Californians

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

Californians renewing their public health plans or who plan to sign up for the first time will be in for sticker shock when open enrollment begins on Saturday. Monthly premiums for federally subsidized plans available on the Covered California exchange — often referred to as Obamacare — will soar by 97% on average for 2026.

The skyrocketing premiums come as a result of a conflict at the center of the current federal government shutdown, which began on Oct. 1: a budgetary impasse between the Republican majority and Democrats over whether to preserve enhanced, Biden-era tax credits that expanded healthcare eligibility to millions more Americans and kept monthly insurance costs affordable for existing policyholders. About 1.7 million of the 1.9 million Californians currently on a Covered California plan benefit from the tax credits.

Open enrollment for the coming year runs from Nov. 1 until Jan. 31. It’s traditionally the period when members compare options and make changes to existing plans and when new members opt in.

Only this time, the government shutdown has stirred uncertainty about the fate of the subsidies, first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and which have been keeping policy costs low, but will expire at the end of the year if lawmakers in Washington don’t act to extend them.

Californians window shopping on the exchange’s consumer homepage will have to make some tough decisions, said Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman. The loss of the tax credits to subsidize premiums only adds to what can already be a complicated, time-consuming and frustrating process.

Even if the subsidies remained intact, premiums for plans offered by Covered California were set to rise by roughly 10% for 2026, due to spikes in drug prices and other medical services, Altman said.

Without the subsidies, Covered California said its members who receive financial assistance will see their monthly premiums jump by an additional $125 a month, on average, for 2026.

The organization projects that the cost increases will lead many Californians to simply go without coverage.

“Californians are going to be facing a double whammy: premiums going up and tax credits going away,” Altman said. “We estimate that as many as 400,000 of our current enrollees will disenroll and effectively be priced out of the health insurance that they have today. That is a devastating outcome.”

Indeed, the premium spike threatens to lock out the very Americans that the 2010 Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature domestic policy win — was intended to help, said Altman. That includes people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but who either make too little to afford a private plan or don’t work for an employer that pays a portion of the premiums.

That’s a broad swath of Californians — including many bartenders and hairdressers, small business owners and their employees, farmers and farm workers, freelancers, ride-share drivers, and those working multiple part-time gigs to make ends meet. The policy change will also affect Californians who use the healthcare system more frequently because they have ongoing conditions that are costly to treat.

By raising the tax-credit eligibility threshold to include Americans earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level, the Biden-era subsidies at the heart of the budget stalemate have brought an estimated 160,000 additional middle-income Californians into the system, Covered California said. The enhanced subsidies save members about $2.5 billion a year overall in out-of-pocket premium expenses, according to the exchange.

California lawmakers have tried to provide some relief from rising Covered California premiums by recently allocating an additional $190 million in state-level tax credits in next year’s budget for individuals who earn up to 150% of the federal poverty level. That would keep monthly premiums consistent with 2025 levels for a person making up to $23,475 a year, or a family of four bringing in $48,225 a year, and provide partial relief for individuals and households making slightly more.

Altman said the state tax credits will help. But it may not be enough. Forecasts from the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group and think tank, also show a significant drop-off of roughly 400,000 enrolled members in Covered California.

The national outlook is even worse. The Congressional Budget Office warned Congress nearly a year ago that if the enhanced premium subsidies were allowed to expire, the ranks of the uninsured would swell by 2.2 million nationwide in 2026 alone — and by an average of 3.8 million Americans each year from 2026 to 2034.

Organizations that provide affordable Obamacare plans are preparing for Californians to get squeezed out of the system if the expanded subsidies disappear.

L.A. Care, the county’s largest publicly operated health plan, offers Covered California policies for 230,000 mostly lower-income people. About 90% of the Covered California consumers they work with receive subsidies to offset their out-of-pocket healthcare insurance costs, said Martha Santana-Chin, L.A. Care’s CEO. “Unless something drastic happens … a lot of those people are going to fall off of their coverage,” Santana-Chin said.

That outcome would ripple far and wide, she said — thanks to two factors: human behavior and basic economics.

If more and more people choose to go uninsured, more and more people will resort to visiting hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency care, disrupting and overwhelming the healthcare system.

Healthcare providers will be forced to address the cost of treating rising numbers of uninsured people by raising the prices they bill to insurers for patients who have private plans. That means Californians who are not Covered California members and don’t receive other federal healthcare aid will eventually see their premiums spike too, as private insurers pass any added costs down to their customers.

But right now, with the subsidies set to end soon and recent changes to Medicaid eligibility requirements threatening to knock some of the lowest-income Californians off of that system, both Altman and Santana-Chin said their main concern is for those who don’t have alternatives.

In particular, they are concerned about people of color, who are disproportionately represented among low-income Californians, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Any hike in out-of-pocket insurance costs next year could blow the budget of a family barely getting by.

“$100, $150, $200 — that’s meaningful to people living on fixed incomes,” Altman said. “Where is that money coming from when you’re living paycheck to paycheck?”

Is President Trump going to restart nuclear weapons testing? When will this federal shutdown end? Will Californians pass Proposition 50, scramble the state’s congressional maps and shake up next year’s midterm elections?

Amid a swirl of high-stakes standoffs and unprecedented posturing by Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other leaders in Washington and Sacramento, the future of U.S. politics, and California’s role therein, has felt wildly uncertain of late.

Political debate — around things such as sending military troops into American cities, cutting off food aid for the poor or questioning constitutional guarantees such as birthright citizenship — has become so untethered to longstanding norms that everything feels novel.

The pathways for taking political power — as with Trump’s teasing a potential third term, installing federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation, slashing federal budgets without congressional input and pressuring red states to redistrict in his favor before a midterm election — have been so sharply altered that many Americans, and some historians and political experts, have lost confidence in U.S. democracy.

“It’s completely unprecedented, completely anomalous — representative, I think, of a major transformation of our normal political life,” said Jack Rakove, a Stanford University emeritus professor of history and political science.

“You can’t compare it to any other episode, any other period, any other set of events in American history. It is unique and radically novel in distressing ways,” Rakove said. “As soon as Trump was reelected, we entered into a constitutional crisis. Why? Because Trump has no respect for constitutional structures.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “President Trump’s unorthodox approach is why he has been so successful and why he has received massive support from the American public.”

Jackson said Trump has “achieved more than any President has in modern history,” including in “securing the border, getting dangerous criminals off American streets, brokering historic peace deals [and] bringing new investments to the U.S.,” and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly backed his approach as legal.

“So-called experts can pontificate all they want, but President Trump’s actions have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court despite a record number of challenges from liberal activists and unlawful rulings from liberal lower court judges,” Jackson said.

There are many examples of Trump flouting or suggesting he will flout the Constitution or other laws directly, and in ways that make people unsure and concerned about what will come next for the country politically, Rakove and other political experts said. His constant flirting with the idea of a third term in office does that, as does his legal challenge to birthright citizenship and his military’s penchant for blasting alleged drug vessels out of international waters.

On Wednesday, Trump raised the prospect of further breaching international law and norms by appearing to suggest on social media that, for the first time in three decades, the U.S. would resume testing nuclear weapons.

“Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump wrote — leaving it unclear whether he meant detonating warheads or simply testing the missiles that deliver them.

There are also many examples, the experts said, of American political norms being tossed aside — and the nation’s political future tossed in the air — by others around Trump, both allies and enemies, who are trying to either please or push back against the unorthodox commander in chief with their own abnormal political maneuvers.

One example is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R.-La.) refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva, despite her being elected in September to represent parts of Arizona in Congress. Johnson has cited the shutdown, but others — including Arizona’s attorney general in a lawsuit — have suggested Johnson is trying to prevent a House vote on releasing records about the late Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced billionaire sex offender whom Trump was friends with before a reported falling out years ago.

Uncertainty about whether those records would implicate Trump or any other powerful people in any wrongdoing has swirled in Washington throughout Trump’s term — showing more staying power than perhaps any other issue, despite Trump’s insistence that he’s done nothing wrong and the issue is a distraction.

The mid-decade redistricting battle — in which California’s Proposition 50 looms large — is another prime example, the experts said.

Normally, redistricting occurs each decade, after federal census data comes out. But at Trump’s urging, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott agreed to redraw his state’s congressional lines this year to help ensure Republicans maintain control of the House in the midterms. In response, Newsom and California Democrats introduced Proposition 50, asking California voters to amend the state Constitution to allow Democrats to redraw lines in their favor.

As a result, Californians — millions of whom have already voted — have been getting bombarded by messages both for and against Proposition 50, many of which are hyper-focused on the uncertain implications for American democracy.

“Let’s fight back and democracy can be defended,” a Proposition 50 backer wrote on a postcard to one voter. “It is against democracy and rips away the power to draw congressional seats from the people,” opponents of the measure wrote to others.

H.W. Brands, a U.S. history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “Americans who are worried about democracy are right to be concerned,” because Trump “has broken or threatened many of the guardrails of democracy.”

But he also noted — partly as a reflection of the dangerous moment the country is in — that Trump has long rejected a particularly “sacred” part of American democracy by refusing to accept his loss to President Biden in 2020, and Americans reelected him in 2024 anyway.

“Americans have always been divided politically. This is the first time (with the exception of 1860) that the division goes down to the fundamentals of democracy,” Brands wrote in an email — referencing the year the U.S. Confederacy seceded from the Union.

High stakes

The uncertainty has festered in an era of rampant political disinformation and under a president who has a penchant for challenging reality outright on a near-daily basis — who on a trip through Asia this week not only said he’d “love” a third term, which is precluded by the Constitution, but claimed, falsely, that he is experiencing his best polling numbers ever.

The uncertainty has also been compounded by Democrats, who have wielded the only levers of power they have left by refusing to concede to Republicans in the raging shutdown battle in Washington and by putting Proposition 50 to California voters.

The shutdown has major, immediate implications. Not only are federal employees around the country, including in California, furloughed or without pay checks, but billions in additional federal funding is at risk.

Democrats have resisted funding the government in an effort to force Republicans to back down from massive cuts to healthcare subsidies that help millions of Californians and many more Americans afford health coverage. The shutdown means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits could be cut off for more than 40 million people — nearly 1 in 8 Americans — this weekend.

California and other Democrat-led states have sued the Trump administration, asking a federal court to issue an emergency order requiring the USDA to use existing contingency funds to distribute SNAP funding.

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, said Democrats should be asked when the shutdown will end, because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

The redistricting battle could have even bigger impact.

If Democrats retook the House next year, it would give them a real source of oversight power to confront Trump and block his MAGA agenda. If Republicans retain control, they will help facilitate Trump’s agenda — just as they have since he took office.

But even if Proposition 50 passes, as polling suggests it will, it’s not clear that Democrats would win all the races lined up for them in the state, or that those seats would be enough to win Democrats the chamber given efforts to pick up Republican seats in Texas and elsewhere.

The uncertainty around the midterms is, by extension, producing more uncertainty around the second half of Trump’s term.

What will Trump do, particularly if Republicans stay in power? Is he stationing troops in American cities as part of some broader play for retaining power, as some Democrats have suggested? Is he setting the groundwork to challenge the integrity of U.S. elections by citing his baseless claims about fraud in 2020 and putting fellow election deniers in charge of reviewing the system?

Is he really gearing up to contest the constitutional limits on his tenure in the White House? He said he’d “love” to stay in office this week, but then he said it’s “too bad” he’s not allowed to.

Fire with fire?

According to David Greenberg, a history professor at Rutgers University, it is Trump’s unorthodox policies and tactics but also his brash demeanor that “make this a more unsettled moment than we are used to feeling.”

“Sometimes when he’s doing things that other presidents have done, he does it in such an outlandish way that it feels unprecedented,” or is “stylistically” but not substantively unprecedented, Greenberg said. “Self-aggrandizing claims, often untrue. The brazenness with which he insults people. The way he changes his mind on something. That all is highly unusual and unique to Trump.”

In other instances, Greenberg said, Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law or busted political norms that previous presidents felt bound by.

“One thing that Trump showed us is just how much of our functioning system depends not just on the letter of the law but on norms,” Greenberg said. “What can the president do? What kind of power can he exert over the Justice Department and who it prosecutes? Well, it turns out he probably can do a lot more than should be permissible.”

However, the appropriate response is not the one seemingly gaining steam among Democrats — to “be more like Trump” themselves or “fight fire with fire” — but to look for ways to strengthen the political norms and boundaries Trump is ignoring, Greenberg said.

“The more the public, citizens in general, feel that it’s OK to disregard long-standing ways of doing things that have stood the test of time until now, the more likely we are to enter into a more chaotic world — a world in which there will be less justice, less democracy,” Greenberg said. “It will be more subject to the whims or preferences of whoever is in power — and in a liberal democracy, that is what you are striving to fight against.”

SACRAMENTO — Top California health officials warned that federal cuts will deliver a devastating blow to public health, even as the state grapples with ways to mitigate the damage.

“These changes will impact our emergency departments, rural hospitals, private and public hospitals, community health centers, ambulance providers and the broader health care system that serves every community,” said Michelle Baass, director of the California Department of Health Care Services.

Baass was among several experts who spoke Monday at a briefing about the effects of HR 1, a massive tax and spending bill passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump that shifts federal funding away from safety-net programs for the vulnerable and toward tax cuts and immigration enforcement. She said the legislation makes sweeping changes to Medi-Cal, as Medicaid is known in California.

It “will cause widespread harm by making massive reductions in federal funding and potentially cripple the health care safety net,” Baass said. “These changes put tens of billions of dollars of federal funding at risk for California and could result in a loss of coverage for millions of Californians.”

Roughly 15 million Californians — a third of the state — are on Medi-Cal, with some of the highest percentages being in rural counties. More than half of the children in California receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal, healthcare coverage provided to eligible, low-income residents, according to the state Department of Health Care Services.

California officials expect the state to lose billions of dollars in federal funding for Medi-Cal and other essential healthcare programs. Given that California is facing an ongoing budget deficit, it is highly unlikely that the state will be able to raise enough money to make up for the loss in funding to continue the current level of services to residents, according to a report by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Baass explained the federal legislation creates new eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Starting in 2027, many individuals ages 19 to 64 will need to work for at least 80 hours a month, or perform 80 hours of community service or be enrolled in an educational program, to qualify. The law allows various exemptions, including pregnancy, disabilities, or caring for children under the age of 19.

She estimated 3 million Medi-Cal recipients could lose coverage as a result.

“This would significantly drive up the uninsured rate that raises cost for hospitals treating uninsured patients,” Baass said.

Baass said HR 1, which Republicans labeled the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” also bans abortion providers from receiving federal Medicaid funding — even for healthcare services they offer that are not related to the procedure — and reduces federal dollars for emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants. It additionally limits state funding mechanisms, such as taxes paid by managed care providers, and establishes federal penalties for improper payments.

CalFresh, the state name for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is expecting cuts of at least $1.7 billion annually, said Jennifer Troia, director of the California Department of Social Services. About 395,000 people could lose their benefits for government food assistance.

SNAP benefits are also being hit by the current government shutdown, with payments halting in November.

At the heart of the shutdown is a political standoff in Washington over the expiring tax credits for people who get health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Democrats said they will not vote to reopen the government until Republicans agree to renew the expanded subsidies. Republican leaders refused to negotiate until Democrats vote to reopen the government.

Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace, estimated over the summer that as many as 660,000 of the roughly 2 million people in the program will either be stripped of coverage or drop out because of increased cost and the onerous new mandates to stay enrolled.

Impacts from the new federal cuts and policies are already being felt across the state and nation.

A Planned Parenthood program in Orange and San Bernardino counties announced its imminent closure earlier this month due to being federally defunded. Los Angeles County’s health system has implemented a hiring freeze and is bracing to lose $750 million per year for the county Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and roughly two dozen clinics. Meanwhile, food banks nationwide are seeking donations and preparing for longer lines.

Kim Johnson, secretary of the state Health and Human Services Agency, discussed how California is fighting back.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced he is deploying the National Guard and fast-tracking $80 million to support food banks, she said. This came alongside the governor’s decision to allocate $140 million in state funding to Planned Parenthood.

Johnson said Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has filed more than two dozen lawsuits related to HR 1.

“Here in California,” she said, “we will continue to mitigate the harm of these federal changes wherever we can.”

Supporters of Proposition 50, California Democrats’ ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts to help the party’s effort to take power in the U.S. House of Representatives, raised more than four times the money as their rivals in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee supporting the redistricting measure raised $36.8 million between Sept. 21 and Oct. 18, bringing their total to $114.3 million, according to the report filed with the Secretary of State’s office on Thursday, which was not available until Monday. They had $37.1 million in the bank and available to spend before the Nov. 4 special election.

“We have hit our budget goals and raised what we need in order to pass Proposition 50,” Newsom emailed supporters on Monday. “You can stop donating.”

The two main opposition groups raised a total of $8.4 million during the 28 days covered by the fundraising period, bringing their total haul to $43.7 million. They had $2.3 million cash on hand going into the final stretch of the campaign.

“As Gavin Newsom likes to say, we are not running the 90-yard dash here. We’ve seen a groundswell of support from Californians who understand what’s at stake if we let [President] Trump steal two more years of unchecked power,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign. “But we are not taking anything for granted nor taking our foot off the gas. If we want to hold this dangerous and reckless president accountable, we must pass Prop. 50.”

Newsom and other California Democrats decided to ask voters to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, which are currently drawn by a voter-approved independent commission, in a middecade redistricting after Trump urged GOP-led states to redraw their districts in an effort for Republicans to retain control of Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The balance of power in the narrowly divided House will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years of office, or is the focus of investigations and possibly an impeachment effort.

Major donors supporting Proposition 50 include billionaire financier George Soros, the House Majority PAC – the campaign arm of congressional Democrats – and labor unions.

Among the opponents of Propostion 50, longtime GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, and the Congressional Leadership Fund – Republicans’ political arm in the House – were top contributors.

“While we are being outspent, we’re continuing to communicate with Californians the dangers of suspending California’s gold-standard redistricting process,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the committee funded by Munger. “With just ten days to go, we are encouraging all voters to make their voice heard and to vote.”

Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the committee that received $5 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, said the organization was committed to continue to raise money to block Newsom’s redistricting effort in the days leading up to the election.

“His costly power grab would silence millions of Californians and deny them fair representation in Congress, which is why grassroots opposition is gaining momentum,” Hockenbury said. “In the final push, our data-driven campaign is strategically targeting key voters with our message to ensure every resource helps us defeat Prop. 50.”

There are several other committees not affiliated with these main campaign groups that are receiving funding. Those include one created by billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who donated $12 million, and the California Republican Party, which received $8 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund.

These reports come a little more than a week before the Nov. 4 special election. More than 4 million mail ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties returned 21% of the ballots that have been received.

The turnout figures are alarming Republicans leaders.

“If Republicans do not get out and vote now, we will lose Prop 50 and Gavin Newsom will control our district lines until 2032,” Orange County GOP chairman Will O’Neill wrote to party members on Friday, urging them to cast ballots this past weekend and sharing the locations of early voting centers in the county.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was more blunt on social media.

“Right now we’re losing the fight against Prop 50 in CA, but turnout is LOW,” he posted on the social media platform X on Friday. “If every Republican voter gets off their ass, returns their ballot and votes NO, we WIN. IT. IS. THAT. SIMPLE.”

More than 18.9 million ballots are outstanding, though not all will be completed. Early voting centers opened on Saturday in 29 California counties.

“Think of Election Day as the last day to vote — not the only day. Like we always do, California gives voters more days and more ways to participate.” said Secretary of State Shirley Weber in a statement. “Don’t Delay! Vote today!”

The U.S. Dept. of Justice announced Friday that it plans on monitoring polling sites in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties at the request of the state GOP.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

Newsom, in a post on X on Friday, said the Trump administration is sending election monitors to polling places in California as part of a broader effort to stifle the vote, particularly among Californians of color, in advance of next year’s midterm election.

“This is about voter intimidation. This is about voter suppression,” Newsom said, predicting that masked border agents would likely be present at California polling places through the Nov. 4 election. “I hope people understand it’s a bridge that they’re trying to build the scaffolding for all across this country in next November’s election, they do not believe in fair and free elections. Our republic, our democracy, is on the line.”

STOCKTON — Four of California’s gubernatorial candidates tangled over climate change and wildfire preparedness at an economic forum Thursday in Stockton, though they all acknowledged the stark problems facing the state.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, stood apart from the three other candidates — all Democrats — at the California Economic Summit by challenging whether the spate of devastating wildfires in California is linked to climate change, and labeling some environmental activists “terrorists.”

After a few audience members shouted at Bianco over his “terrorists” comment, the Democratic candidates seized on the moment to reaffirm their own beliefs about the warming planet.

“The impacts of climate change are proven and undeniable,” said Tony Thurmond, a Democrat and California superintendent of public instruction. “You can call them what you want. That’s our new normal.”

The fires “do have a relationship with climate change,” said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Besides environmental issues, the hour-and-a-half forum at the business-centric California Forward’s Economic Summit focused primarily on “checkbook” topics as the candidates, which also included former state Controller Betty Yee, offered gloomy statistics about poverty and homelessness in California.

Given the forum’s location in the Central Valley, the agricultural industry and rural issues were front and center.

Bianco harped on the state and the Democratic leaders for California’s handling of water management and gasoline prices. At one point, he told the audience that he felt like he was in the “Twilight Zone” after the Democrats on stage pitched ways to raise revenue.

Other candidates in California‘s 2026 governor’s race, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and former Rep. Katie Porter, were not present at Thursday’s debate. Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon planned to come, but his flight from Los Angeles was delayed, audience members were told.

All are vying to lead a state facing ongoing budget deficits caused by overspending. A state Legislative Analyst’s Office report released this month cited projected annual operating deficits ranging from roughly $15 billion to $25 billion through 2029. At the same time, federal cutbacks by the Trump administration to programs for needy Californians, including the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program, will put more pressure on the state’s resources.

All of the candidates had different pitches during the afternoon event. Asked by moderator Jeanne Kuang, a CalMatters reporter, about ways to help rural communities, Thurmond cited his plan to build housing on surplus property owned by the state. He also repeatedly talked about extending tax credits or other subsidies to groups, including day-care providers.

Yee, discussing the wildfires, spoke on hardening homes and creating an industry around fire-proofing the state. Yee received applause when she questioned why there wasn’t more discussion about education in the governor’s race.

Villaraigosa cited his work finding federal funds to build rail and subway lines across Los Angeles and suggested that he would focus on growing the state’s power grid and transportation infrastructure.

Both the former mayor and Yee at points sided with Bianco when they complained about the “over-regulation” by the state, including restrictions on developers, builders and small businesses.

Few voters are probably paying much attention to the contest, with the battle over Proposition 50 dominating headlines and campaign spending.

Voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether to support the proposition, which is a Democratic-led effort to gerrymander California’s congressional districts to try and blunt President Trump’s attempt to rig districts in GOP-led states to retain control of the House of Representatives.

“Frankly, nobody’s focused on the governor’s race right now,” Yee said at an event last week.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

“Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

“Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

“CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

“We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

As Californians start voting on Democrats’ effort to boost their ranks in Congress, former President Barack Obama warned that democracy is in peril as he urged voters to support Proposition 50 in a television ad that started airing Tuesday.

“California, the whole nation is counting on you,” Obama says in the 30-second ad, which the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign began broadcasting Tuesday across the state. The spot is part of a multimillion-dollar ad buy promoting the congressional redistricting ballot measure through the Nov. 4 election.

Proposition 50 was spearheaded by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democratic leaders this summer after President Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to the House in next year’s midterm election, in an effort to continue enacting his agenda during his final years in office.

“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in the ad, which includes footage of ICE raids. “With Prop. 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop. 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today.”

Congressional districts were long drawn in smoke-filled chambers by partisans focused on protecting their parties’ power and incumbents. But good-government groups and elected officials, notably former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have fought to take the drawing of congressional boundaries out of the hands of politicians to end gerrymandering and create more competitive districts.

Obama, long a supporter of ending gerrymandering, had already endorsed the ballot measure.

In California, these districts have been drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010, which is why state Democrats have to go to the ballot box to seek a mid-decade partisan redistricting that could improve their party’s chances in five of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

The ad featuring Obama, who spoke Monday on comedian Marc Maron’s final podcast about Trump’s policies testing the nation’s values, appears on Californians’ televisions after mail ballots were sent to the state’s 23 million registered voters last week.

The proposition’s prospects are uncertain — it’s about an obscure topic that few Californians know about, and off-year elections traditionally have low voter turnout. Still, more than $150 million has been contributed to the three main committees supporting and opposing the proposition, in addition to millions more funding other efforts.

Obama is not the only famous person to appear in ads about Proposition 50.

In September, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned for similar reforms across the nation since then, was featured in ads opposing the November ballot measure.

He described Proposition 50 as favoring entrenched politicians instead of voters.

“That’s what they want to do, is take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” the Hollywood celebrity and former governor says in the ad, which was filmed last month when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Monday pushed back against a torrent of misinformation on social media sites claiming that mail-in ballots for the state’s Nov. 4 special election are purposefully designed to disclose how people voted.

Weber, the state’s top elections official, refuted claims by some Republicans and far-right partisans that holes on ballot envelopes allow election officials to see how Californians voted on Proposition 50, the ballot measure about redistricting that will be decided in a special election in a little over three weeks.

“The small holes on ballot envelopes are an accessibility feature to allow sight-impaired voters to orient themselves to where they are required to sign the envelope,” Weber said in a statement released Monday.

Weber said voters can insert ballots in return envelopes in a manner that doesn’t reveal how they voted, or could cast ballots at early voting stations that will open soon or in person on Nov. 4.

Weber’s decision to “set the record straight” was prompted by conspiracy theories exploding online alleging that mail ballots received by 23 million Californians in recent days are purposefully designed to reveal the votes of people who opposed the measure.

“If California voters vote ‘NO’ on Gavin Newscum’s redistricting plan, it will show their answer through a hole in the envelope,” Libs of TikTok posted on the social media platform X on Sunday, in a post that has 4.8 million views. “All Democrats do is cheat.”

GOP Texas Sen. Ted Cruz earlier retweeted a similar post that has been viewed more than 840,000 times, and Republican California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator, called for the November special election to be suspended because of the alleged ballot irregularities.

The allegation about the ballots, which has been raised by Republicans during prior California elections, stems from the holes in mail ballot envelopes that were created to help visually impaired voters and allow election workers to make sure ballots have been removed from envelopes.

The special election was called for by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats in an effort to counter President Trump urging GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election to boost GOP ranks in the House and buttress his ability to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

California Democrats responded by proposing a rare mid-decade redrawing of California’s 52 congressional boundaries to increase Democratic representation in Congress. Congressional districts are typically drawn once a decade by an independent state commission created by voters in 2010.

Nearly 600,000 Californians have already returned mail ballots as of Monday evening, according to a ballot tracker created by Political Data, a voter data firm that is led by Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional boundaries on the November ballot.

Republican leaders in California who oppose the ballot measure have expressed concern about the ballot conspiracy theories, fearing the claims may suppress Republicans and others from voting against Proposition 50.

“Please don’t panic people about something that is easily addressed by turning their ballot around,” Roxanne Hoge, the chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party, posted on X. “We need every no vote and we need them now.”

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former chair of the state GOP who is leading one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50, compared not voting early to sitting on the sidelines of a football game until the third quarter.

“I understand why voters would be concerned when they see holes in their envelopes … because your vote is your business. It’s the bedrock of our system, being able to [vote by] secret ballot,” she said in an interview. “That being said, the worst thing that you could do if you are unhappy with the way things are here in California is not vote, and so I will continue to promote early voting and voting by mail. It’s always been a core principle for me.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom answering the Republican redistricting power-grab in Texas with a plan of his own is a powerful example of how Golden State Democrats are standing up to President Trump and firing up their base. But while the partisan fireworks draw attention, California Democrats are also quietly offering a different kind of model for the national party that may prove more meaningful in the long run. They’re not just resisting Trump; they’re actually governing.

Forget what you think you know about California and its lefty Democrats. They’re inching to the center, meeting voters where they are, and it’s improving people’s lives.

Just look at San Francisco, long seen as a dysfunctional emblem of failed progressive governance.

The city’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit leader and philanthropist, has shaken off left-wing taboos and focused on delivering results. Instead of defunding the police, he’s hiring more officers and cracking down on shoplifting and drug crimes. Instead of demonizing the business community, he’s partnering with them. He’s also reforming zoning laws to make it easier to build more housing, which should ease the city’s affordability crunch and the homelessness crisis. Lurie has been in office less than a year, but already crime is plummeting and his approval rate has reached 73%.

National Democrats can find a lesson here: Voters care about results, not just empathy and ideology.

In Sacramento, Newsom and legislative Democrats are taking a similar tack, with a stubborn focus on affordability and the courage to stare down opposition, even in their own coalition. For example, the Legislature recently reformed the California Environmental Quality Act, a well-intentioned 50-year-old law that had been twisted to obstruct construction projects, clean energy development and public transportation. This angered some powerful environmental activists, but it will ultimately help bring down costs for housing and energy.

CEQA reform is emblematic of California’s new, more balanced approach on some thorny issues, like energy and climate. The state recently announced that two-thirds of its power now comes from clean energy sources — a major achievement. At the same time, Newsom and the Legislature agreed to a package of bills that will increase oil drilling while extending the state’s cap-and-trade program. Together, the package can reduce energy costs for Californians and strengthen our state’s chances of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. Some environmental justice advocates and climate purists oppose the deal, but it’s an example of how to make progress in the long term while addressing affordability in the short term.

Immigration is another example: Newsom and other leading California Democrats continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s inhumane immigration policies, including suing to stop the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. But they also recently passed a budget that pulls back on costly plans to provide health insurance to all low-income undocumented immigrants.

This reflects the new California model: principled resistance and pragmatic governance. The results speak for themselves. The Golden State recently surpassed Japan to become the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Democratic leaders are making these moves because they are listening to voters who consistently say that the high cost of living is their top concern.

In 2024, these concerns contributed to a surprising number of Californians abandoning Democrats, even with Kamala Harris, the state’s former U.S. senator and attorney general, on the ticket. Trump flipped 10 counties and boosted his support in 45. Since 2016, 72% of California counties have gotten redder, including many with heavy Latino populations.

Democrats are paying attention and are wisely changing course. Being responsive to voter concerns doesn’t have to mean sacrificing core values, but it does require new approaches when the old ways aren’t working.

Karen Skelton (whose father is a political columnist for the Los Angeles Times) is a political strategist, having worked in the White House under Presidents Clinton and Biden and at the United States Departments of Energy, Transportation and Justice.

Republican and Democratic voters share common ground when it comes to the University of California: Both sides express widespread support for UC, its research, medical centers and ability to elevate the lives of students, a statewide poll shows.

Strong majorities of registered voters across demographic groups — urban and rural, racial, education levels — said UC research was good for their communities, including 62% of Californians with only high school diplomas. Voters in their 20s have the most favorable view of research.

The survey results, from the nonpartisan UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, come as the university system faces major battles with the Trump administration over deep research funding cuts and President Trump’s demand of a $1-billion fine to resolve federal charges of antisemitism at UCLA.

“In an era where the benefits of public higher education are being questioned, the polling results suggest that California’s residents see the value in a UC education and recognize the many different ways the UC system contributes positively to the state,” said G. Cristina Mora, the institute’s co-director .

For months, the University of California has been enveloped in the nationwide drive by Trump to reshape higher education, which he sees as a bastion of liberalism hostile to conservative thinking. The 10-campus UC system has faced hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to federal research support that the Trump administration derided as wasteful spending. Last month federal officials suspended more than half a billion dollars in medical study grants to UCLA. Negotiations with the federal government to restore the grants are ongoing.

The Berkeley poll of 6,474 registered California voters showed a more nuanced political picture between Democrats and Republicans against the backdrop of White House invective that accuses selective universities of being hotbeds of race- and gender-based discrimination rooted in diversity, equity and inclusion movements that Trump says don’t match the will of the American people.

UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC Irvine have been accused by the Trump administration of illegally using race in admissions. The entire UC system is also under federal investigation for allegations that it has discriminated against Jewish employees and practiced sex- and race-based hiring discrimination.

Berkeley pollsters found strongest support for UC from Democrats, people with college degrees and state residents who are not white.

But majorities of Republicans also showed support for UC across the board:

• 58% of Republicans agreed or strongly agreed that UC “produces important research that benefits communities in California,” compared with 78% of Democrats.

• 75% of Republicans agreed or strongly agreed that UC academic health centers, such as UCLA Health, are “important to the communities they serve,” while 80% of Democrats said the same.

• 54% of Republicans agreed or strongly agreed that the UC system is “important for helping students to get ahead.” Among Democrats, 74% gave the same responses.

Mora said it was “surprising” that Californians appeared to know enough about UC research to support it.

“Usually, you may think of the UC system as one about teaching and giving degrees. But there was strong approval of research and medical centers.”

The university has six academic health centers and, in Los Angeles County alone, more than a dozen UCLA Health locations. Mora, a UC Berkeley sociology professor, said she thought people’s personal experiences with UC doctors in local communities may have contributed to positive views of UC health programs throughout the state.

IGS co-director Eric Schickler said the data were starkly different from national surveys on higher education.

“If you look at national polling, the story is pretty clear: Republican confidence in higher education has gone down a lot and there’s even some erosion among Democrats in terms of confidence or approval,” said Schickler, a UC Berkeley political science professor. “What you are seeing in California is very strong support in despite those trends.”

One prompt that showed a large gulf between the parties was on taxpayer funding for UC.

Asked whether California should give more or less money to the system, 74% of Democrats said UC should get more. Only 30% of Republicans agreed. UC gets about 9% of its budget from the state, a percentage that has declined over the years amid state budget crunches and payment deferrals.

The institute did not ask Californians about Trump or his education agenda. Instead, the questions were framed in apolitical terms focused on how respondents valued different parts of the UC experience.

Schickler said the Institute of Governmental Studies, while contained within a UC campus, does not take sides in the current political conflict over colleges and universities.

“Our philosophy has always been that the IGS poll is a nonpartisan poll,” he said. “The sample and survey has the same process as any survey we do. This is not a survey UC asked us to do.”

The poll also asked whether Californians would tell a close friend who was admitted to a UC school to enroll or not. In total, 70% of respondents said they would advise enrolling. However, there was a political split: 82% of Democrats said they would share such advice, compared with 51% of Republicans.

Researchers conducted most of the polling in early June, months into cutbacks to U.S. campus grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and other federal agencies as the government curtailed research into racially diverse groups as well as LGBTQ+ populations, among other areas.

The surveying largely took place before the Trump administration’s conflict with UC came to a head this month, when the White House demanded $1 billion and sweeping campus changes to restore more than $500 million in research grants at UCLA.

Pollsters asked an additional question in mid-August to a separate set of 4,950 voters who were UC degree recipients. That survey took place after Trump’s latest cuts to UCLA.

It asked UC degree holders whether, “considering the costs of getting your degree from a UC school versus the benefits to you personally, in your opinion was getting your degree worth it or not?”

In response, 82% of Democrats said a UC degree was worth the money, compared with 64% of Republicans.

As September begins, legions of Californians have just wound up their summer travels, which often follow family traditions. Frequently there are lakes involved. Or islands. Or a national park.

We’re asking readers to tell us about a place you keep going back to, how you keep the tradition alive and what makes it special. If you are able to share up to three of your own photos, even better. We may feature you in an upcoming story.

California voters are heavily divided along partisan lines when it comes to President Trump, with large majorities of Democrats and unaffiliated voters disapproving of him and believing the country is headed in the wrong direction under his leadership, and many Republicans feeling the opposite, according to a new poll conducted for The Times.

The findings are remarkably consistent with past polling on the Republican president in the nation’s most populous blue state, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll.

“If you look at all the job ratings we’ve done about President Trump — and this carries back all the way through his first term — voters have pretty much maintained the same posture,” DiCamillo said. “Voters know who he is.”

The same partisan divide also showed up in the poll on a number of hot-button issues, such as Medicaid cuts and tariffs, DiCamillo said — with Democrats “almost uniformly” opposed to Trump’s agenda and Republicans “pretty much on board with what Trump is doing.”

Asked whether the sweeping tariffs that Trump has imposed on international trading partners have had a “noticeable negative impact” on their family spending, 71% of Democrats said yes, while 76% of Republicans said no.

“If you’re a Republican, you tend to discount the impacts — you downplay them or you just ignore them,” while Democrats “tend to blame everything on Trump,” DiCamillo said.

Asked whether they were confident that the Trump administration would provide California with the nearly $40 billion in wildfire relief aid it has requested in response to the devastating L.A.-area fires in January, 93% of Democrats said they were not confident — compared with the 43% of Republicans who said they were confident.

In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, the effect is that Trump fared terribly in the poll overall, just as he has in recent presidential votes in the state.

The poll — conducted Aug. 11-17 with 4,950 registered voters interviewed — found 69% of likely California voters disapproved of Trump, with 62% strongly disapproving, while 29% approved of him. A similar majority, 68%, said they believed the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 26% said it’s headed in the right direction.

Whereas 90% of Democrats and 75% of unaffiliated voters said the country is on the wrong track, just 20% of Republicans felt that way, the poll found.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the findings prove Trump’s agenda “is devastating communities across California who are dealing with the harmful, real life consequences” of the president’s policies.

“The Trump Administration does not represent the views of the vast majority of Californians and it’s why Trump has chosen California to push the limits of his constitutional power,” Padilla said. “As more Americans across the nation continue to feel the impacts of his destructive policies, public support will continue to erode.”

G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, or IGS, said the findings were interesting, especially in light of other recent polling for The Times that found slightly more nuanced Republican impressions — and more wariness — when it comes to Trump’s immigration agenda and tactics.

On his overall approval and on other parts of his agenda, including the tariffs and Medicaid cuts, “the strength of the partisanship is very clear,” Mora said.

Cuts to Medicaid

Voters in the state are similarly divided when it comes to recent decisions on Medicaid health insurance for low-income residents, the poll found. The state’s version is known as Medi-Cal.

For instance, Californians largely disapprove of new work requirements for Medicaid and Medi-Cal recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill that Trump championed and congressional Republicans recently passed into law, the poll found.

The bill requires most Medicaid recipients ages 18 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month in order to continue receiving benefits. Republicans trumpeted the change as holding people accountable and safeguarding against abuses of federal taxpayer dollars, while Democrats denounced it as a threat to public health that would strip millions of vulnerable Americans of their health insurance.

The poll found 61% of Californians disapproved of the change, with 43% strongly disapproving of it, while 36% approved of it, with 21% strongly approving of it. Voters were sharply divided along party lines, however, with 80% of Republicans approving of the changes and 85% of Democrats disapproving of them.

Californians also disapproved — though by a smaller margin — of a move by California Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom to help close a budget shortfall by barring undocumented immigrant adults from newly enrolling in Medi-Cal benefits.

A slight majority of poll respondents, or 52%, said they disapproved of the new restriction, with 17% strongly disapproving of it. The poll found 43% of respondents approved of the change, including 30% who strongly approved of it.

Among Democrats, 77% disapproved of the change. Among Republicans, 87% approved of it. Among voters with no party preference, 52% disapproved.

More than half the poll respondents — 57% — said neither they nor their immediate family members receive Medi-Cal benefits, while 35% said they did. Of those who receive Medi-Cal, two-thirds — or 67% — said they were very or somewhat worried about losing, or about someone in their immediate family losing, their coverage due to changes by the Trump administration.

Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said there is historical evidence to show what is going to happen next under the changes — and it’s not good.

The work requirement will undoubtedly result in people losing health coverage, just as thousands did when Arkansas implemented a similar requirement years ago, she said.

When people lose coverage, the cost of preventative care goes up and they generally receive less of it, she said. “If the doctor’s visit competes with food on the table or rent, then people are going to skip those primary care visits,” she said — and often “end up in the emergency room” instead.

And that’s more expensive not just for them, but also for local and state healthcare systems, she said.

Cuts to high-speed rail

Californians also are heavily divided over the state’s efforts to build a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley, after the Trump administration announced it was clawing back $4 billion in promised federal funding.

The project was initially envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2026, but officials have since set new goals of connecting Bakersfield to Merced by 2030. The project is substantially over budget, and Trump administration officials have called in a “boondoggle.”

The poll found that 49% of Californians support the project, with 28% of them strongly in favor of it. It found 42% oppose the project, including 28% who strongly oppose it.

Among Democrats, 66% were in favor of the project. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed. Among voters with no party preference, 49% were in favor while 39% were opposed.

In Los Angeles County, 54% of voters were in favor of the project continuing, while 58% of voters in the Bay Area were in favor. In the Central Valley, 51% of voters were opposed, compared with 41% in favor.

State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said political rhetoric around the project has clearly had an effect on how voters feel about it, and that is partly because state leaders haven’t done enough to lay out why the project makes sense economically.

“Healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with billions of dollars,” he said. “It’s on legislators and the governor right now in California to lay out a strategy that you can’t poke a lot of holes in, and that hasn’t been the case in the past.”

Cortese said he started life as an orchard farmer in what is now Silicon Valley, knows what major public infrastructure investments can mean for rural communities such as those in the Central Valley, and will be hyperfocused on that message moving forward.

“There is no part of California that I know of that’s been waiting for more economic development than Bakersfield. Probably second is Fresno,” he said.

He said he also will be stressing to local skeptics of the project that supporting the Trump administration taking $4 billion away from California would be a silly thing to do no matter their politics. Conservative local officials who understand that will be “key to help us turn the tide,” he said.

Last month, California’s high-speed rail authority sued the Trump administration over the withdrawal of funds. The state is also suing the Trump administration over various changes to Medicaid, over Trump’s tariffs and over immigration enforcement tactics.

Mora said the sharp divide among Democrats and Republicans on Trump and his agenda called to mind other recent polling that showed many voters immediately changed their views of the economy after Trump took office — with Republicans suddenly feeling more optimistic, and Democrats more pessimistic.

It’s all a reflection of our modern, hyperpartisan politics, she said, where people’s perceptions — including about their own economic well-being — are “tied now much more closely to ideas about who’s in power.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ decision to forgo a run for California governor has created a wide-open race in next year’s election to run the nation’s most populous state, according to a poll released Tuesday by UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times.

Nearly 4 in 10 registered voters surveyed said they are uncertain about whom they will support in the 2026 contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It’s very unsettled. Most of the voters, the plurality in this poll, are undecided,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, which was conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. “They don’t really know much about the candidates.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Among those who had a preference, former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine had a small edge as the top choice, with the backing of 17%. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, was the only other candidate who received double-digit support, winning the backing of 10% of respondents.

DiCamillo said Porter’s unsuccessful 2024 U.S. Senate campaign boosted her recognition among California voters, but cautioned that she had a small, early lead more than nine months before the June 2 primary. Bianco’s support was driven by voters focused on crime and public safety, taxes and the budget deficit, perennial concerns among GOP voters, according to the survey.

Other top candidates for governor — former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state legislative leader Toni Atkins, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — received single-digit support as voters’ first choice in the poll. A few potential candidates also had single-digit support, including billionaire Los Angeles businessman Rick Caruso, former Trump administration official Ric Grenell and former GOP state Sen. Brian Dahle.

The survey is among the first independent public polls since Harris announced in late July that she would not run for governor in 2026, dramatically reshuffling the calculus in a crowded race that the former vice president was widely expected to dominate if she mounted a campaign. The poll also took place after Lt. Gov Eleni Kounalakis dropped out of the contest this month to run for state treasurer instead.

“It’s pretty wide-open,” DiCamillo said. “And when you look at the second-choice preference, first and second together, it’s bunched together.”

When voters were asked to rank their top two choices, Porter received 22% as the first or second choice, Becerra got 18%, Bianco notched 15% and Hilton won 12%, according to the poll.

None of the politicians running are well known by Californians compared with the state’s last three governors: Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco and lieutenant governor, who during his two terms as governor has positioned himself as a foil to President Trump ; former two-term Gov. Jerry Brown, who along with his father left an indelible imprimatur on California’s history; and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a global celebrity who returned to the Hollywood limelight after he left office, along with launching efforts to fight climate change and support independent redistricting nationwide.

A pressing question is whether anyone else enters the race, notably Caruso, who has the ability to self-fund a campaign. The deadline to file to run for the seat is March 6.

Whoever is elected as California’s next governor will face the difficult task of contending with a hostile Trump administration and an electorate looking to the state’s next leader to address its most pressing concerns.

Economic issues are top of mind among all registered voters, with 36% saying the cost of living is their greatest concern and 25% focusing on the affordability of housing, according to the poll. But there were sharp partisan disparities about other issues. Democrats were more concerned about the state of democracy, climate change and healthcare, while Republicans prioritized crime, taxes and immigration.

Two of California’s most prominent Democrats, Newsom and Harris, are longtime friends grounded in their Bay Area roots and both viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates.

As a potential White House hopeful, Newsom has an edge over Harris among Californians overall as well as the state’s Democrats, according to the poll.

Roughly 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% who expressed a similar sentiment about Harris. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of registered voters and 51% of Democrats said Harris should not run for president again after two unsuccessful White House bids — in the primary in 2020 and in the general election in 2024.

“She lost, which is always a negative when you’re trying to run again,” DiCamillo said. “It’s interesting that even after Harris bowed out of the governor’s race, most Californians don’t really think she should run for president.”

While he described Newsom’s support as a “mixed bag” among the state’s registered voters, DiCamillo pointed to his strength among Democrats. Nearly 7 of 10 registered Democratic voters in the state said they are very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running for president, compared with 54% who expressed similar feelings about Harris.

The poll took place during a tumultuous period as Trump’s far-right policies begin to hit their stride.

Drastic cuts to healthcare, nutrition, reproductive rights and other federal safety-net programs are expected to disproportionately affect Californians. The Trump administration‘s aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles and across the state and country have caused the nation’s partisan divide to widen, driven by the president’s decision to deploy the military and target all undocumented immigrants, including law-abiding workers. Higher-education institutions across the nation have been targeted by the Trump administration, including UCLA, which is being threatened with a $1-billion fine.

Californians were surveyed shortly before Democratic state lawmakers, trying to fight the Trump administration’s agenda, voted Thursday to call a special election in November to redraw the state’s congressional districts. The action was taken to counter gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other GOP-led states as both parties fight for control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 4,950 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Aug. 11 to 17. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

What Californians think about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to temporarily redraw the state’s congressional districts has been a source of hot debate.

Republicans rallied around polling conducted by Politico last week that noted that California voters preferred an “independent line-drawing panel” determining seats to the House of Representatives versus giving that role to the state Legislature.

New polling, however, suggests more voters may now be backing the governor than stand opposed, with a large contingent undecided, according to reporting from my colleagues Melody Gutierrez and Laura J. Nelson.

Let’s jump into what the numbers say.

Why is Newsom considering redistricting?

The high-stakes fight over political boundaries could shape control of the U.S. House, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority.

Texas’ plan creates five new Republican-leaning seats that could secure the GOP’s House majority. Texas is creating the new districts at the behest of President Trump to help Republicans keep control of the House in the midterm elections. California’s efforts are an attempt to temporarily cancel those gains. The new maps would be in place for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 congressional elections.

Newsom and Democratic leaders say California must match Texas’ partisan mapmaking to preserve balance in Congress.

New polling supports Californians fighting back

The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, conducted for the Los Angeles Times, asked registered voters about the Newsom-backed redistricting push favoring California Democrats. This effort serves as a counterattack to President Trump and Texas Republicans reworking election maps to their advantage.

When voters were asked whether they agree with California’s redistricting maneuver, 46% said it was a good idea, and 36% said it was a bad idea.

Slightly more, 48%, said they would vote in favor of the temporary gerrymandering efforts if it appeared on the statewide special election ballot in November. Nearly a third said they would vote no, and 20% said they were undecided.

One interpretation of the data

“That’s not bad news,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “It could be better.”

DiCamillo added: “With ballot measures, you’d like to be comfortably above 50% because you got to get people to vote yes and when people are undecided or don’t know enough about initiatives, they tend to vote no just because it’s the safer vote.”

The strongest backers

Among voters who regularly cast ballots in statewide elections, overall support for redistricting jumped to 55%, compared with 34% opposed.

DiCamillo said that is significant.

“If I were to pick one subgroup where you would want to have an advantage, it would be that one,” he said.

Where to find the undecided votes

Winning in November, however, will require pushing undecided voters to back the redistricting plan.

Among Latino, Black and Asian voters, nearly 30% said they have yet to decide how they would vote on redistricting.

Women also have higher rates of being undecided compared with men, at 25% to 14%.

Younger voters are also more likely to be on the fence, with nearly a third of 18- to 29-year-olds saying they are unsure, compared with 11% of those older than 65.

The ever-growing divide

The partisan fight over election maps elicited deeply partisan results.

Nearly 7 in 10 Democratic voters said they would support the redistricting measure, and Republicans overwhelmingly panned the plan by about the same margin (72%).

Former President Obama endorsed it, and California’s former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican, told the New York Times he would fight it.

The effort faced opposition this week in Sacramento during legislative hearings, where Republicans blasted it as a partisan game-playing.

California Republicans attempted to stall the process by filing an emergency petition at the state Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the California Constitution by rushing the proposal through the Legislature.

The high court rejected the legal challenge Wednesday.

We’ll be following along and providing updates until election day. For now, check out the full article.

The week’s biggest stories

(Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee)

Gavin Newsom’s policies and reactions

Crime, courts and policing

Entertainment news

Amazing animal tales

More big stories

This week’s must-reads

More great reads

For your weekend

Going out

Staying in

Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff writer
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, reporter
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters
Diamy Wang, homepage intern
Izzy Nunes, audience intern

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

It’s not easy being from California, especially if you’re hoping to leave the Golden State’s fires and rising home costs behind and move to a more affordable red state.

In Texas, some politicians have adopted “Don’t California my Texas” as both a rallying cry and a fundraising appeal.

In Montana, rising home prices prompted lawmakers to pass a package of bills this year that increased property taxes on people — including many Californians — who own second homes in the state.

And now, in Oklahoma, education officials have entered the fray by requiring teachers from California and New York to take an exam aimed at guarding against “radical leftist ideology.”

The test is being developed by leadership from the Oklahoma State Department of Education and PragerU, a nonprofit advocacy group that produces videos promoting conservative views of history, finance and other topics. PragerU videos have already been approved for use in schools in several states, including Oklahoma.

“Our teacher qualification test is very simple,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in a statement to The Times. “Frankly, every American should be able to pass it. Certainly, every teacher should be able to pass it.”

She added that the full test will be available in the coming weeks. “We encourage you to take a look at the test yourself and make your own decision on whether it’s reasonable or not,” she said.

Superintendent Ryan Walters poses for a portrait in his office.

(Nick Oxford)

Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, told The Times that he launched the test out of concern over state standards in California and New York that require teachers to instruct students about gender identity.

The test comes at a time when Californians are increasingly relocating to other states in search of a slower pace of life and more affordable housing. Some cities seeking to reverse years-long population declines have created incentive programs to attract remote workers.

Tulsa Remote, which pays workers $10,000 to move to the second-largest city in the Sooner State, has attracted more than 3,600 remote workers since its inception in 2019. More than 7,800 Californians have applied to the program and 539 have made the move, cementing California as the second-most common origin state behind Texas.

Amid a nationwide teacher shortage, the Oklahoma schools system has launched a $50,000 signing bonus program — the largest in the country — to help recruit new educators for some of the most difficult to fill jobs, including early elementary and special education instruction.

The so-called “Californian exodus” accelerated during the pandemic, with places like Texas, Florida and Tennessee seeing major influxes from the West.

But by 2024, the exodus had ended, according to state data. The state’s population rose slightly in 2024 after three years of decline.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey in March found that many Californians who leave are either favoring nearby states such as Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon; larger states such as Texas; or locations without income taxes — not necessarily Oklahoma.

And the emigration of Californians to other states has done little to shift political demographics in their new homes, according to Eric McGhee, a policy director and senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The partisan balance of people moving to different states tends to be an exaggerated version of the partisan balance of the state they’re moving to,” he said. “So states that are more Republican tend to have migrants from California who are even more Republican than people in the state they’re moving to.”

The number of teachers that would be mandated to take the test in Oklahoma is unclear, but some data indicates that it might be small.

Information from the Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability — which oversees the education department and reviews out-of-state certification assessments for comparability with Oklahoma’s testing standards — shows that since 2020, the agency has reviewed only 19 out-of-state applications from California and New York. In 2025, only one applicant came from California, and none from New York.

Critics say the exam will discourage educators from accepting jobs in Oklahoma, which has been struggling with a teacher shortage and continues to lag behind the national average in reading and math, according to national data.

“This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said.

“[Walters’] priority should be educating students, but instead, it’s getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him,” she said. “Teachers are patriots, and whether they are conservative or liberal, they want what students need: safe and welcoming public schools that are engaging and relevant and that prepare kids for college, career and life.”

Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU, in 2024 in Los Angeles. A test for new teachers in Oklahoma is being developed by leadership from the State Department of Education and PragerU.

(Araya Doheny / Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Experts say the creation of a test where teachers are forced to adhere to a certain viewpoint to get a job is unprecedented in the American education system. It also highlights the growing foothold PragerU has on the education system in certain states, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

“What they’re doing is they’re making Prager into a central player in the operation by vetting teachers based on their affinity for what Prager believes,” Zimmerman said. “I think the other thing that’s unprecedented, frankly, is the involvement of the White House in all of this.”

In January, Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which sought to cease funding any schools that teach gender ideology or curriculum that portrays the United States as “fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.” The order emphasizes the need for a “patriotic education.”

“I don’t think we’ve ever seen the White House engaging directly in these sorts of questions,” Zimmerman said.

“Historically, in the United States, school has been a state and especially a local concern and it still is,” he added. “The bulk of money for schools comes from states and localities, but I think something’s really different about our moment in the way these issues have become nationalized.”

With respect to California and New York educators, Walters has taken issue with the “gender fluidity argument,” which details that a person’s gender identity is not fixed and can shift or change over time, which he says is a “lie that they continue to push.”

The California Healthy Youth Act, which took effect in 2016, requires that districts provide comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education for students in grades 7 through 12 in public schools. The lessons, which parents can opt to take their children out of, include discussions of gender and sexual orientation.

Oklahoma public schools are not required to teach sex education, including gender. In 2021, the state passed a bill, HB 1775, that restricts the teaching of certain concepts related to race and gender in public schools and universities. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging what they called “unconstitutional censorship” in schools. That case is ongoing.

New York and California were “the first states that we’ve seen that are actually requiring their teachers to do things that are antithetical to our standards,” Walters said, adding that the test’s goal is to ensure they’ll teach to Oklahoma state standards. Walters is also looking at requiring the test for teachers from other states including Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota.

Still, the notion that waves of Californians moving to other states are changing the political leanings on a large scale of their destinations isn’t borne out in the research.

The 50 question multiple choice exam, which is expected to be rolled out in the next few weeks, will include questions about gender, civics and American history. A preview of the exam released by the department of education included the question: Why is freedom of religion important to America’s identity?

Teachers must answer all 50 questions correctly to pass the test, Walters said, noting that the state is proud to be focusing on creating good citizens and being “unapologetic about a patriotic education.”

Zimmerman sees the creation of a good citizen a bit differently.

“To me, a good citizen, is somebody who has the capacity and skill to judge matters for themselves. Now how are you going to teach a future citizen to do that if you’re simply giving them one answer? I don’t think you can,” he said.

SACRAMENTO — California Democrats on Monday kicked off the process to redraw the state’s congressional districts, an extraordinary action they said was necessary to neutralize efforts by President Trump and Texas Republicans to increase the number of GOP lawmakers in Congress.

If approved by state lawmakers this week, Californians will vote on the ballot measure, labeled Proposition 50, in a special election in November.

At a news conference unveiling the legislation, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said they agreed with Gov. Gavin Newsom that California must respond to Trump’s efforts to “rig” the 2026 midterms by working to reduced by half the number of Republicans in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

They said doing so is essential to stymieing the president’s far-right agenda.

“I want to make one thing very clear, I’m not happy to be here. We didn’t choose this fight. We don’t want this fight,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park). “But with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight, and when the dust settles on election day, we will win.”

Republicans accused Democrats of trying to subvert the will of the voters, who passed independent redistricting 15 years ago, for their own partisan goals.

“The citizens seized back control of the power from the politicians in 2010,” said Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), flanked by GOP legislators and signs in the Capitol rotunda that said, “Rigged map” and “Defend fair elections.”

“Let me be very clear,” DeMaio said. “Gavin Newsom and other politicians have been lying in wait, with emphasis on lying … to seize back control.”

After Trump urged Texas to redraw its congressional districts to add five new GOP members to Congress, Newsom and California Democrats began calling to temporarily reconfigure the current congressional district boundaries, which were drawn by the voter-approved independent redistricting commission in 2021.

Other states are also now considering redrawing their congressional districts, escalating the political battle over control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressional districts are typically reconfigured once every decade after the U.S. census.

Newsom, other Democratic lawmakers and labor leaders launched a campaign supporting the redrawing of California’s congressional districts on Thursday, and proposed maps were sent to state legislative leaders on Friday.

The measures that lawmakers will take up this week would:

• Give Californians the power to amend the state Constitution and approve new maps, drawn by Democrats, that would be in place for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 congressional elections, if any GOP-led states approve their own maps.
• Provide funding for the November special election.
• Return the state to a voter-approved independent redistricting commission to redraw congressional districts after the 2030 census.

Whereas Texas and several other GOP-led states are considering an unusual mid-decade redistricting to keep the Republican Party’s hold on Congress, Ohio is an anomaly. If its congressional districts are not approved on a bipartisan basis, they are valid for only two general elections and can then be redrawn.

McGuire said California would go forward if Ohio does.

“The state of Ohio has made it clear that they are wanting to be able to proceed. They’re one of the few states in the United States of America that actually allow for … mid-decade redistricting,” he said. “We firmly believe that they should cool it, pull back, because if they do, so will California.”

Republicans responded by calling for a federal investigation into the California Democratic redistricting plan, and vowed to file multiple lawsuits in state and federal court, including two this week.

“We’re going to litigate this every step of the way, but we believe that this will also be rejected at the ballot box, in the court of public opinion,” DeMaio said.

He also called for a 10-year ban on holding elected office for state legislators who vote in support of calling the special election, although he did not say how he would try to do that.

McGuire dismissed the criticism and threats of legal action, saying the Republicans were more concerned about political self-preservation than the will of California voters or the rule of law.

“California Republicans are now clutching their pearls because of self-interest. Not one California Republican spoke up in the Legislature, in the House, when Texas made the decision to be able to eliminate five historically Black and brown congressional districts. Not one,” he said. “What I would say: Spend more time on the problem. The problem is Donald Trump.”

If you’re a Gen Xer or younger, there’s a good chance you’ve contemplated moving out of California.

The reasons are obvious. It’s expensive and difficult to raise a family, pay rent or even consider buying a home.

That struggle isn’t just on the mind of locals. Midwestern and Southern states have recognized an opportunity and are making their best pitches to frustrated Californians.

So, is there a price Tulsa, Okla., could offer you to move? Are the incentives of cheaper gas, much shorter commutes and overall drive times enough of an appeal? I haven’t even mentioned the cost of living and a real chance of buying a home.

My colleague Hannah Fry spoke with Californians who moved to Tulsa for a variety of reasons. Here are a couple of their stories.

Cynthia Rollins, former San Diego resident

Rollins felt socially isolated working a remote job in Ocean Beach for a tech company, but still overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people around her.

Months earlier she read about a program, Tulsa Remote, that would pay remote workers to relocate to Oklahoma’s second-largest city for at least a year. She decided to give it a shot and visit.

“When I was [in California], I was so consumed with the process of day-to-day living — the traffic, getting places, scheduling things,” Rollins said. “Here there’s so much more space to think creatively about your life and to kind of set it up the way you want.”

After five months in Tulsa, Rollins met her significant other at a trivia night. Her partner, with whom she now lives, made the journey from California to Tulsa for school during the pandemic.

“He grew up in Santa Cruz and was living 10 minutes from me down the road in Pacifica, but we never met in California,” she said. “We met in Tulsa.”

What is Tulsa offering?

Tulsa Remote — funded by the George Kaiser Family Foundation — started in 2019, and has sought to recruit new residents to diversify the city’s workforce.

It decided to offer $10,000 to remote workers who would move to the state for at least a year.

The program also provides volunteer and socializing opportunities for new residents and grants them membership at a co-working space for 36 months.

What do the numbers say?

Tulsa Remote has attracted more than 3,600 remote workers since its inception.

More than 7,800 Californians have applied to the program and 539 have made the move, cementing California as the second-most popular origin state behind Texas.

Those numbers reflect something of a wider trend: From 2010 through 2023, about 9.2 million people moved from California to other states, while only 6.7 million people moved to California from other parts of the country, according to the American Community Survey.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey conducted in 2023 found that 34% of Californians have seriously considered leaving the state because of high housing costs.

Zach and Katie Meincke, former Westsiders

The lower cost of living was a huge bonus for the Meinckes when they moved three years ago.

They went from paying $2,400 in monthly rent on a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in L.A.’s Westside to a five-bedroom, three-bathroom house in Tulsa for just a few hundred dollars more.

It ended up being fortuitous timing for the couple, who discovered they were expecting their first child — a daughter named Ruth — just weeks after they decided to move.

The couple are expecting their second child in December.

It’s a life milestone that Meincke says may not have happened in Los Angeles. In California, it costs nearly $300,000 to raise a child to 18. In Oklahoma, researchers estimate it costs about $241,000, according to a LendingTree study this year.

“There was no way we were going to move into a house in Los Angeles unless we had roommates, and that’s not an ideal situation,” Zach Meincke said. “We were 37 when we left Los Angeles and it felt like we were at a point that if we wanted to have all those other things in life — children, a house — we need to make that shift.”

For more on the moves, check out the full article here.

The week’s biggest stories

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

Trump policies and reactions

Wildlife and the environment

Entertainment news

More big stories

This week’s must reads

More great reads

For your weekend

Going out

Staying in

L.A. Affairs

Get wrapped up in tantalizing stories about dating, relationships and marriage.

Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff writer
Andrew J. Campa, reporter
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters
Diamy Wang, homepage intern
Izzy Nunes, audience intern

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

The nation’s first mandated work requirement for Medicaid recepients, approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump, is expected to have a seismic effect in California.

One estimate from state health officials suggests that as many as 3.4 million people could lose their insurance through what Gov. Gavin Newsom calls the “labyrinth of manual verification,” which involves Medi-Cal recipients proving every six months that they are working, going to school or volunteering at least 80 hours per month.

“It’s going to be much harder to stay insured,” said Martha Santana-Chin, the head of L.A. Care Health Plan, a publicly operated health plan that serves about 2.3 million Medi-Cal patients in Los Angeles County.

She said that as many as 1 million people, or about 20% to 40% of its members, could lose their coverage.

The work requirement will be the first imposed nationwide in the six-decade history of Medicaid, the program that provides free and subsidized health insurance to disabled and low-income Americans.

It’s relatively uncharted territory, and it’s not yet clear how the rules will shake out for the 5.1 million people in California who will be required to prove that they are working in order to qualify for Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

After the 2026 midterm elections, millions of healthy adults will be required to prove every six months that they meet the work requirement in order to qualify for Medicaid. The new mandate spells out some exceptions, including for people who are pregnant, in addiction treatment or caring for children under age 14.

Democrats have long argued that work requirements generally lead to eligible people l osing their health insurance due to bureaucratic hurdles. Republicans say that a work requirement will encourage healthy people to get jobs and preserve Medicaid for those who truly need it.

“If you clean that up and shore it up, you save a lot of money,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana. “And you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.”

Only three U.S. states have tried to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients: New Hampshire, Arkansas and Georgia. One study found that in the first three months of the Arkansas program, more than 18,000 people lost health coverage.

People can lose coverage a variety of ways, said Joan Alker, a Georgetown University professor who studies Medicaid. Some people hear that the rules have changed and assume they are no longer eligible. Others struggle to prove their eligibility because their income fluctuates, they are paid in cash or their jobs don’t keep good payroll records. Some have problems with the technology or forms, she said, and others don’t appeal their rejections.

Of the 15 million people on Medi-Cal in California, about one-third will be required to prove they are working, the state said. Those people earn very little: less than $21,000 for a single person and less than $43,000 for a household of four.

The state’s estimate of 3.4 million people losing coverage is a projection based on what happened in Arkansas and New Hampshire.

But those programs were brief, overturned by the courts and weren’t “a coordinated effort among the states to figure out what the best practices are,” said Ryan Long, the director of congressional relations at the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that has become influential among congressional Republicans.

Long said advancements in technology and a national emphasis on work requirements should make work verification less of a barrier. The budget bill includes $200 million in grants for states to update their systems to prepare, he said.

Arguments from liberal groups that people will lose healthcare are a “straw man argument,” Long said: “They know that the public supports work requirements for these benefits, so they can’t come out and say, ‘We don’t support them.’”

A poll by the health research group KFF found this year that 62% of American adults support tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements.

The poll also found that support for the policy drops to less than 1 in 3 people when respondents hear “that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.”

In June, Newsom warned that some Californians could be forced to fill out 36 pages of paperwork to keep their insurance, showing reporters an image of a stack of forms with teal and gold accents that he described as “an actual PDF example of the paperwork that people will have to submit to for their eligibility checks.”

Many Californians already are required to fill out that 36-page form or its online equivalent to enroll in Medi-Cal and Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace.

Experts say it’s too soon to say what system will be used for people to prove their work eligibility, because federal guidance won’t be finalized for months.

Newsom’s office directed questions to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. A spokesperson there said officials are “still reviewing the full operational impacts” of the work requirements.

“The idea that you are going to get a paper submission every six months, I’m not sure people have to do that,” Long said.

Georgia is the only state that has implemented a lasting work requirement for Medicaid. Two years ago, the state made healthcare available to people who were working at least 80 hours per month and earned less than the federal poverty limit (about $15,000 for one person or $31,200 for a household of four).

More than 100,000 people have applied for coverage since the program’s launch in July of 2023. As of June of this year, more than 8,000 people were enrolled, according to the state’s most recent data.

The Medicaid program has cost more than $100 million so far, and of that, $26 million was spent on health benefits and more than $20 million was allocated to marketing contracts, KFF Health News reported. Democrats in Georgia have sought an investigation into the program.

The Inland Empire agency that provides Medi-Cal coverage for about 1.5 million people in San Bernardino and Riverside counties estimated that 150,000 members could lose their insurance as a result of work requirements.

Jarrod McNaughton, the chief executive of the Inland Empire Health Plan, said that California’s 58 counties, which administer Medi-Cal, “will be the ones at the precipice of piecing this together” but haven’t yet received guidance on how the eligibility process will be set up or what information people will have to provide.

Will it be done online? Will recipients be required to fill out a piece of paper that needs to be mailed in or dropped off? “We don’t really know the process yet, because all of this is so new,” Naughton said.

In the meantime, he said, the health plan’s foundation is working to make this “as least burdensome as possible,” working to improve community outreach and connect people who receive Medi-Cal insurance to volunteer opportunities.

Wealthy first-time political candidate Stephen J. Cloobeck is spending $1.4 million on television ads starting Tuesday — the first barrage of cable and broadcast messaging that Californians will likely be bombarded with in next year’s governor’s election.

Cloobeck’s campaign declined to preview the 30-second ad on Monday, but the candidate confirmed the size of the ad buy. Public records of advertising purchases show that Cloobeck bought space in every California market on cable, as well as broadcast television time in Sacramento. He also bought time in New York City and Washington, D.C. — as well as West Palm Beach, the location of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago.

Cloobeck confirmed the size of the buy; a campaign advisor confirmed that they would run through Monday and that he was also launching a social-media effort.

“I will always Fight for California. All Californians deserve the contract to be fulfilled for an affordable livable workable state,” Cloobeck said in a text message. “Watch [the ad] and you will see how a conservative Democrat fights for All Californians.”

The move comes after former Vice President Kamala Harris opted last week against running for governor, leaving a race without a clear front-runner with a large field that is widely unknown to most California voters.

The candidates need to raise their name recognition among California’s 22.9 million registered voters, which makes Cloobeck’s early advertising understandable, according to Democratic strategists.

“It’s unprecedented for regular business. Not for this race,” said Democratic media buyer Sheri Sadler, who is not currently affiliated with a candidate in the contest.

It’s also not unprecedented for Cloobeck, a Beverly Hills philanthropist and businessman. He announced his gubernatorial run in November with a fusillade of television and digital ads.

While the 63-year-old’s exact net worth is unclear, he made his fortune in real estate and hospitality. He founded Diamond Resorts International, a timeshare and vacation property company, which he sold in 2016. Earlier, he appeared on several episodes of the reality-television show “Undercover Boss,” which sends executives in disguise into low-level jobs at their businesses.

While Cloobeck has not run for office before, he has long been a prodigious Democratic donor and fundraiser. He also played a critical role in renaming the airport in Las Vegas after the late Sen. Harry Reid, whom he describes as a father figure. The bookshelves at his sprawling Beverly Hills mansion are lined with pictures of himself with Democratic presidents and many other prominent members of the party.

Cloobeck announced last week that he was contributing $10 million to his campaign, on top of the $3 million he initially seeded it with. His wealth was on vivid display at the California Democratic Party‘s spring convention, where canvassers who said they were paid $25 per hour wore royal blue shirts emblazoned with his name chanted his name. Cloobeck said at the time that his campaign had spent “probably a couple hundred thousand dollars” on the effort.