Californians

California is having a bummer of a political summer.

With the state under daily siege by the Trump administration, Los Angeles occupied by federal troops and our gallivanting governor busy running for president, is it really any surprise?

A recent UC Irvine poll found that residents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe California is headed on the wrong track, a mood consistent with other gauges of Golden State grumpiness.

Why the sad faces?

“We are so divided as a country that people feel like there’s no common purpose and the other guys are out there about to do mayhem to the things that they believe in,” said Jon Gould, dean of UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology. “Number two, there is a substantial portion of people who feel that their economic situation is worse than it was four years ago, two years ago, one year ago.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom also gets some credit, er, blame for the state’s darkened disposition.

A poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found California voters have little faith in their chief executive as he rounds the turn toward his final year in office. (Which may be one reason Newsom would rather spend time laying the groundwork for a 2028 White House bid.)

Only 14% of voters surveyed had “a lot” of trust in Newsom to act in the best interests of the California public, while another 28% trusted him “somewhat.” Fifty-three percent had no trust in the governor, or only “a little.”

Not a strong foundation for a presidential campaign, but Potomac fever is a powerful thing.

The Democratic-run Legislature fared about the same in the Berkeley survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents had either a lot or some degree of trust in Sacramento lawmakers — not a great look, but a number that positively shines compared to attitudes toward California’s tech companies and their leaders as they increasingly try to spread their overweening influence to politics. Only 4% had a lot of trust in the companies acting in the best interest of the California public; nearly six in 10 did not trust them at all. (There was similarly little faith in business groups.)

But it’s not just the state’s leaders and institutions that fail to engender much trust or goodwill.

A survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found residents have also soured on the three branches of the federal government.

Fewer than a third of Californians expressed approval for President Trump and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Just 2 in 10 Californians approved of the job Congress is doing.

Some of that is colored by partisan attitudes. Registered Democrats make up the largest portion of the electorate and, obviously, most aren’t happy with the GOP stranglehold on Washington. But that distrust transcended red and blue loyalties.

Overall, 8 in 10 adults said they do not fully trust the federal government to do what is right. A nearly identical percentage said they trust the government to do what is right only some of the time.

That, too, is part of a long-standing pattern.

“It’s a concern, but it’s not a new concern,” said Mark Baldassare, who directs research for the Public Policy Institute. “It’s been around in some form for decades.”

Back in 1958, when the National Election Study first asked, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time — a level of faith that, today, sounds like it comes from people in another galaxy.

Starting in the 1960s, with the escalation of the Vietnam War, and continuing through the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, that trust has steadily eroded. The last time the Pew Research Center asked the question, in the spring of 2024, just 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide said they trusted the federal government just about always or most of the time. That compared to just 11% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

What’s new — and perhaps most troubling — in the recent batch of opinion surveys are growing fears for the state of our democracy.

Nearly two-thirds of those sampled in the Berkeley poll felt that “American democracy is under attack” and another 26% described it as “being tested.” Only 1 in 10 said our democracy is in “no danger.”

America has had some knock-down political fights in recent decades. But it’s only in the Trump era, with his incessant lying about the 2020 election and assault on the rule of law, that the durability of our democracy has become a widespread concern.

Pollsters didn’t even ask that question “10 years ago, 20 years ago, because it was just inconceivable,” said Eric Schickler, who co-directs Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

“Even in moments when people were mad, say after [Hurricane] Katrina, Iraq with Bush, or amid the Lewinsky scandal or various other moments of trouble and conflict you would never have seen… 64% say American democracy is under attack and only 10% saying democracy is not in danger,” Schickler said. “That’s just a pretty stunning number … and I think it suggests something really different is going on now.”

Perhaps this is just a temporary cloud, like the coastal fog that dissipates as summer rolls on?

“In the short to medium term, I’m not optimistic,” Schickler said. “I think that the problems that we have, the challenges, have just been growing over a period of time. Starting before the Trump era, for sure, but then accelerating in recent years. I think we’re heading more toward a politics where there just aren’t limits on what a party in power is going to do or try to accomplish, and the other party is an enemy and that’s a really bad dynamic.”

Oh, well.

There’s always the mountains, beach and desert offering Californians an escape.

SACRAMENTO — An overwhelming number of California voters think American democracy is being threatened or, at the very least, tested, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that concerns cut across the partisan spectrum. They are shared regardless of income or education level, race or ethnicity. Californians living in big cities and rural countrysides, young and old, expressed similar unease.

“I do think that it’s at a pretty dangerous point right now. The concerns are justified,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute. “Our democracy is not healthy when you have a president that’s acting to unilaterally stop money from being spent that’s been appropriated, or going to war with colleges and universities or sending troops to L.A.”

In the survey, 64% of California voters said they thought American democracy was under attack, and 26% felt our system of government was being tested but was not under attack. The poll did not investigate what voters blamed for putting democracy in peril.

Democrats, who dominate the California electorate, were the most fearful, with 81% saying it was under attack and 16% who described democracy as being tested. Among voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties, 61% felt democracy was under assault, and 32% said it was being tested.

Republicans expressed more faith — nearly a quarter of those polled said they felt democracy was in no danger. But 38% said it was under attack and 39% said it was being tested but not under attack.

Concerns among Democrats may have been expected in California, given the state’s liberal tilt and the widespread and relentless government upheaval since President Trump took office in January. But the opinions shared by Republicans indicates just how pervasive the concerns are about the future of a country seen as a worldwide beacon of freedom and democracy.

Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said those findings are evidence of an unsettling new development in American politics.

“A couple years ago, Republicans felt that democracy was at risk and now Democrats feel that democracy is at risk. I think that this is pretty worrisome, because people are starting to view the stakes of each election as being higher and higher,” said Ekins, who had no involvement with the Berkeley poll. “They may feel like they could lose their rights and freedoms. They may not feel like the rules apply to them anymore because they feel like so much is on the line.”

Schickler said the political perceptions among Republicans have been recently fed, in part, by Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Continuous allegations that the U.S. Department. of Justice, including the FBI, and a “deep state” federal government bureaucracy were weaponized against him since his first term in office also contributed to the fear.

Those claims were magnified by conservative news outlets, including Fox News, as well as Trump loyalists on social media, popular podcasts and talk shows.

Even some Republicans who support the president or are agnostic about his tenure are likely concerned about the discord in American politics in recent months, Schickler said, especially after the Trump administration sent U.S. Marines and the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles as a protective force during widespread federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.

Recent decisions by media companies to settle Trump’s lawsuits over complaints about stories and coverage also are concerning, he said, despite the merits of those allegations being suspect.

This month, Paramount Global decided to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris; the president claimed it was done to help her presidential campaign against him. Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schickler said. “I think the voters’ concerns are rooted in a reality, one that’s been building up for a while. It’s not something that’s just started in 2025 but it’s been kind of gradually getting more serious over the last 20 or 30 years.”

The survey also found that 75% of California voters believe strongly or somewhat that special interest money has too much influence in state politics, a sentiment especially strong among Republicans.

Slim majorities of California voters had little or no trust that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature act in the best interest of the public. According to the poll, 42% of voters said they have a lot or some trust in Newsom to act in the public’s interest; 53% said they trust his actions just a little or not at all.

Those surveyed had similar sentiments about the legislature.

The courts received the most favorable marks, with 57% of voters saying they trusted the judicial system to act in the best interest of the public.

Technology companies and their leaders were labeled completely untrustworthy by 58% of those surveyed.

Russia Chavis Cardenas, deputy director of the nonpartisan government accountability organization group California Common Cause, which has received grants from the poll-sponsoring Haas Fund, said the findings show just how much special interest influence in Sacramento, and Washington, erodes public trust in government, which may provide insight into their concerns about the health of the American democracy.

“I want to see folks from every political party, every race and every walk of life to be able to be engaged in their democracy, to be able to have a say, to be able to have representation,” Chavis Cardinas said.

“So these numbers are concerning, but they also don’t lie,” she said. “They’re letting us know that folks here in California recognize the influence that big money has, and that the tech companies have too much power over elected officials.”

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.

The Bay Area family of a former San Francisco Giants pitcher is among those still missing following a devastating flash flood in Central Texas that killed more than 100 people last week.

Hundreds gathered for a vigil Sunday in Marin County for Mark Walker, Sara Walker and their 14-year-old son, Johnny. The Kentfield family was visiting their vacation home in Hunt in Central Texas when the disaster struck.

Mark is the older brother of Tyler Walker, who played for the Giants between 2004 and 2008.

Mark’s mother, Kathy, told the San Francisco Chronicle that Mark’s 16-year-old daughter, Ellie, was attending nearby Camp Waldemar and was rescued. The family last heard from Mark on Thursday and later found out that the family’s home along the Guadalupe River washed away in the flood.

“I’m sick to my stomach,” Kathy told the Chronicle. “It’s a terrible feeling, because you’re helpless here.”

Mark’s son, Johnny, was going to be a freshman at Marin Catholic High School. The school released a statement, saying that a prayer service would be held Tuesday evening.

“In heartbreaking times like this, we turn to God and to prayer for the Walker family and all the victims of the devastating floods in Texas. We are still praying for a miracle in hopes that Ellie will be reunited with her mom, dad and brother,” according to the statement.

Friday’s flash flooding also claimed the lives of more than two dozen people at Camp Mystic, a Christian girls summer camp along the Guadalupe River. At least 27 campers and counselors died and as of Monday, 10 campers and a counselor are still missing.

Texas officials are facing backlash over whether they adequately prepared for and warned residents of the life-threatening weather conditions in the area known as “flash flood alley.”

California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas.

Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California’s $3 trillion economy — but that’s the first 8%. “If you don’t get that first 8%,” I tell my students, “You don’t get the rest of our economy.” Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can’t build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don’t make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state’s total refining capacity.

California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world’s cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections.

All of this is enabled by a supply chain that’s more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn’t get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising.

This isn’t just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It’s also a national security issue.

Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states.

And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we’ve built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline.

This isn’t just unsustainable. It’s also borderline irresponsible.

California’s energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can’t pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can’t afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof.

We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way.

But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State.

Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax.

According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you’re a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you’d need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it.

That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can’t easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state’s policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that’s not yet built. It’s a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action.

Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state’s lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable.

The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules.

At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don’t calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math.

No wonder we’re seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock.

And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we’ve simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them.

If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it’s unjust.

These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They’re crushing the working class. They’re forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They’re also outsourcing jobs overseas.

And they’re being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven’t calculated the real-world impact.

The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won’t be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped.

The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future.

Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy.

Former Vice President Kamala hasn’t decided whether she will run for California governor next year, but a new poll released Wednesday shows that she would be a favorite of voters if she does.

Though many voters were undecided, Harris was the choice of 41% of survey respondents, compared to 29% who opted for an unnamed Republican candidate, according to a poll by the University of California Irvine. She also had the greatest favorability ratings and is most well known compared to all of the candidates who have announced.

“The path to governor seems well-paved for Vice President Harris if she decides to run,” said Jon Gould, dean of UCI’s School of Social Ecology, in a statement. “Although she lacks majority support at the moment, people know her better than the other candidates and generally view her favorably.”

Only 5% of Californians had never heard of Harris, while every other announced candidate was unknown by a far larger number of respondents, including those who had run for statewide office previously. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ran for governor in 2018, was unknown by 47% of survey respondents; 48% were unfamiliar with former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, who ran for U.S. Senate in 2024.

When tested against candidates who have announced, Harris was the choice of 24% of voters, the only candidate to crack double digits, according to the poll. However, 40% of respondents were undecided, according to the poll.

Among Democrats, who account for 47% of the state’s voters as of February, Harris had the support of nearly half, while every announced candidate had single-digit support. Harris led among Californians in every region and in every racial group, according to the poll.

Billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 2022 and is reportedly debating whether to run for mayor again or governor, was the favored choice of GOP voters, with the backing of 27% of survey respondents.

Harris, whose representatives did not respond to a request for comment, is expected to decide whether she enters the race by the end of the summer, a delay that has prompted criticism from several candidates in the crowded field of candidates who have already announced their bids.

The statewide poll of 4,143 Californians was conducted online in two separate polls, one between May 27 and June 2, and another between May 29 and June 4. The margin of error in either direction varies between 2.9% and 3.6%, according to UCI.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark healthcare expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12-billion deficit.

It’s the third year in a row the nation’s most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321-billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders.

But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don’t send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday.

The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole.

“It’s balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it’s focused on supporting Californians,” Newsom said in a statement about the budget.

California also faces potential federal cuts to healthcare programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion.

“We’ve had to make some tough decisions,” Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. “I know we’re not going to please everyone, but we’re doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.”

Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually.

“We’re increasing borrowing, we’re taking away from the rainy day fund, and we’re not reducing our spending,” said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. “And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.”

Here’s a look at spending in key areas:

Healthcare

Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded healthcare program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old.

The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom’s proposal in May. Still, it’s a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal healthcare.

Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted “no” on the healthcare changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.

The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026.

But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called “draconian.”

The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood.

Environment

Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending.

Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state’s long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget doesn’t make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year.

Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state’s ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently.

Public safety

The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.

Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pretrial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads.

Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that’s not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program.

Other priorities

Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state’s film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030.

The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense.

But cities and counties won’t see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds.

The budget also doesn’t act on Newsom’s proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state’s water supply.

Nguyễn writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — The vast majority of California voters support expanding access to translated ballots for people who speak limited English, an effort that would likely increase turnout, a new poll found.

That finding comes from a poll released Monday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which conducted the survey in five languages — English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese — to capture voter sentiment in a state where more than a quarter of residents are foreign born.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that about 70% of California’s registered voters agreed that eligible voters who speak limited English should be provided with ballots translated into their preferred language. Support was strong among all age groups, races and ethnicities, as well as among Democrats and independent voters. Republicans were closely divided.

“I think in the country as a whole there’s a lot of debate and struggle over how inclusive a democracy we’re going to be and a lot of controversy over immigration, immigrant rights, immigrant inclusion,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies. “It’s timely just thinking about the question of inclusion of different groups — who feels fully American and is allowed to feel fully American in our political system.”

Schickler and others said that, according to the latest estimates, more than 3 million registered voters in California self-identify as limited-English proficient. As of February, just under 23 million Californians were registered to vote.

Under state and federal law, California is required to provide bilingual voting assistance to Spanish speakers. Nine counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara — must provide voting materials in at least one language other than English or Spanish.

Translated sample ballots and other assistance also must be made available in Spanish or other languages in counties or precincts where the state has determined at least 3% of the voting-age residents are members of a single-language minority and don’t understand English well enough to vote without assistance.

The Berkeley survey found that 82% of Democrats supported providing translated ballot materials to limited-English voters, as did 72% of voters registered as “no party preference.” Among Republicans, 45% supported providing the translated ballots, while 42% did not.

According to the poll, most California voters also favored a proposal that recently went before the state Legislature that would have allowed all limited-English-speaking communities that meet a minimum threshold in a county to receive translated versions of all voting materials.

Legislation to that effect, SB 266, proposed by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside), failed to pass out of the Senate Appropriations Committee. A more ambitious bill to expand access to translated ballots and materials, AB 884, passed the Legislature in 2024, but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor stated that while he supported expanding ballot access, the bill would have cost tens of millions of dollars not included in the budget.

Providing translated ballots to California voters with limited English proficiency is critical in a state that is home to such a diverse electorate — and is known for its complex state and local ballot measures, said Rosalind Gold of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

“Even folks who are very educated and native-born English speakers find trying to decipher the description of a ballot measure and what it means to be challenging,” Gold said.

Providing translated sample ballots and other election materials to voters does not go far enough, she said: The official ballots themselves, whether for Californians who vote by mail or those who vote at polling stations, should be provided in a voter’s preferred language.

“It is difficult to basically, kind of go back and forth between the ballot you’re going to be marking your choices on and a sample ballot or a facsimile ballot that’s in your native language,” Gold said. “When people can directly vote on a ballot that is in a language that they are more familiar with, it just demystifies the whole process.”

The Berkeley survey found that, among limited-English speakers who lacked access to translated election materials or were unsure if it was provided, 87% said they would be more likely to vote in future elections if they received a ballot in their preferred language. A similar number said receiving those translated ballots would make it easier for them to vote.

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.

More than 30 million Californians across the state could see their electric bills go up to pay for the devastating Eaton fire, as officials scramble to shore up a state wildfire fund that could be wiped out by damage claims.

One early estimate places fire losses from the Eaton fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze on Jan. 7, as dozens of lawsuits allege, the damage claims could quickly exhaust the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“Everyone is concerned about this,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford’s climate and energy policy program, who was involved in the fund’s creation. “If we need to put more money into the fund, where will it come from?”

The wildfire fund was created to shield the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy in the event one was found liable for massive fire damages.

At a meeting last month, members of the state Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund, were told that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders were being urged to extend a monthly surcharge on electric bills beyond its planned expiration in 2035. The fee, called the non-bypassable charge, adds roughly $3 a month to the average residential bill.

“They are asking the people of California to put more money into the fund,” said council member Paul Rosenstiel, a former investment banker and Newsom advisor, according to a transcript of the meeting. “Some of them are asking for an extension of the non-bypassable charge.”

The fee is paid by customers of the state’s three big for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Rosenstiel didn’t respond to a request for comment. At the meeting, he didn’t say who was lobbying the governor and lawmakers to extend the surcharge to ratepayers.

California utility executives have told their investors they have been talking to Newsom and legislative leaders about shoring up the fund. PG&E executives have said that they have asked that no new money come from utilities or their shareholders, which would likely leave electric customers to pay more.

“We continue to advocate that we don’t think there is a good case that investors should contribute to the fund,” Patti Poppe, PG&E’s chief executive, told Wall Street analysts in an April conference call.

A Siller Skycrane removes Southern California Edison’s tower 208 from a hillside in Altadena in May. The idle transmission tower, suspected of sparking the Eaton fire, will be examined at a lab.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of SoCal Edison’s parent company Edison International, was asked in a recent call with Wall Street analysts about the prospects for legislation that would bolster the wildfire fund.

“Clearly the governor’s office is engaged, as are our legislative leaders,” he said, adding that he was “certainly very encouraged by the level of diligence and engagement that I’m seeing.”

Asked to elaborate, Kathleen Dunleavy, a SoCal Edison spokeswoman, said the utility was not seeking a specific solution to questions of the fund’s durability.

“Our focus is to convey the importance of a strong wildfire fund,” she said. “We are not being prescriptive in how to achieve that.”

This year, the electric bill surcharge is expected to add $923 million to the fund, according to California Public Utility Commission records. If the fee was extended an additional 10 years, it would require customers of the three utilities to pay an additional $9 billion into the fund.

That doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates, who point out customers are already on the hook to contribute half of the $21-billion fund, while also paying higher bills to cover costs such as undergrounding and insulated electric wires.

Those measures are intended to make the electric system safer. Yet despite spending billions of dollars last year on wildfire mitigation, the number of fires sparked by its equipment jumped from 90 in 2023 to 178 last year.

Altadena homes lie in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“We think ratepayers have more than done enough,” said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN, a consumer group in San Francisco. “My position is that ratepayers should not pay another penny.”

Rosenstiel said at the May meeting that Newsom and legislative leaders were also being asked for the state’s general fund, which pays for schools, healthcare, prisons and other government operations, to contribute to the fund that protects utilities from wildfire claims.

The governor’s office declined to answer questions and said Newsom’s schedule didn’t allow time for an interview.

Newsom has a seat on the Catastrophe Response Council. He was a no-show at the group’s most recent meeting, sending a designee in his place.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Energy Committee, acknowledged that lawmakers are concerned about the fund but said that they are still considering remedies.

“All options are on the table and are being considered and evaluated,” she said. “I have certainly not arrived at a solution yet.”

The cause of the Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures in Altadena, remains under investigation.

Edison CEO Pizarro has said a leading theory is that an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze. Video captured flames erupting under an Edison transmission tower on the night of the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have started the inferno, the state’s wildfire fund is expected to cover most of the cost of damages over $1 billion, under a 2019 law that was passed after PG&E went bankrupt from its liability for the deadly 2018 Camp fire.

The first $1 billion in damages from the Eaton fire would be covered by insurance that electric customers paid for.

The total cost of the fire in Altadena won’t be known until dozens of lawsuits make their way through the courts, which could take years.

A February study by UCLA economists Zhiyun Li and William Yu estimated that the fire caused $24 billion to $45 billion in property damages and capital losses, or the cost to replace what was destroyed.

Officials at the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the wildfire fund, told members of the Catastrophe Response Council in a May memorandum that the authority had “undertaken a significant project to evaluate alternatives for extending the durability of the Wildfire Fund in the face of potential large losses.”

To determine how to strengthen the fund, authority officials said they had rehired consultants who worked with Newsom’s office in 2019 to create the fund. The four firms will be paid $4.5 million, which the fund will cover, they said.

Among the consultants is Guggenheim Securities, the investment banking arm of Guggenheim Partners. Another subsidiary of Guggenheim Partners owns stock in the state’s three big utilities.

A recommendation to tap utility customers to replenish the fund, instead of the utility companies themselves, would likely have a big impact on company share prices.

“They [Guggenheim] certainly have a vested interest in the financial success of the utilities,” Toney said.

A spokesman for Guggenheim Securities said the stocks owned by the sister company didn’t pose a conflict, saying it “maintains a robust conflict management program, including strict information barriers between its investment banking department and the rest of Guggenheim Partners.”

Wara at Stanford said if Edison is found responsible for the Eaton fire, the wildfire fund would cover what insurers paid to victims and also pay for property damage not covered by insurance.

For example, families who lost their homes but received insurance payouts lower than the value of their property could seek the balance from Edison, he said. The utility would then seek to recover those sums from the wildfire fund.

The other deadly Los Angeles County inferno that ignited on Jan. 7, the Palisades fire, is not covered by the wildfire fund because Pacific Palisades is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, a municipal utility. The fund only covers blazes ignited by equipment owned by the state’s three biggest investor-owned utilities.

“They have their insurance and that’s it,” Wara said of Palisades fire victims.

At its meeting last month, the state Catastrophe Response Council was informed that insurance claims from the Eaton fire have totaled roughly $15 billion so far.

Adding to the damage bill is the potential cost of lawsuits. The possibility that the fund will pay out large amounts for Eaton fire damages has led to dozens of lawsuits being filed against Edison, even before the official cause has been determined.

Families of Altadena residents who died have filed wrongful-death suits. Edison is also facing lawsuits from L.A. County and other local governments for damages, including to public infrastructure such as water systems. Residents living outside the fire’s borders have filed suit, saying they were harmed by lead and other toxins in the smoke.

If a court found Edison negligent in maintaining its equipment, Wara said, victims could ask for compensation for pain and suffering, which would escalate the cost.

“Then the wildfire fund is out of money,” Wara said.

Pizarro has said that Edison is “committed to a thorough and transparent investigation.”

“Our hearts go out to everyone who has suffered losses,” he said.

The 2019 law that created the wildfire fund, known as AB 1054, greatly limited what Edison would have to pay for any of the claims. The company has told its investors that its maximum liability would be $3.9 billion.

The three utilities are asking legislators to ensure that state law continues to protect them and their shareholders, even if the $21-billion fund runs out of money.

Since the January fires, Edison, PG&E and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, have each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby in Sacramento, according to required regulatory reports they filed for the first three months of the year.

A PG&E lobbyist reported taking Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris to a $267 dinner at Paragary’s, a bistro in Sacramento, on Feb. 3.

Petrie-Norris said the dinner was with Carla Peterman, a former state public utilities commissioner who is now a top PG&E executive. Petrie-Norris said they talked about a planned March hearing on electricity affordability and didn’t discuss the wildfire fund.

The next month, a PG&E lobbyist took Dee Dee Myers and Rohimah Moly, two of Newsom’s top staff members, to the upscale Prelude Kitchen & Bar, which is a short walk from the state Capitol.

Willie Rudman, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, said the wildfire fund wasn’t discussed at the meal. Instead it “was a general meet and greet,” Rudman said, where the governor’s staff and PG&E executives “discussed opportunities for future collaboration.”

PG&E declined to answer questions. Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokesperson, said in a statement that the utility’s lobbying expenses were paid with shareholder funds and not money from customers.

“Like many individuals and businesses, PG&E participates in the political process on behalf of our customers and company,” Paulo said.

SACRAMENTO — In a largely courteous gathering of half a dozen of California’s top gubernatorial candidates, four Democrats and two Republicans agreed that despite the state boasting one of the world’s largest economies, too many of its residents are suffering because of the affordability crisis in the state.

Their strategies on how to improve the state’s economy, however, largely embraced the divergent views of their respective political parties as they discussed housing costs, high-speed rail, tariffs, climate change and homelessness on Wednesday evening at the first bipartisan event in the 2026 race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Californians are innovators. They are builders, they are designers, they are creators, and that is the reason that we have the fourth largest economy in the world,” said former Rep. Katie Porter, a Democrat from Irvine. “But businesses and workers are being held back by the same thing. It is too expensive to do things here. It is too expensive to raise a family. It is too expensive to run a business.”

Conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, argued that state leaders need to end the “stranglehold” of unions, lawyers and climate change activists on California policy.

“I’ve been traveling this state. Everywhere I go, it’s the same story, this heartbreaking word that I get from every business I meet, every family is in such a struggle in California,” he said, with a raspy voice that he explained immediately upon taking the stage was caused by a sore throat.

At the forum were former Rep. Katie Porter, top row from left, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former legislative leader Toni Atkins; former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, bottom row from left, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The candidates spoke to about 800 people at a California Chamber of Commerce dinner during the 80-minute panel at the convention center in Sacramento. The chamber’s decision on whom to invite to the forum was based on which ones were leaders in public opinion surveys and fundraising. Making the cut were former Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Hilton, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was also invited to participate in the forum but had a scheduling conflict.

The sharpest exchange of the evening was between Kounalakis, a Democrat, and Bianco, a Republican.

After the candidates were asked about President Trump’s erratic tariff policies, Kounalakis cited her experience working for her father’s real estate company as she criticized Bianco for arguing for a wait-and-see approach toward the president’s undulating plans.

“You’re not a businessman, you’re a government employee,” she said to Bianco. “You’ve got a pension, you’re going to do just fine. Small businesses are suffering from this, and it’s only going to get worse, and it’s driven, by the way, it is driven by Donald Trump’s vindictiveness toward countries he doesn’t like, countries he wants to annex, or states he doesn’t like, people he doesn’t like. This is hurting California, hurting our people, and it’s only going to make things worse, until we can get him out of the White House.”

Bianco countered that Kounalakis and the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates are directly responsible for the economic woes facing Californians because they have an “unquenchable thirst” for money to fund their liberal agenda.

“I just feel like I’m in ‘The Twilight Zone.’ I have a billionaire telling me that my 32 years of public service is OK for my retirement,” he said. “It’s taxes and regulations that are driving every single thing in California up. We pay the highest taxes, we pay the highest gas, we pay the highest housing, we pay the highest energy.”

The Democrats onstage, though largely agreeing about policy, sought to differentiate themselves. The sharpest divide was about whether to raise the minimum wage. On Monday, labor advocates in Los Angeles proposed raising it in Los Angeles County.

Atkins reflected most of her fellow Democrats’ views, saying that while she wanted to see higher wages for workers, “now is not the time.” Villaraigosa said that while he believes in a higher minimum wage, “we can’t just keep raising the minimum wage.”

Kounalakis, though, said not increasing the minimum wage would be inhumane.

“I think we should be working for that number, yes, I do,” she said. “You want to throw poor people under the bus.”

California’s high cost of living is a pressing concern among the state’s voters, and the issue is expected to play a major role in the 2026 governor’s race.

Nearly half feel worse off now compared with last year, and more than half felt less hopeful about their economic well-being, according to a poll released in May by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times.

Nearly exactly a year before the gubernatorial primary next year, the event was the first time Democratic and Republican candidates have shared a stage. It was also the first time GOP candidates Bianco and Hilton have appeared together.

Although the state’s leftward electoral tilt makes it challenging for a Republican to win the race — Californians last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006 — Bianco and Hilton are battling to win one of the top two spots in next year’s primary election.

The pair expressed similar views about broadly ending liberal policies, such as stopping the state’s high-speed rail project and reducing environmental restrictions such as the state’s climate-change efforts that they argue have increased costs while having no meaningful effect on the consumption of fossil fuels.

A crucial question is whether Trump, whom both Bianco and Hilton fully support, will eventually endorse one of the Republican candidates.

The gubernatorial candidates, some of whom have been running more than a year, have largely focused on fundraising since entering the race. But the contest to replace Newsom is growing more public and heated, as seen at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention. Several of the party’s candidates scurried around the Anaheim convention center, trying to curry favor with the state’s most liberal activists while also drawing contrasts with their rivals.

But the Democratic field is partially frozen as former Vice President Kamala Harris weighs entering the race, a decision she is expected to make by the end of the summer. Harris’ name did not come up during the forum.

There were a handful of light moments.

Porter expressed a common concern among the state’s residents when they talk about the cost of living in the state.

“What really keeps me up at night, why I’m running for governor, is whether my children are going to be able to afford to live here, whether they’re going to ever get off my couch and have their own home,” she said.

News and social media feeds inundate us with dramatic scenes of immigration policing. Viral videos of immigrant mothers picked up on sidewalks near their homes, news accounts of ICE agents showing up in Los Angeles schools and social media posts of U.S. citizens detained by government agents, all create a frightening spectacle. President Trump fuels the fear by trolling immigrant communities with sinister Valentine cards, dangling self-deportation incentives and implementing a chaotic enforcement strategy that ignores attempts at judicial oversight. Amid all this, many look to state and local leaders for calm, reassurance and support.

In California, there remains a simple and consistent response. No matter who, when, where or how you ask, a commanding majority of registered voters in the Golden State support a path to citizenship for those in the state without proper documents. In other words, across the partisan aisle, and across all kinds of different groups and places, most voters see a path to citizenship as a much-needed policy fix, even now.

In August of 2024, a few months before the presidential election, the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll asked more than 4,000 voters across the state whether they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who come forward, are up to date on their taxes, and pass a background check.”

At that time, the Harris and Trump campaigns were in full swing. Harris’ team had already held a few news conferences at the border, insinuating that increased border security would be top of mind in her administration. Meanwhile, Trump continued his usual discourse about immigrants, once infamously contending that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” It was difficult to see who, if anyone, felt sympathy toward community members who’d entered the country without authorization or overstayed a visa, despite the fact that many of them had raised new generations of American citizens and contributed to public coffers and local job markets.

But even back in August, 80% of California registered voters who answered the poll supported a path to citizenship. This included close to 60% of polled Republicans, 75% of independents and even 56% of those who intended to vote for Trump. It also included 75% of those who earned a high school degree or less, 80% of those who earned a college degree or more, 80% of women, 78% of men, 75% of homeowners and 84% of those under 40. Among the strongest supporters were Democrats, with 91% support, as well as middle- and high-income earners, and those who lived in the Bay Area. Across most categories, a commanding majority of California voters expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.

But that was then, before the onslaught. Before the viral videos, the renditions to El Salvador, the offer of cash to self-deport. One could argue that in those before-times, perhaps voters were somehow more sympathetic to immigrants because they were distracted by other issues, like the price of eggs and groceries or broader inflation issues. And perhaps some might not have believed that Trump would actually follow through on his attacks on immigrant communities.

So in early May the Berkeley IGS Poll asked survey respondents again about their support for a path to citizenship. This time we polled more than 6,000 registered California voters and we inserted a small survey experiment. We were curious about whether respondents’ support in August had been so strong because the question they were asked included language about a “background check,” an idea that might have primed them to think about “good” and “bad” immigrants and may have inadvertently linked unauthorized status to crime. So for half of all respondents in May, we asked the same question again, but for the second half of respondents, we omitted this language, simply asking if they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are working or going to school and are up to date on their taxes.”

Our survey found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The vast majority of California voters think a path to citizenship is simply the right thing to do, background check or not.

Moreover, we found virtually no differences from August to May. Eighty percent of registered voters this month, including close to 60% of Republicans, continued to support a path to citizenship. Somewhere between 70% and 85% of every demographic, including respondents under 40, those over 65, those of different racial groups, those in unions, those that rent their homes, those that own their homes, men, women, those in the Central Valley, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire and even those on the far North Coast all expressed support for a path to citizenship. The consistency is resounding.

If you’re trying to make sense of the bombast and the whirlwind of executive and law enforcement actions directed at immigrants, remember the one thing that unites a commanding majority of California voters, almost without regard to who we are and where we live, an understanding that good policy is practical policy: Undocumented community members deserve relief.

State and local leaders do not design federal immigration policy, but they should remember this poll data as they make decisions about how to support us all. If it were put to a vote, an overwhelming majority of Californians would support immigration reform, not mass deportation.

G. Cristina Mora and Nicholas Vargas are professors at UC Berkeley affiliated with the Institute of Governmental Studies, where Mora serves as co-director.

SACRAMENTO — Latino legislators criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts to Medi-Cal Monday afternoon, saying the plan to freeze enrollment and charge premiums for those adult immigrants without documentation already enrolled was a betrayal of California’s promise to protect the vulnerable.

Legislative pushback for the May budget revision, released by Newsom last week, comes after the governor announced an additional $12-billion budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.

State Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) said the plan to charge adult undocumented immigrants $100 per month for Medi-Cal was a form of redlining, and Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) said she doubted the two-tiered system was constitutional.

“The governor is proposing a troubling precedent — raising prices on one group of Californians based solely on their immigration status. It is illegal for Kaiser to do this. It is illegal for United Healthcare to do this. It is illegal for any doctor, hospital or clinic to charge higher prices to undocumented customers,” Durazo said at a California Latino Legislative Caucus rally outside the state Capitol on Monday.

The influential Latino Legislative Caucus has staunchly opposed cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s expanded version of the federal Medicaid program. The objections come despite California expecting decreased revenue in part due to President Trump’s tariff policies and increases in state spending, including the recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to cover all eligible Californians, including immigrants lacking documentation.

State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), chair of a budget subcommittee on health, said Newsom’s proposal scapegoats immigrants for California’s economic woes. Immigrants, she said, are essential to California’s robust economy, recently ranked as the fourth largest in the world.

“If you were to remove the name from this document — if you were to remove the state, and people would just read this off to you and you closed your eyes — you would think, ‘Oh, that’s a budget proposed by a Republican in, perhaps, Alabama,’” she said.

During his news conference on Wednesday, Newsom encouraged state lawmakers and specially members of the Latino caucus to offer alternatives to balance the state budget if they disagreed with his proposal.

“Good people have different ideas, and I look forward to their ideas,” Newsom said.

On Monday, members of the Latino caucus did not mention any specific measures they would take instead of cutting Medi-Cal access, but pledged to offer budget balancing proposals in the days and weeks to come.