office. (Boxer refused to comment on the incident, saying it was “personal.”)

But Reilly was getting to be known as a winner. In the early years, he had lost business because he was not part of the San Francisco political machines of then-Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy or Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. By the mid-’80s, though, Reilly’s nonalignment had become an asset. Plenty of candidates sought his services, and he was free to work for whomever he wished. Soon, his behavior made some wonder if there was anything he wouldn’t do.

There was the way he conducted the 1988 insurance initiative campaign, spending what many people think was an obscene amount of money–and making a fair bit himself. (Afterward, he says, “I basically didn’t have to work a day in my life for the rest of my life.”) There was the way he publicly ditched Feinstein in 1989. (“That was bad judgment, a humbling experience for an arrogant man. But I’ll tell you what it did. It got Dianne off her ass.”) And there was the way, in 1990, he sought to work on behalf of a pro-development ballot measure in San Francisco. When the developers hired a rival consultant, Reilly turned around and spent $150,000 of his own money to defeat it. (“I think the message was adequately communicated.”)

Reilly had come to understand that money was more than merely a way “to stay alive,” as he’d written his parents in 1969. Money was the enduring currency of power. Money bought freedom–to be generous, perhaps, or to even old scores. And money commanded one of the things Reilly most craved: respect. No longer the idealistic 22-year-old, compelled to serve others, Reilly wanted to be appreciated, and experience had shown him that people appreciated what they paid for. He had learned this lesson, but he resented those who had taught him.

“In many ways, I see him as a high-priced call girl,” says Calvin Welch, a community activist in San Francisco whom many describe as Reilly’s Father-confessor. “On the one hand he greatly luxuriates in charging people top dollar and spending an incredible amount of money and having that reputation, which means he will only go after certain kinds of candidates. On the other hand, he despises those people for thinking they can buy Clint Reilly.”

Kathleen Brown sat down with Clint Reilly for the first time last March. Attorney Bill Wardlaw, a Brown adviser who had worked closely with Reilly on the Riordan campaign, hosted the afternoon session in his West Los Angeles office. Immediately, Brown says, she was struck by Reilly’s sophisticated analysis of California politics. Although the meeting had been arranged less than 24 hours before, Reilly had sketched out a formula for victory–”He diagnosed my campaign better than anyone had in a year and a half,” she says.

As darkness fell, Brown saw something else. “After about 2 1/2 hours, the lights went out–the building had closed down,” Brown remembers. “He kept right on going–(talking about) the Inland Empire margin of victory. We continued our conversation in semi-darkness. It was unusual.” Impressed by his intensity, Brown offered Reilly the job of campaign chairman. “He is a warrior. A commando. There’s nothing that comes across the transom that unnerves him or distracts him from the focus of this campaign.”

Reilly’s arrival unnerved some of Brown’s campaign staff, however. Within days of Brown’s decision, campaign manager Teresa Vilmain, policy director Roy Behr and media consultant Jim Margolis all resigned–opting to “make the tough decision now,” Margolis said in a statement, “rather than face difficulties later.” Reilly got what he wanted: complete control.

Reilly appeared to be just what Brown needed. Known for little more than her lineage, she lacked the very thing Reilly’s candidates are known for–a sharply defined image. But along with his expertise, Reilly brought his reputation as a walking cluster bomb. One woman fund-raiser who had worked for Brown for three years quit the campaign without even meeting him because of what she had heard. Other staffers had heard the stories, too. There were so many, they were impossible to avoid.

Among the things people claim to have seen Reilly do over the years: comment on the size of a woman’s breasts in front of a roomful of male colleagues; inform a male employee that he wanted “to vomit” at the sight of him; reduce men and women staffers to tears; throw paper clips; punch a wall repeatedly next to an employee’s head; pound a chair up and down; break a glass ashtray by slamming it on a table; knock the telephone receiver out of a woman’s hand while she was talking; chase an employee down a street.

“That’s one that does have a kernel of truth to it,” Reilly says of the last example. According to two sources, in the midst of a 1986 supervisorial race, Reilly became so upset at mistakes made by a staffer named Laurie R. Glenn that he pursued her, shouting, out of his office and into the streets of San Francisco in the middle of the night. Reilly says that he can’t recall precisely what occurred. “I wasn’t chasing her down the street,” he says. “I think, actually, she was chasing me.” (Glenn declined to comment.)

Reilly hates the subject of his temper, even though he often brings it up himself. When asked to explain it, he is by turns irate, contemptuous and remorseful. He concedes that he can be out of control sometimes and unnecessarily hurtful, though “much, much less than legend would have it.” That kind of anger “there’s no excuse for,” he says. “I feel badly about it.” During a campaign, though, Reilly says he uses anger strategically. Candidates “are not hiring me because they want me to get along with everybody. They’re hiring me because they want to win. The campaign is a war, you know?” And rage is a tactical weapon.

“We human beings on many levels are motivated by our desire to look good in front of our colleagues, and (by) the fear of shame,” he says, explaining why he has humiliated staffers in the presence of others. “I want it to be a public experience (so) that you know that everyone in the whole organization is going to know that you f- – -ed up.”

Reilly isn’t entirely wrong. He may have trouble getting along with people, but in the most fundamental sense, he understands them. He has pondered their motivations for years–as a seminarian, as a philosophy student, as a campaigner, as a boss. He has made a fortune by identifying and appealing to voters’ hopes and fears. He is a professional manipulator. That, say several former colleagues, is what makes him so cruel.

“The man possesses a superhuman ability to zero in on your emotional or psychological vulnerability. Clint’s weapon is words, and I’ve never seen anybody who can hit you so on the mark,” says one former employee who echoed the descriptions of dozens of others. Reilly often seems “loopy” and “out there,” this person says, but when he cuts into you, he does so with surgical precision. “That Jesuit training was really something he paid attention to. That priestly kind of power over you is there. It’s not just about a boss telling you you didn’t get enough widgets done. It’s about a priest making a fundamental comment about (your) character.”

As Reilly excoriates others, Calvin Welch says, he also flays himself. “He is a guy at war with himself. There’s the seminarian. There’s the hard-boiled campaigner. And then there’s what you could call the friend. Sometimes they don’t fit together. He is basically troubled by doubts as to whether or not he made the right decisions in his life.”

In 1991, those doubts made Reilly quit campaigning. He was exhausted, he said, and disillusioned. “In my experience, most politicians are not up to the task,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle in announcing his retirement. But few people thought he would stay out of the game for long. Politics had made him a man about town in San Francisco–a staple of Herb Caen’s column, he escorted beautiful women to expensive restaurants and hosted extravagant parties at his home. As many had predicted, he was back at work within months, joining Frank Jordan’s long-shot campaign for mayor. He had decided to reconcile himself, he now says, to “certain realities of the business that will never change: the wear and tear, the continuous, the seven days a week, 16 hours a day, day after day after day.”

There are obvious payoffs–his museum quality art collection, his private beach, his up-close view of the Golden Gate Bridge. But they come at a price. Reilly says he doesn’t have to justify his temper, his wealth, his work. Still, he never stops doing so. “Look, you know . . . I am who I am and I am what I am and I’m proud of what I am,” he says. “I enjoy what I do. It’s exciting. It’s exhilarating. It’s fun. But it’s also very difficult. It’s tiring. It’s emotionally draining. It’s sometimes frustrating. It’s full of tension. . . . Sometimes, one doesn’t have total serenity about everything that you do. But, in general, I, you know . . . I am not at peace. I’m at a relative state of happiness, with a lot of tension in there as well.”

The San Francisco fund-raiser was going marvelously. The ballroom of the St. Francis Hotel was packed with nearly 1,000 Kathleen Brown supporters who had paid at least $500 a plate. “Here Comes the Sun,” blared from the loudspeaker as Brown and Vice President Al Gore entered the room and began working their way through a crowd that included several other Reilly clients. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was seated at the head table. State Sen. Milton Marks and former Supt. of Schools Bill Honig were a few tables away. Reilly’s girlfriend–a Riordan staffer named Janet Koewler–also was there, sitting at his side. But Reilly’s gaze rarely settled on anyone but Brown and her special guest.

Reilly is running the race of his life. If Brown ousts Gov. Pete Wilson, she will instantly become the most prominent woman in American politics, and Reilly could be catapulted into the national fray as well. “Clint wants to elect a President,” says one observer. Already, there is speculation that if Brown wins, Reilly’s old friend Tony Coehlo, now at the Democratic National Committee, may try to land him a job on President Clinton’s reelection campaign.

But that’s a big if. Reilly has yet to arrest Brown’s slide. Although he has brought discipline to the Brown campaign, her lead–which had hit a high of 23 points in May, 1993–is now a distant memory. The Los Angeles Times poll in mid-September had Brown behind by nine points among likely voters. With the election five weeks away, Kathleen Brown is still struggling with the problem that has vexed her from the start: explaining to voters why she is an alternative to Pete Wilson, why she should be California’s next leader.

Reilly insists that the 1994 election is about effectiveness. He says he’s convinced that if the campaign can connect Wilson to the decline of California, voters will turn to Brown. Thus, most of the 30 different television ads he has created for Brown do little more than attack Wilson. But you can’t beat something with nothing, and for all of Reilly’s efforts, Brown’s political identity remains almost as unfocused today as when she hired him.

Still, Brown remains optimistic, saying Reilly, whom she’s paid more than $690,000 in commissions and fees so far, is worth the price. “All the polls last year were not realistic assessments of what the race was going to be about. I knew that,” she said in late August. Because of Reilly, “we are right where I needed to be–in a neck-and-neck race with an incumbent governor who will be defeated in November.”

Not everyone is so sure. “(Reilly) is the best opener I’ve ever seen. He can handicap a race, he can analyze the electorate, figure out what votes are needed where. He’s almost worth his fee for that alone,” says longtime confidant, Calvin Welch. “He never gets crazy at the beginning because he has it all figured out. But when things don’t unfold the way they’re supposed to–the candidate wears the wrong dress, some bozo doesn’t get the third mailer out to the left-handed Lithuanians — But his great weakness is his end game. That’s when he loses it. .”

Clint Reilly hasn’t lost it so far. He hasn’t thrown anything, hasn’t reduced a staffer to tears. But he continues to flog himself. He hasn’t taken a day off since he joined the Brown campaign (he has been known to chide staffers who have). He sees his girlfriend infrequently. On their one-year anniversary in June, she gave him a frame to hold a picture of the two of them. Today, it sits empty–there’s been no time to pose for a photo.

“This is the most important race for governor anywhere in the country,” Vice President Gore told the audience at Brown’s fund-raiser. Reilly’s girlfriend gave his hand a squeeze. “This is a bus,” Gore continued, “we cannot and will not allow to stall.” Reilly probably couldn’t have said it any better himself.

THE CLIENTS

“He is a warrior. A commando. Nothing unnerves him.”

STATE TREASURER KATHLEEN BROWN

(1994 gubernatorial race)

“The guy’s a genius. He’s weird. But he’s a genius.”

LOS ANGELES MAYOR RICHARD RIORDAN

(1993 mayoral race)

“When opponents know you have (him), a chill goes up their spine.”

SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR FRANK JORDAN

(1991 mayoral race)

“It’s very expensive to have a manager like Clint.”

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

(1982 congressional race)

“He gets hurt, really hurt, when people turn against him.”

FORMER CONGRESSMAN TONY COELHO

(1982, ‘84, ’86 congressional races)

She and Reilly have not spoken in five years.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

(1983 mayoral race)

Clint Reilly, a Bay Area milkman’s son who rose to manage the campaigns of California’s most influential political figures, has died at age 79.

A savvy political consultant, Reilly spearheaded early winning campaigns for some of the most recognizable names in California politics: former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Brandon Heist, Clint Reilly Organization’s head of business operations, said in a statement to The Times that Reilly died over the weekend in San Francisco. He died surrounded by family, which requested privacy. The San Francisco Examiner newspaper, which Reilly bought in 2020, earlier announced its owner’s death Sunday.

“I will always be grateful for Clint’s friendship and counsel over so many years,” Pelosi said in a statement. “As the manager of my first campaign for Congress in 1987, he brought his unmatched strategic mind to help create and amplify my slogan: A Voice That Will Be Heard.”

In a 1987 article, The Times attributed the success of Pelosi’s congressional bid to money — her campaign spent $1 million, more than her 13 opponents combined — and a sophisticated voter turnout program devised by Reilly. At the time, Pelosi was a 46-year-old mother of five children and a party activist known for raising large sums for Democratic candidates.

Reflecting on Pelosi’s rise last November, Reilly wrote in a San Francisco Examiner op-ed, “The mystery of being a political consultant is that you never know how your winning candidate’s career will turn out.”

Reilly’s legacy went beyond catapulting politicians into office.

He helped transform modern campaigning, said Oakland political consultant Jim Ross, who worked for Reilly throughout the ’90s, including on the election and reelection campaigns of San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan.

In the ‘80s, Reilly was among the first consultants to merge grassroots organizing with new technology: using voter roll data to segment and target pivotal voters for turnout and persuasion, Ross said.

“It was a way to make sure that he spent resources effectively,” Ross said.

Reilly’s data-driven voter targeting tactics helped Feinstein, then-San Francisco mayor, beat a recall effort in 1983. They later had a public falling-out in 1989 during Feinstein’s failed campaign for governor.

Reilly’s portfolio wasn’t strictly Democratic. In 1993, he coordinated businessman Richard Riordan’s successful campaign for Los Angeles mayor by targeting homeowners’ anxieties about unemployment, crime and other symptoms of urban decay. When elected, Riordan became the first Republican mayor of Los Angeles in 36 years — and no Republican has been elected to that office since.

Reilly also advised the California insurance industry.

In 1988, he led the insurance industry’s losing $60-million initiative campaigns for Propositions 104 and 106. The pair of insurance industry-sponsored measures was designed to compete with Propositions 100 and 103, initiatives backed by trial lawyers and consumer advocates who wanted to reform the industry.

Voters ultimately passed Proposition 103, which promised insurance rate roll-backs and created the elected state insurance commissioner role. But Ross said it was one example of how Reilly would search for creative ways to achieve his client’s goals.

“Clint really pioneered in that election the idea of running competing ballot measures,” Ross said. “The reform measure was extraordinarily popular, it was going to pass, so instead of going at it directly, he ran a competing measure.”

A 1994 profile in The Times, from when Reilly was running Democrat Kathleen Brown’s bid for governor, described him as “one of the most powerful–and feared–political operatives in California.”

“When the opponent knows you have (him) on your side, a chill goes up their spine,” former San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan told The Times. “He’s certainly better to have inside the tent than outside.”

Born in Oakland in 1947, Reilly was drawn to politics from an early age. He ran successfully for class president during fifth grade, with a campaign slogan his sister devised: “Take a Hint, Vote for Clint.”

Reilly’s relationship with Eugene Boyle, a Bay Area Catholic priest and liberal activist known for supporting the Civil Rights Movement, shaped his political views. He was passionate about supporting “the underdogs,” Ross said.

Reilly spent nine years in seminary before switching to pursue politics. His big break came in 1979, when he ran San Francisco Supervisor Quentin Kopp’s campaign for mayor. Kopp lost, but Reilly’s name stuck.

He soon developed a reputation for charging top dollar for his campaign strategy services and for his heavy campaign spending. In 1982, after Reilly brought Boxer to a decisive primary victory in her first congressional race, she fired him over excessive campaign spending, the Times reported in the 1994 profile.

As a boss, Reilly was “extraordinarily demanding,” Ross said, adding, “I reread pieces of direct mail five and six times now because of him.”

He also had a generous side, Ross said. Reilly spent time teaching young staffers the art of campaigning, a rarity in politics. Even after he left political consulting and shifted his focus to real estate, Reilly continued to help candidates with fundraising and messaging.

Reilly ran unsuccessfully for San Francisco mayor in 1999 and later turned his attention to local media and philanthropy, founding a nonprofit in 2008 to offer scholarships for low-income students to attend private college-preparatory high schools.

Reilly’s passing will not change the structure or current operations of the Clint Reilly Organization, Heist said. The organization’s media division includes the San Francisco Examiner — which Reilly acquired in 2020 alongside its now-defunct affiliate SF Weekly — and the Nob Hill Gazette, which he bought in 2016. The organization also has a hospitality company and real estate division.

“The organization’s commitment to its employees, partners, and the community remain firmly in place,” Heist said.

Condolences poured in from leaders across California on Monday.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom in a statement honored Reilly as a “San Francisco institution” with a brilliant mind and generous heart.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said on social media the city “lost a civic leader who left a lasting mark on our city.”

Reilly is survived by his wife Janet and two daughters, Jill and Ava. Memorial arrangements will be announced later.