By Los Angeles Times staff
California’s general election takes place on November 3. Here is information Times reporters gathered about the races:
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Sign up for our L.A. City Hall newsletter to get weekly insights, scoops and analysis.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
SACRAMENTO — Supporters of a high-profile Nov. 3 ballot measure that would require Californians to show identification when they vote accused state Democratic leaders of falsely stating that President Trump has endorsed the initiative.
Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, one of the measure’s authors, on Thursday called Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra a “bald-face liar” over comments he made during Wednesday’s gubernatorial debate hosted by CNN.
Becerra said during the debate with Republican Steve Hilton that Trump was instrumental in the voter ID measure, Proposition 39, qualifying for California’s November ballot. Trump for years has tried to cast doubt about American elections, and unsuccessfully pushed Congress to pass a strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measure known as the SAVE America Act.
“Prop. 39 is an initiative that is backed by Donald Trump,” Becerra said during the hourlong debate. “He couldn’t get his SAVE Act out of Congress, which tries to interfere in elections. So he’s gone around the country and put initiatives on the ballot. In California, it’s Prop. 39.”
Though Proposition 39’s provisions are less restrictive than those in the SAVE America Act, its proponents echo Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that voter fraud and noncitizen voting are widespread in California and therefore stricter ID measures are needed.
DeMaio said the ballot measure qualified for the ballot because of strong support from California voters, including many Democrats and independents. Supporters collected more than 1 million petition signatures in support of the measure, surpassing the 874,641 needed to qualify.
“It was not put on the ballot by Donald Trump,” said DeMaio, who also founded the conservative advocacy group Reform California.
Becerra is “showing that he’s not willing to be truthful with California voters,” DeMaio said.
Meredith Shields, press secretary for the Yes on Prop. 39 committee, reiterated that Trump hasn’t taken a position on the initiative.
“The opposition will do anything to advance their cause and protect their power,” Shields said. “It will come as a surprise to no one that career politicians don’t always tell the truth, and they certainly aren’t telling the truth here.”
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about Trump’s position on Proposition 39.
The measure would require anyone voting in person in California to present a government-issued ID, and those voting by mail ballot to include the last four digits of the ID number provided when they registered to vote. State and county election officials would be required to verify the U.S. citizenship of registered voters using government data and publicly report the findings.
The ballot measure is backed by DeMaio and several deep-pocketed Trump supporters. Julie Luckey, director of the group Californians for Voter ID, is the mother of billionaire tech entrepreneur Palmer Luckey, a major Trump fundraiser and Republican donor. Richard Uihlein, chief executive of the shipping and packing supplies company Uline, has given the campaign $17 million.
Representatives for Becerra and the No on Prop. 39 campaign on Thursday argued that Trump pushed for voter ID in California before Proposition 39 officially qualified for the ballot, pointing to a March 11, 2025 news release on Reform California’s website acknowledging Trump’s support.
In January 2025, Trump endorsed “CA Voter ID” as a “condition” for continued federal funding to the state, according to the release, which was updated this year with an editor’s note to clarify that Proposition 39 hasn’t been endorsed by Trump.
“Carl DeMaio knows Prop. 39 is central to Trump’s voter suppression playbook, and he’s doing everything he can to hide that from voters,” said Jonathan Underland, spokesperson for Becerra’s campaign.
The No on Prop. 39 campaign repeatedly has sought to link Trump to the measure, which has not been a surprise given that the Republican president remains extremely unpopular among a majority of Californians.
“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) said in a statement released by the “No” campaign this year.
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) suggested to reporters at a rally organized by the “No” campaign last month that Trump is behind Proposition 39.
“Carl DeMaio has been the face of this in California, but don’t be fooled into thinking this has nothing to do with Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda nationally,” Padilla said.
Separately, DeMaio on Thursday accused Secretary of State Shirley Weber, another Democrat, of falsely stating that Proposition 39 would end California’s vote-by-mail system. The vast majority of Californians use mail-in ballots.
Weber, in a television interview that aired this week on KCRA in Sacramento, said the state already requires ID for those who register to vote.
“But if you tell me everybody has to take their ID to the poll, Californians should be concerned because 90% of them don’t want to do that,” she said. “They want to vote by mail, and you would effectively eliminate vote by mail.”
DeMaio questioned whether Weber understood what Proposition 39 proposes.
“If she truly is concerned about trust and confidence in our elections, she should start with her own behavior by refraining from spreading misinformation about Prop. 39 and our election,” he said.
Weber, when asked about her statement this week, said in an email to The Times that Proposition 39 would “cause disruption” in the state’s mail-in voting system because it would require voters “to write private personal information on the ballots.”
A Weber campaign spokesperson followed up with another response Thursday.
“What Dr. Weber actually said was that, if passed, this very poorly drafted proposition could cause people to decide not to vote by mail because it creates unnecessary and burdensome steps,” the spokesperson said.
SACRAMENTO — Days after signing a package of bills to rebuff aspects of federal immigration enforcement in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills from Los Angeles lawmakers that targeted public employment for federal agents.
One of the bills, backed by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), would have blocked agents and contractors who worked to enforce federal immigration laws from state and local jobs in California, including for law enforcement agencies. It was called the “Get the Feds Out” or “GTFO” Act.
Newsom said the bill goes “a step too far.”
“It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration’s policies and tactics reprehensible,” the governor wrote in a veto letter to the Legislature made public on Wednesday.
The governor added that hiring for public employment already includes personal conduct evaluations. He emphasized the “horrific tactics” used by immigration agents during President Trump’s second term but said it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the administration and individual agents accountable.
Newsom signed a similar bill that prevents federal agents from becoming police in California if their federal badge was revoked for misconduct.
While he expressed disappointment in the veto, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), the author of Assembly Bill 1896, applauded Newsom for signing “a strong package of legislation that will protect Californians and stand up for our immigrant communities.”
“From the beginning, the GTFO Act was about a simple principle: We should never use public dollars to reward conduct that has caused fear, terror, and pain in our communities. I am proud to have stood alongside my brother, Speaker Rivas, in this fight and this fight is not over,” Gonzalez said in a statement to The Times.
A spokesperson for Rivas said while the proposal did not become law, “Californians know Trump’s immigration agenda is failing and doesn’t keep anyone safe. That’s why Assembly Democrats are leading the nation in holding ICE accountable. The Speaker thanks his colleagues for delivering real results this year.”
The outgoing governor also vetoed a proposal from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City), Assembly Bill 1537, that would have prevented sworn law enforcement officers from taking secondary employment or contract jobs for immigration enforcement.
Newsom took issue with the prospect of prohibiting “secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time.”
“State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct,” Newsom wrote in the veto letter. “Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.”
Bryan, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the veto.
Earlier this week, Newsom signed 21 bills aimed at federal immigration enforcement, including bans on electric shock gloves and face coverings for law enforcement. Other laws impose a 25% tax on companies that operate private detention centers, along with additional oversight of the facilities.
“No tax will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make California safe again,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email. “While California sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make California safe again.”
The slate of statewide measures on the Nov. 3 ballot provides voters two opportunities to tax the rich, which in past years has proved tantalizing to California’s left-leaning electorate.
Only one of those measures has strong voter support, however, and it’s not the proposition that’s attracted nationwide attention, ignited a nearly quarter-billion-dollar political slugfest and created a rift among top leaders in the Democratic Party.
Likely voters expressed middling support for Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets intended to compensate for an impending $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts. They were far more likely to back Proposition 3, a ballot measure that would make permanent a tax increase on the wealthy that funds schools and healthcare, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.
Proposition 3 appears to be a much less controversial endeavor, which may explain why it has more voter support. The ballot measure would extend a tax enacted in 2012 on individuals who earn at least $360,000 a year that is set to expire in 2031. Proposition 40 proposes a brand-new tax on billionaires and is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who fears that it could hurt the state’s finances in the long run.
“When you’re going about taxing the billionaires’ assets, I mean that’s something kind of new and different, and it’s risky, and the governor’s against it, and you know a lot of people are expressing caution about it,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll.
Voters are deeply concerned about income disparity but also skeptical about the unusual approach of the billionaire tax.
Proposition 40 has drawn the greatest attention and campaign spending of the 14 ballot measures voters will decide on Nov. 3.
In the poll, 45% of likely voters support the proposal, while 42% oppose it and 13% are undecided. That’s a decline in support compared with six weeks ago, when 48% of likely voters supported it while 41% opposed it, and comes after nearly $100 million of spending on television ads, social media messages and mailers, largely from opponents.
The billionaire tax was crafted by a healthcare union in response to legislation passed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found.
The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.
There are two counterproposals on the ballot that would nullify the wealth tax if either receives more votes than Proposition 40, and they have raised $144 million. Voters are torn about Proposition 41, which would prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year. The billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. Voters also are divided on Proposition 42, which would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.
Proposition 42 has greater support, with 43% backing it, 34% opposing it and the remainder undecided, according to the poll. Even more voters were uncertain about Proposition 41: 3 in 10 said they were undecided, while 37% said they supported it and 33% said they planned to vote against it.
The large number of undecided voters this close to the election points to voters being overwhelmed by the sheer number of statewide ballot measures, DiCamillo said.
“It’s confusion,” he said, adding that many voters may make a decision once they receive more ballot information.
That said, the fact that none of these proposals has the support of more than 50% of likely voters doesn’t bode well for their prospects, DiCamillo said.
Ballots will begin arriving in the mailboxes of the state’s 23.2 million voters in days.
Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California, but the party’s leaders are deeply divided about the billionaire tax, given the volatile state budget’s reliance on the wealthy. Newsom, who is pondering a 2028 presidential campaign, and the two men vying to replace him — Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — oppose it. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a potential 2028 White House contender, supports it, as does the California Democratic Party.
Additionally, Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and architect of the ballot measure, has come under scrutiny. Regan has been accused of threatening and intimidating women who worked for the union’s parent organization, and of physically assaulting one, according to reporting by The Times. He was also accused of trying to extort SEIU’s state council, suggesting that it could face an investigation over “governance issues” if it did not support Proposition 40, according to an investigation commissioned by SEIU.
Regan has denied these claims, describing them as a “smear” campaign orchestrated by Proposition 40 opponents.
Much less attention has been paid to Proposition 3. Californians who earn more than $360,000 now are subject to a 10.3% tax, while those who earn more than $721,000 face a 12.3% levy. The vast majority of the billions raised through this tax go to K-12 schools, while the remainder is spent on community colleges and healthcare.
The other ballot measure that is receiving national attention is Proposition 39, which would require voters to present a government-issued identification document to cast a ballot or provide a PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.
The measure also would require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
The proposal comes as Trump has continued to make claims that elections, notably in California, are being rigged by Democrats. Americans are increasingly alarmed about the security and sanctity of voting, and growing fears about intimidation efforts at polling places in the midterm elections.
Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the poll.
“It doesn’t look like it’s in a strong position,” DiCamillo said, noting that while voters have opposed it in prior polls, the opposition has grown.
Nearly one-third of voters were undecided about two other propositions:
Voters will also face questions about environmental policy, housing, recall elections and other matters, as well as statewide, congressional and local elections. Californians are fatigued by the length of the ballot.
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 6,989 registered California voters, 4,512 of whom are considered likely voters, on Sept. 15-20. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
Californians are deeply frustrated with the length of the November ballot, which includes 14 statewide propositions, and gloomy about the direction of the state and the nation, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll published Tuesday night.
They “are feeling very pessimistic,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s statewide survey director. “You know that comes out not just in the questions we ask about the economy, but generally about the direction of the state and the nation. This just indicates the level of negativity that people have going into this final stage before people cast their ballots this November.”
More than half of the state’s likely voters believe that California is headed in the wrong direction, and 73% predict sour economic times in the state next year. Less than a quarter of likely voters believe the nation is headed in the right direction.
President Trump has an approval rating of 27% of likely voters, but that’s better than Congress, which has a 16% approval rating. Majorities do not have confidence in either major political party’s ability to solve problems.
Ballots will begin arriving in 23.2 million voters’ mailboxes in a little over two weeks. Nearly 80% of likely voters are frustrated by the length of the ballot, which includes 14 propositions as well as statewide, congressional and local elections. This a rare consensus among Democratic, Republican and independent voters.
“This year, there are more propositions on the ballot than we’ve seen for a decade,” Baldassare said. “Overwhelming majorities of Californians say that there are too many propositions on the ballot, too many things for them to decide. And many Californians feel that the wording of ballot initiatives makes it very hard for them to understand what happens if one passes.”
The proposal to tax the assets of billionaires to make up for federal government healthcare cuts, Proposition 40, has a slim lead in the poll, with 52% of likely voters saying they support the one-time 5% levy.
However, there are two ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, that would nullify the wealth tax if one is approved and gets more votes than Proposition 40. Narrow majorities support both of these proposals, creating a quandary for wealth tax supporters: ensuring their proposal receives the support of a majority of voters while also tamping down support for the competing efforts.
Findings about the proposal to require showing government-issued identification to vote and the governor’s race show less competitive contests that break along predictable partisan lines in a state where registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1.
The voter ID measure is opposed by 55% of likely voters. In the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, 60% of likely voters support Democrat Xavier Becerra, and 38% support Republican Steve Hilton. The other 2% were undecided or do not plan to vote on the race.
The poll of 1,745 adult Californians was conducted Sept. 4-10, and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points in either direction, and 3.8 percentage points among the 1,103 likely voters.
If elected governor in November, Republican Steve Hilton said Tuesday he would eliminate the state Department of Motor Vehicles and slash registration fees for car owners — expressing confidence that the Democratic-controlled Legislature would embrace the plan.
“My starting expectation would be, they would be with me on things to reduce the cost of living, so let’s work together,” he told The Times on Tuesday.
Hilton said that once state lawmakers met with him and realized he was not the “caricature” his critics portray, they would realize that he is “not a particularly tribal person. I’m just looking to solve problems, and we all agree about the cost of living.”
Eliminating a state agency would require approval from the state Legislature, where Democrats hold super majorities in both chambers. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) have both endorsed Hilton’s Democratic rival in the governor’s race, former Biden cabinet member Xavier Becerra.
The Becerra campaign scoffed at Hilton’s confidence.
“You can’t spend a year calling Democrats a failure and then expect two-thirds of both chambers to take your calls,” said Becerra spokesperson Jonathan Underland. “Steve is in for a very rude awakening, and the fact that he can’t see it coming just shows how little he understands the job he’s asking for.“
Hilton announced his plan at a news conference outside of a DMV office in West Hollywood, where he touted proposals to eliminate the state agency, which has a $1.6-billion budget, and reduce the annual vehicle registration fee to $73 per year.
“We are going to shut down this bloated, nanny-state bureaucratic agency that treats Californians with complete contempt,” he said to cheers at the event. “We are done with it. Enough is enough with the DMV. Enough is enough with sky-high registration rates. We are done.”
Hilton said he could issue an executive order to reduce the vehicle licensing fees, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did less than an hour after being sworn into office upon winning the 2003 recall election. While the fee is set by state tax code, governors can waive it in specific circumstances, as Schwarzenegger did.
Californians currently register more than 36 million vehicles with the DMV each year, and the average annual fee paid for each is $329, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office. The registration fees, along with driver’s license costs and other fees related to the California Highway Patrol and identification cards collected by the DMV, are the primary funding sources of the CHP and DMV.
Hilton said the state currently reaps $11 billion to $12 billion per year from vehicle registration fees, and that his proposal would reduce the revenue to roughly $2.7 billion. He said he would make up for the revenue shortfall created by the proposal — and other plans, including eliminating state taxes on the first $150,000 of income — by reducing the state’s workforce by 10% and agency budgets by 5%.
To eliminate a state agency, Hilton would need legislative approval, although he says that if Sacramento lawmakers were to rebuff his efforts, he could use the budget to slash the DMV’s operations.
Hilton cited a discussion he had with Schwarzenegger at an August dinner at the movie star’s Brentwood estate.
“Arnold said the Democrats who led the Legislature when he was there much preferred” having a Republican governor to a Democratic one, Hilton said.
Hilton lacks Schwarzenegger’s worldwide fame, and the nation and Sacramento are far more polarized than when the Austrian bodybuilder turned action movie star took office. Still, Hilton’s vehicle registration proposal is reminiscent of a major plank of Schwarzenegger’s successful 2003 campaign to recall and replace Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.
Davis had tripled the state’s annual vehicle license fee shortly after being reelected in 2002 to help address a state budget shortfall. Schwarzenegger seized upon the issue during the recall campaign, at one point dropping a wrecking ball from a five-story crane onto a car spray-painted with the words “Davis Car Tax” in front of a cheering crowd in Costa Mesa.
“We had the biggest action star in the world. He’s going to show action,” said Rob Stutzman, who worked as one of Schwarzenegger’s top advisors. “Arnold demanded it. It was always a production to tell a story. He was genius at it.”
“Californians got a huge increase in their vehicle license fee and it was being done to backfill a deficit arguably revealed to them by surprise after the [2002] election,” Stutzman said.
Stutzman said the fee created a backlash that fueled the recall campaign against Davis, along with rolling blackouts during the energy crisis of 2000 to 2001.
Schwarzenegger’s executive order reducing the license fee to its former rate resulted in billions of dollars of losses to the state’s general fund. The Republican had to respond with spending cuts as well as issuing bonds to make up for the shortfall.