Californias

California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom recently convened a meeting that might rank among the top sweat-inducing nightmare scenarios for Silicon Valley’s tech bros — a group of the Golden State’s smartest, most powerful women brainstorming ways to regulate artificial intelligence.

Regulation is the last thing this particular California-dominated industry wants, and it’s spent a lot of cash at both the state and federal capitols to avoid it — including funding President Trump’s new ballroom. Regulation by a bunch of ladies, many mothers, with profit a distant second to our kids when it comes to concerns?

I’ll let you figure out how popular that is likely be with the Elon Musks, Peter Thiels and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

But as Siebel Newsom said, “If a platform reaches a child, it carries a responsibility to protect that child. Period. Our children’s safety can never be second to the bottom line.”

Agreed.

Siebel Newsom’s push for California to do more to regulate AI comes at the same time that Trump is threatening to stop states from overseeing the technology — and is ramping up a national effort that will open America’s coffers to AI moguls for decades to come.

Right now, the U.S. is facing its own nightmare scenario: the most powerful and world-changing technology we have seen in our lifetimes being developed and unleashed under almost no rules or restraints other than those chosen by the men who seek personal benefit from the outcome.

To put it simply, the plan right now seems to be that these tech barons will change the world as they see fit to make money for themselves, and we as taxpayers will pay them to do it.

“When decisions are mainly driven by power and profit instead of care and responsibility, we completely lose our way, and given the current alignment between tech titans and the federal administration, I believe we have lost our way,” Siebel Newsom said.

To recap what the way has been so far, Trump recently tried to sneak a 10-year ban on the ability of states to oversee the industry into his ridiculously named “Big Beautiful Bill,” but it was pulled out by a bipartisan group in the Senate — an early indicator of how inflammatory this issue is.

Faced with that unexpected blockade, Trump has threatened to sign a mysterious executive order crippling states’ ability to regulate AI and attempting to withhold funds from those that try.

Simultaneously, the most craven and cowardly among Republican congresspeople have suggested adding a 10-year ban to the upcoming defense policy bill that will almost certainly pass. Of course, Congress has also declined to move forward on any meaningful federal regulations itself, while technology CEOs including Trump frenemy Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, Meta’s Zuckerberg and many others chum it up at fancy events inside the White House.

Which may be why this week, Trump announced the “Genesis Mission,” an executive order that seemingly will take the unimaginable vastness of government research efforts across disciplines and dump them into some kind of AI model that will “revolutionize the way scientific research is conducted.”

While I am sure that nothing could possibly go wrong in that scenario, that’s not actually the part that is immediately alarming. This is: The project will be overseen by Trump science and technology policy advisor Michael Kratsios, who holds no science or engineering degrees but was formerly a top executive for Thiel and former head of another AI company that works on warfare-related projects with the Pentagon.

Kratsios is considered one of the main reasons Trump has embraced the tech bros with such adoration in his second term. Genesis will almost certainly mean huge government contracts for these private-sector “partners,” fueling the AI boom (or bubble) with taxpayer dollars.

Siebel Newsom’s message in the face of all this is that we are not helpless — and California, as the home of many of these companies and the world’s fourth-largest economy in its own right, should have a say in how this technology advances, and make sure it does so in a way that benefits and protects us all.

“California is uniquely positioned to lead the effort in showing innovation and responsibility and how they can go hand in hand,” she said. “I’ve always believed that stronger guardrails are actually good for business over the long term. Safer tech means better outcomes for consumers and greater consumer trust and loyalty.”

But the pressure to cave under the might of these companies is intense, as Siebel Newsom’s husband knows.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent the last few years trying to thread the needle on state legislation that offers some sort of oversight while allowing for the innovation that rightly keeps California and the United States competitive on the global front. The tech industry has spent millions in lobbying, legal fights and pressure campaigns to water down even the most benign of efforts, even threatening to leave the state if rules are enacted.

Last year, the industry unsuccessfully tried to stop Senate Bill 53, landmark legislation signed by Newsom. It’s a basic transparency measure on “frontier” AI models that requires companies to have safety and security protocols and report known “catastrophic” risks, such as when these models show tendencies toward behavior that could kill more than 50 people — which they have, believe it or not.

But the industry was able to stop other efforts. Newsom vetoed both Senate Bill 7, which would have required employers to notify workers when using AI in hiring and promotions; and Assembly Bill 1064, which would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors if they couldn’t prove they wouldn’t do things like encourage kids to self-harm, which again, these chatbots have done.

Still, California (along with New York and a few other states) has pushed forward, and speaking at Siebel Newsom’s event, the governor said that last session, “we took a number of at-bats at this and we made tremendous progress.”

He promised more.

“We have agency. We can shape the future,” he said. “We have a unique responsibility as it relates to these tools of technology, because, well, this is the center of that universe.”

If Newsom does keep pushing forward, it will be in no small part because of Siebel Newsom, and women like her, who keep the counter-pressure on.

In fact, it was another powerful mom, First Lady Melania Trump, who forced the federal government into a tiny bit of action this year when she championed the “Take It Down Act”, which requires tech companies to quickly remove nonconsensual explicit images. I sincerely doubt her husband would have signed that particular bill without her urging.

So, if we are lucky, the efforts of women like Siebel Newsom may turn out to be the bit of powerful sanity needed to put a check on the world-domination fantasies of the broligarchy.

Because tech bros are not yet all-powerful, despite their best efforts, and certainly not yet immune to the power of moms.

Reporting from Washington — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) is the richest member of Congress, topping an annual ranking with an estimated minimum net worth of $254.7 million — nearly $150 million more than the second-richest lawmaker.

Issa made most of his fortune in the 1990s while leading Directed Electronics Inc., a Vista-based manufacturer of vehicle antitheft devices that he created. His is the voice of the Viper car alarm system, which warns, “Please step away from the car.”

He’s perhaps best known to Californians for bankrolling the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, and also emerged on the national stage as he challenged the Obama administration from his role as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

This is the third straight year Issa earned the top position on the annual Roll Call ranking of lawmakers by minimum net worth. The Los Angeles Times is using the data and for the first time has published a deep dive listing every asset and liability disclosed by the 55 members of the state’s congressional delegation.

HOW MUCH is your member of Congress worth? See the list >>

As much as 95% of Issa’s wealth is in investments, including several high-yield bond accounts potentially worth more than $50 million each and seven high-yield bond funds worth between $25 million and $50 million.

Lawmakers are allowed to use broad ranges to classify assets and liabilities on the annual personal financial disclosure reports. The ranges start at between $1 and $1,000 and top out at $50 million or more, giving an imprecise figure.

That means Issa’s net worth could be much larger than estimated. The $254.7-million figure, calculated by subtracting the minimum value of liabilities from the minimum value of assets disclosed for calendar year 2014, is down from last year’s $357 million. That could be attributed more to how data is reported on the forms than to any actual financial loss.

The form appears to double count his biggest liability, a potentially more than $50-million personal loan. Issa appears to have paid off what he owed Merrill Lynch in September 2014, the same day he borrowed the same amount from UBS.

Issa’s office did not respond to an interview request.

Lawmakers are not required to disclose property owned unless it is earning income, and they also do not need to list their $174,000 annual salaries, putting each and every one of them above the average Californian.

[email protected]

Follow @sarahdwire on Twitter

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

ALSO:

Meet the poorest man in Congress

Pelosi’s vineyard makes her fourth-richest Californian in Congress

Interactive: How much are they worth?

Democrats ask Obama to fund earthquake early warning system

Central Valley Republicans want immigration reform despite speaker’s promise

Congressional Republicans demand plan for collecting El Niño water

Covering the 55

California state Senate leader Kevin de León introduced Senate Bill 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Donald Trump.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León discusses legislation that would prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources for immigration enforcement. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

The proposal, known as the “sanctuary state” bill, was sparked by the Trump administration’s broadened deportation orders. It would expand so-called sanctuary city policies, prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.

But as President Trump and U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions have threatened to slash federal funding from “sanctuary cities,” the state legislation is raising heated opposition from Republican lawmakers and sheriffs. They argue its provisions could strain the state’s finances and shield dangerous criminals.

Here’s what you should know about the bill.

1. It builds on an earlier law that provides protections to immigrants

De León has said his proposal builds on the California Trust Act, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed in October 2013. That state statute prevents law enforcement agencies from detaining immigrants longer than necessary for minor crimes, allowing federal immigration authorities to take them into custody.

Senate Bill 54 would prevent state and local agencies from complying with any “hold requests” to detain immigrants, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from using their facilities, property, equipment or personnel for immigration enforcement, and from spending money on it. The agencies would be barred from:

• Collecting information about a person’s immigration status
• Responding to notification or transfer requests from federal immigration agencies
• Responding to requests for personal information that is not publicly available for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws
• Arresting people based on civil immigration warrants
• Giving federal immigration officers access to interview someone in their custody for immigration enforcement purposes
• Helping federal immigration officers search a car without a warrant
• Performing the functions of an immigration officer

Hundreds of Sacramento residents protested, listened and shouted while acting ICE Director Thomas Homan, left, and Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones held a community forum. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

(Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

2. It would establish ‘safe zones’ for immigrants

Within three months of Senate Bill 54 becoming law, the state Department of Justice would have to publish policies outlining what state and local law enforcement agencies can and can’t do to assist federal officials.

It would also create “safe zones” for immigrants by requiring all public schools, public libraries, courthouses and health facilities run by state or local government to implement those policies or “equivalent” regulations, though they would not have to be approved by the state. All other government-run organizations and entities that offer physical or mental health and wellness services, or that provide access to education, legal aid and social services, including the University of California, would be encouraged but not required to adopt the state policies.

3. Law enforcement officers would be able to work with task forces — so long as they’re not dedicated to immigration enforcement

To address some concerns from law enforcement, De León has added new amendments to his bill that would allow local and state officers to participate in task forces — and work alongside federal immigration officers — as long as their main purpose is not immigration enforcement.

Agencies that participate in a joint law enforcement task force would have to submit a report every six months to the state Department of Justice describing the types and frequency of arrests made by the task force. Within 14 months of the bill going into effect and twice a year thereafter, the state attorney general would have to publish the reports online.

4. Federal immigration officials would be notified when felons who have violent or serious convictions are released

Other changes to the bill by De León have attempted to address concerns from Republican lawmakers and sheriffs over the release of violent felons.

Federal law requires that electronic fingerprint records for all offenders booked into state prisons and local jails be sent to the FBI and to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE receives an electronic notification when DHS has previously entered an inmate’s information into its databases and determines whether the person is a priority for deportation. If so, it can request the arresting agency to hold or notify ICE before the person is let go.

Under Senate Bill 54, communication between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies would be limited to passing on information about inmates who have previously been deported for a violent felony, or are serving time on a misdemeanor or felony and have a prior serious or violent felony conviction. State and local agencies would only be able respond to requests from ICE for other information if it is already available to the public.

Other recent amendments to the bill would require the State Parole Board or the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give ICE 60-days advance notice of the release date of inmates who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, or those who are serving time for a nonviolent crime but have a prior conviction for violent or serious crimes.

Law enforcement officers also would be allowed to contact and transfer people to ICE, with a judicial warrant, if they come into contact with someone who was previously deported for a violent felony.

5. It’s unclear how much of a financial burden the legislation will be for state and local law enforcement agencies

The Senate Appropriations Committee has determined it would take a one-time cost of $2.7 million and ongoing costs of $2.3 million per year for the state to develop compliance policies, provide training and outreach to state agencies and compile task force reports as required by Senate Bill 54.

But the costs for local law enforcement agencies to change their existing procedures — and to end contracts with federal immigration agencies, some of which generate millions of dollars in revenue from leased jail space — are unknown, as is how much it will cost state agencies including courts and schools to implement the new policies. The committee has not been able to measure the potential loss in funding from Washington should the state refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

The state is unlikely to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for their financial losses because while the bill would impose restrictions, it would not require them to develop new policies, programs or services, according to an analysis by the Senate Public Safety Committee. But the state would probably have to foot the bill for expenses accrued by local government operations, including school districts and county health facilities, which would be asked to devise new policies that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement.

6. Many sheriffs are vehemently opposed to the bill

The bill has drawn fierce opposition from sheriffs across the state, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell and Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones, who last month hosted a community forum on immigration enforcement with acting ICE Director Thomas Homan that drew a large crowd of protestors.

The sheriffs say the bill would severely limit communication and collaboration between local and federal agencies, forcing federal immigration officers to go into communities — instead of jails — when searching for immigrants who are a danger to public safety.

As the head of the nation’s largest sheriff’s department, McDonnell runs the largest jail system in the country, which houses approximately 18,000 inmates on any given day. Asst. Sheriff Kelly Harrington, who oversees the jail operation, has previously said federal immigration agents have access inside the county’s jail system every day. L.A. County jail officials last year handed over about 1,000 inmates to immigration agents — a small portion of the more than 300,000 people released from the county’s jails that year.

The sheriffs also argue the changes to the bill don’t address the potential loss of federal funding in counties that lease space to federal immigration agencies for detainees. An SB 54 opposition letter from Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Sandra Hutchens estimated that shortfall for her agency at roughly $22 million annually. Jones, who has said his department has $4.8 million in ICE contracts, insists his opposition stems from public safety concerns, not financial losses.

But no sheriff in California’s 58 counties is willing to hold inmates past their release dates for ICE, the Times has found. Several sheriffs said their defiance was not rooted in ethical or political opposition, but in concerns over federal court rulings, including a case in Oregon where a judge found that police violated a woman’s constitutional rights by keeping her in jail at the federal agency’s request.

7. Supporters argue the bill will protect vulnerable communities

Dubbed the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54 is at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 3 million people living in the state illegally. Other bills aim to protect immigrants’ religious affiliations and create a $12-million legal defense program for immigrants facing deportation who do not have a violent felony on their records.

The bill has drawn a long list of supporters, including Los Angeles County Supervisors Hilda Solis and Sheila Kuehl and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Other supporters include city officials from sanctuary cities like Santa Ana and Berkeley, immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers. They are urging opponents of the bill to move away from embracing Trump’s rhetoric, which they say stereotypes immigrants as criminals, and are pointing to studies that reflect low crime rates in immigrant communities.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has said he supports with the legislation’s “underlying tenets,” but wants to ensure it does not protect criminals.

Meanwhile, some university police chiefs have supported the bill from the beginning, saying fear can keep witnesses and victims to crimes from coming forward. A 2013 study conducted by the University of Illinois found 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police if they have been a victim of crime because they fear that police officers will ask about their immigration status.

[email protected]

Twitter: @jazmineulloa

ALSO

Controversial ‘sanctuary state’ bill clears major hurdle after hours of debate

New amendments to ‘sanctuary state’ bill will allow police and sheriffs to contact ICE about violent felons

Here’s why law enforcement groups are divided on legislation to turn California into a ‘sanctuary state’

Protests erupt at Sacramento town hall meeting as ICE director answers questions about immigration enforcement

Updates on California politics

UPDATES:

12:01 p.m.: This article was updated to reflect that law enforcement agencies are allowed to notify immigration officials about inmates with prior violent felony convictions.

This article was originally published at 12:00 a.m.

SACRAMENTO — California’s budgetary woes are worse than expected, forcing state lawmakers to grapple with a nearly $18 billion shortfall next year, according to a new report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

This figure is $5 billion more than previous estimates in June.

Despite improvements in state revenue, the report said mandatory spending requirements under Proposition 98, which sets minimum annual funding for public schools, and Proposition 2, which specifies reserve deposits and debt payments, almost entirely offset any gains, according to the legislative analysis.

It estimated state costs for Medi-Cal and CalFresh, which provide healthcare and food assistance to Californians in need, were also $1.3 billion more than anticipated due to federal cuts from the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that President Donald Trump signed in July, the report stated.

While enthusiasm for artificial intelligence companies has pushed the stock market to record highs, increasing state tax revenue, the report warned the boost likely won’t last.

“With so much exuberance surrounding AI, it now appears time to take seriously the notion that the stock market has become overheated,” the report states. “History suggests that the stock market is prone to overreact to major technological advances, even if the technology itself turns out to be revolutionary.”

The LAO advised lawmakers to increase revenue and reduce spending.

“While important components of the state economy are sluggish, revenues are not falling, nor are conditions as bad as they would be in an outright recession,” the report states. “This makes solving the budget problem with ongoing solutions all the more important. Continuing to use temporary tools — like budgetary borrowing— would only defer the problem and, ultimately, leave the state ill‑equipped to respond to a recession or downturn in the stock market.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom will unveil his annual budget proposal in January, which will serve as a starting point for legislators as they craft the state spending plan.

Assembly Budget Committee Chair Jesse Gabriel said the report underscored the challenging decisions ahead.

“While the Trump Administration continues to pursue destructive policies that will harm California families,” Gabriel said in statement released Wednesday, “the Assembly Budget Committee remains committed to crafting a responsible budget that prioritizes essential services.”

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said the LAO report highlighted the challenges lawmakers will face due to “federal uncertainty, market volatility, and continued growth in both cost and caseload for major state programs.”

“In the coming weeks, the Governor will be finalizing his decisions on how he’ll propose to meet the challenges in the coming year,” Palmer said in a statement.

Nov. 19 (UPI) — Billionaire activist Tom Steyer announced his run for California governor after the former presidential candidate claimed no plans existed for him to again run for political office.

Steyer, 68, pointed to his business experience in a candidate video vying to replace term-limited Gov, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and rumored 2028 presidential contender, saying he’s running because “Californians deserve a life they can afford.”

“Sacramento politicians are afraid to change this system. I’m not,” he added in a campaign launch video.

He joined the field with other gubernatorial candidates such as former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., ex-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

A 2020 presidential candidate, Steyer said that his long business background separates him from other candidates.

“I wanted to build a business here. Now it’s worth billions of dollars. And I walked away from it because I wanted to give back to California,” Steyer said.

In 2010, Steyer signed the Giving Pledge vowing to donate half his massive fortune to charity during his lifetime.

On Wednesday, he said California needs to “get back to basics,” which he says meant “making corporations pay their fair share again.”

“Californians deserve a top 10 education state,” he added. “They deserve to be able to afford to live in a decent house. I will launch the largest drive to build homes that you can afford in the history of California.”

He revealed plans targeting the state’s high utility bills with California’s massive energy infrastructure, noting the west coast state has the second highest electricity rates in the United States.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager and frequent Democratic donor in San Francisco, frequently crusades against big corporate money in politics. He later suspended his 2020 campaign in March after finishing third place in the South Carolina primary election won by Joe Biden.

“If we break up the monopolistic power of utilities, we’re going to unleash a complete wave of innovation and drop our sky-high energy prices,” Steyer continued in the video.

“This is about disrupting the way people think so we can get a completely different and much better outcome,” he said, adding it was “for the people of California.”

Voters’ approval of Proposition 50 means Democrats might win up to five additional seats in the US House of Representatives in 2026.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has joined a lawsuit against California over the state’s redistricting effort, which was approved by a landslide in the November 4 election.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice said it would seek to overturn California’s new map of congressional districts, which was passed through a ballot initiative with approximately 64 percent support.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

She accused California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, of attempting to stifle Republican voices in his state. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

The ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, is poised to redraw the boundaries of electoral districts to favour the Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.

The proposition was designed as a counterattack against Trump’s gerrymandering in Republican states.

In Texas, for instance, the Trump White House urged the state legislature to pass new congressional districts that would allow the Republicans the opportunity to win five more seats in the House of Representatives in 2026.

In August, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Republican-backed map into law.

Republicans also expect to gain one seat each from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina, and potentially two more in Ohio. Civil rights advocates have argued that the new boundaries in Texas and Missouri illegally disadvantage minority communities at the ballot box.

Proposition 50 in California means that Democrats might win as many as five additional seats in the House in 2026, in an explicit attempt to offset the new Texas congressional map.

However, the California Republican Party and 19 registered voters sued the state in federal court on November 5, a day after the election was held.

They claimed California’s redistricting effort violates provisions of the US Constitution by unlawfully favouring Hispanic communities.

The Justice Department has echoed those concerns in its complaint. It argues that California’s map “manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race”.

Tonight, California sent a powerful message to Donald Trump. We will fight for our democracy. And we will win. pic.twitter.com/tEcPlxVbi4

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 5, 2025

In response, Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom, said, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”

Newsom has emerged as a prominent Democratic critic of Trump, calling the president’s opposition to California’s ballot measure the “ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE”.

Newsom has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.

California’s new district boundaries will apply for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

Normally, congressional districts in California are drawn by an independent commission, based on the results of a national census taken every 10 years.

Proposition 50 suspends that commission’s work for the next three national elections and instead adopts a map created by the state legislatures.

In theory, electoral maps should reflect the people who live in a given state. In reality, most boundaries are rejigged by the parties in power, in a process called gerrymandering. Legislatures in many states determine how the districts are drawn.

California’s new congressional map aims to dilute Republican voters’ power, in one case by uniting rural, conservative-leaning parts of far northern California with Marin County, a famously liberal coastal stronghold across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco.

The Justice Department is asking a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

Next time you’re driving the Grapevine and nearing the forest of oil rigs on the outskirts of Bakersfield, look for a six-story guitar.

That would be the Hard Rock Casino Tejon, whose opening on Thursday brings industrial-strength Indian gaming — and some Hollywood pizzazz — to a territory better known for cowboy hats, farmland and petroleum extraction.

The Tejon casino stands in the rural community of Mettler, near the convergence of Interstate 5 and State Route 99 — “a stone’s throw away” from Los Angeles, suggested Hard Rock Casino Tejon President Chris Kelley.

In effect, the casino is a $600-million bet by leaders of Hard Rock International and the Tejon Indian Tribe that they can grab a central role among the many Indian casinos in Southern California.

The property is the first full-scale gaming and entertainment destination in Kern County.

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

A wind sculpture at the entrance of the casino.

(Cristian Costea for Hard Rock International)

The draw? Most notably, 150,000 square feet of gaming space — including 58 table games and more than 2,000 slot machines — putting it among the largest casinos in Southern California, on par with many along the Strip in Las Vegas.

And, of course, because this is a Hard Rock venture, there are pop music artifacts on display. Among them: the blue hooded velvet mini dress Sabrina Carpenter wore in her “Please Please Please” music video, signed guitars from Sheryl Crow and Bonnie Raitt, Beck’s tambourine and Natalie Cole’s orange high heels.

The casino also includes four restaurants serving Asian street food, tacos, pizza and American comfort food (especially Nashville hot chicken) — and a bonus feature. At select hours, Kelley said, staff will put up a divider to create Deep Cut, a fancier “speakeasy restaurant” that will emphasize steak and seafood.

“This is something no other Hard Rock Cafe has … a restaurant within a restaurant,” said Kelley, leading a tour in the days before opening.

Live-action table games include blackjack, craps, roulette and baccarat.

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

Plans for the second phase of the project will include a 400-room hotel and spa on-site, along with a 2,800-seat Hard Rock Live venue designed to host concerts, sporting events and ultimately make Kern County a premier destination for travelers and fans. Officials declined to share a timeline for this next installment.

Though its global empire began with a London cafe in 1971, Hard Rock International has been owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida since 2007. The company’s native ownership was “a major influence” on the Tejon tribe’s decision to team up, said Tejon Tribal Chairman Octavio Escobedo III. Hard Rock Casino Tejon is owned by the Tejon Indian Tribe and is managed by Hard Rock International.

For the Tejon tribe and its 1,523 enrolled members, the casino amounts to a new chapter in a saga full of challenges. In the 1850s, the Tejon were included in the creation of California’s first Indian reservation — which was then closed by federal officials in the 1860s. More than a century later, in 1979, the tribe was omitted from a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs list of formally recognized tribes — an apparent mistake that took decades to correct.

When the Tejon did win federal recognition in late 2011, gaming plans materialized quickly. By late 2016, the tribe had set in motion the acquisition of the casino site.

The restaurant Deep Cut is billed as an “elevated steakhouse experience.”

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

For the tribe, Escobedo said, the long-term picture likely includes developing a residential community — which the Tejon haven’t had for more than a century — as the tribe aims for “financial sovereignty.” Though he declined to specify the amount of money that would require, he did say “it’s going to take a tremendous amount of financial discipline to achieve that.”

So far, things feel promising. Escobedo said 52 tribal members have signed on to work at casino jobs and “I’d love to see that number double over the next year or so.”

Long before the Seminoles bought control of Hard Rock International, the tribe pioneered Indian gaming in the U.S., beginning with a bingo hall in Hollywood, Fla., in 1979. Through further investment and legal victories rooted in tribal sovereignty, tribes in 29 states across the U.S. have built hundreds of gaming operations, which together gross more than $40 billion yearly.

Beyond its possibilities for the Tejon tribe, the arrival of the casino means about 1,100 new jobs for greater Bakersfield, which lost a beloved entertainment venue in August when Buck Owens’ Crystal Palace closed after 29 years.

Owens, who died in 2006, was a longtime resident of Bakersfield and proponent of the gritty “Bakersfield sound” in country music. Besides artifacts from pop music, rock ’n’ roll and Tejon cultural history, Kelley said, “We are going to have some Buck Owens memorabilia. It just wouldn’t be right not to.”

It was going to make California count, make it a contender after decades spent watching all those other pipsqueak states decide who among the legions of presidential candidates got to move into the Oval Office.

When California legislators–and Gov. Pete Wilson–agreed two years ago to move the state’s 1996 presidential primary forward from June to March, you could almost hear the silent chortles: Take that, New Hampshire! Back to the farm, Iowa!

And now that the state’s early presidential primary is a mere six months away, the nation’s most delegate-rich state can witness the result:

Nothing.

Sure, the candidates still plumb the state for money, just as they did in the old days. But apart from President Clinton’s trips, there are precious few actual campaign visits and little attention given to the issues peculiar to California. Even Wilson spent more than twice as much time out of state last month than he did tending to matters in Sacramento.

Some candidates still believe that California could ultimately play a big role in selecting the Republican nominee, even given the current dearth of activity. The state, after all, controls about 16%–or 163 of the 991–delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.

Scenarios abound, with California either putting a runaway victor over the top or deciding between two strong candidates. Then again, it could also add to a muddle of results that would force the nomination to be decided weeks later.

“California is going to play a significant role,” said Mark Helmke, communications director for Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, who announced his candidacy in April. “It’s just that none of us could speculate on what that role is.”

Others in the perennially optimistic corps of campaign activists insist that California won’t matter because the front-runner (their candidate, of course) will have it all sewn up beforehand.

“The problem is that California is too late. This thing is going to end in the industrial Midwest,” said Mike Murphy, a senior aide in the campaign of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. Murphy was referring to a ring of primaries to be held the week before California’s.

This underwhelming outcome was utterly predictable, according to campaign seers. And there are both logical and logistic reasons.

California moved its primary up, but only to March 26, six weeks after the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses. Not eager to be left in the dust, a host of other states began to clamor.

New York, with the third-largest delegate pool, moved from early April to early March. Pennsylvania and Ohio moved from late spring to March 19, where they will join Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin in the massive Rust Belt regional primary.

The New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine similarly coalesced into a Yankee primary on March 5–three weeks before California’s primary.

All the movement left California in 32nd place in the 1996 campaign chronology, only slightly better positioned than if it had left the primary in June.

“We were dead last, along with New Jersey and a few other states,” said state Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), who lobbied for an early primary for 14 long years. “We’re better off than we were then. We’re just not significantly better off.”

Because the early primary is a one-year experiment, legislators will have to take up its fate after next year. Costa said that he may propose moving it up even further for the 2000 election.

The state senator initially wanted to set this year’s primary for March 5, which would have made California the first big state on the election calendar. But he compromised with others in the Legislature, who argued that the state is so big that it would swallow up all but the richest candidates. Give the poorer candidates a chance to make their mark in earlier, smaller states, the argument went, and then their momentum could offset their lack of funds in California.

The upshot is this: Candidates are still cozying up to Iowa, whose caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 12, and New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary will be held eight days later.

They are patting backs and kissing babies in South Carolina, whose primary will be held March 2, on the grounds that it will serve either as a fire wall to block a surging campaign or will redouble the momentum of an earlier winner.

They are courting voters elsewhere in the South, where the Super Tuesday primary will be held March 12 and where voters will decide the fates of at least two of their own, Texas’ Phil Gramm and Tennessee’s Alexander.

All of this makes compelling strategic sense.

“The first focus has to be the first caucus and primaries,” said Charles Robbins, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “They come first and if you don’t perform, you’re out of the game.”

Put another way, it would be political malpractice for a candidate to hang out in California when his time is better spent in the earlier states. Compounding matters is California’s status as a winner-take-all primary. That means a candidate who put all his marbles into the state and pulled, say, 48% of the vote would walk away without a delegate. Many other states dispense their delegates proportionally.

“No candidate is going to make a serious commitment to resources in a March primary simply because there’s no guarantee you’re going to get that far,” said an adviser to one of the campaigns. “It’s a huge gamble to put up that money and risk walking away with nothing.”

Another hindrance to actively campaigning in California is the fact that the state is so far from Washington, where no less than six of the nine Republican candidates are based.

One recent Thursday, for example, Specter jetted from Washington to Boston, held two campaign events and was back in the Capitol for Senate business by lunchtime.

“You can’t do that to California,” said his aide Robbins. “Just because of the geography, all the way on the other side of the country, it’s a real project.”

While the Republican candidates have not spent much time in California, their campaigns are starting to lay the foundations of an effort here.

Wilson’s campaign is rebuilding his longstanding organization, despite prominent defections to other camps and surveys that show the governor losing the state to front-runner Bob Dole of Kansas.

Besides having the only full-fledged campaign office in the state, Wilson’s operation has staffers specifically working to buoy his standing here, said spokesman Dan Schnur.

“For all their talk, none of the other campaigns are putting any time or energy into California at all,” he said. “They file in and out for fund-raisers, but beyond that there’s no indication of any serious organizational effort on the part of any of them.”

Wilson does have a leg up, but his opponents argue that his campaign may have folded by late March or, even if he stays in the race, they may be able to build enthusiasm here from the momentum of earlier victories.

Gramm has made the biggest splash, garnering the support of Republican legislative leaders Curt Pringle and Rob Hurtt, both of Orange County, and a host of activists. U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, who is heading Gramm’s California campaign, said the effort so far is a “very well-organized, low dollar” effort.

It will remain entirely a volunteer effort through the end of the year, he said.

“When you’re running statewide in California, it’s important to have money when it counts, not lavishly throw it around months in advance,” Cox said.

Dole has been here infrequently, but has tried to make a big splash when he has come. He salted one Los Angeles fund-raising trip with a high-profile assault on the entertainment industry.

Overall, the Dole campaign said, it has raised $1.5 million in its visits to California.

“Some analysts are suggesting that it will all be over before California,” said Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield. “Our attitude is that we are contesting every state very vigorously. We’re proceeding on the assumption that it is up for grabs.”

Former television commentator Patrick J. Buchanan has made three multi-day fund-raising trips to California since March–the same time frame in which he has visited Iowa 11 times and New Hampshire eight times. His aides say they are putting together networks of volunteers who will fan out in support of Buchanan.

Lugar and Alexander have raised money in California, and Lugar aides said they had particular luck with a direct mail drive that touted his proposal to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace income taxes with a national sales tax. Like the latter two, Specter has had a low profile here.

At some point, the Republican nominee will begin fighting the general election war here–one that President Clinton is already waging. Mindful that he needs to win the state in order to be reelected, Clinton has visited California 19 times in less than three years, more than any other state.

Projected season opening date: By Thanksgiving, if Mother Nature cooperates, or by Yule on Dec. 21 at the latest.

What makes it special: Only 45 miles from Los Angeles in the San Gabriel Mountains, Mt. Baldy has 26 runs spread over 800 acres and three mountains. It also has a respectable vertical descent of 2,100 feet with wide-open glades, tree runs, bowls, moguls, groomed runs, cornices and quarter pipes. For those who don’t ski or snowboard, Mt. Baldy also offers snow tubing.

What’s new this season: With upgrades, Lift No. 3 now features more comfortable carriers to the top of Thunder Mountain at 8,600 feet. Chair No. 4 on the west side has a new drive and control system, allowing year-round use with both uphill and downhill loading when conditions permit. Continuous improvements to snowmaking are also helping Mt. Baldy open earlier each season. The resort’s former Last Name Brewing has rebranded as Mt. Baldy Brewery.

Lift ticket prices: Mt. Baldy season passes are currently on sale through Christmas Day: adults are $549 (regularly $799), teens and seniors are $449 (regularly $639) and children under 12 are $279 (regularly $399). You can pre-purchase lift tickets online for a discount. Walk-up tickets are $129 on busy days when the mountain is in full operation.

Pro-tip: Mt. Baldy has the most steep runs in Southern California. Advanced and expert skiers and snowboarders might want to head to Chair 1 to try “Nightmare,” a 36-degree slope that maintains its drop for 1,000 vertical feet.

SACRAMENTO — While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

When it comes to Proposition 50, Marcia Owens is a bit fuzzy on the details.

She knows, vaguely, it has something to do with how California draws the boundaries for its 52 congressional districts, a convoluted and arcane process that’s not exactly top of the mind for your average person. But Owens is abundantly clear when it comes to her intent in Tuesday’s special election.

“I’m voting to take power out of Trump’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people,” said Owens, 48, a vocational nurse in Riverside. “He’s making a lot of illogical decisions that are really wreaking havoc on our country. He’s not putting our interests first, making sure that an individual has food on the table, they can pay their rent, pay electric bills, pay for healthcare.”

Peter Arensburger, a fellow Democrat who also lives in Riverside, was blunter still.

President Trump, said the 55-year-old college professor, “is trying to rule as a dictator” and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to stop him.

So, Arensburger said, California voters will do it for them.

Or at least try.

“It’s a false equivalency,” he said, “to say that we need to do everything on an even keel in California, but Texas” — which redrew its political map to boost Republicans — “can do whatever they want.”

Proposition 50, which aims to deliver Democrats at least five more House seats in the 2026 midterm election, is either righteous payback or a grubby power grab.

A reasoned attempt to even things out in response to Texas’ attempt to nab five more congressional seats. Or a ruthless gambit to drive the California GOP to near-extinction.

It all depends on your perspective.

Above all, Proposition 50 has become a political ink-blot test; what many California voters see depends on, politically, where they stand.

Mary Ann Rounsavall thinks the measure is “horrible,” because that’s how the Fontana retiree feels about its chief proponent, Gavin Newsom.

“He’s a jerk,” the 75-year-old Republican fairly spat, as if the act of forming the governor’s name left a bad taste in her mouth. “No one believes anything he says.”

Timothy, a fellow Republican who withheld his last name to avoid online trolls, echoed the sentiment.

“It’s just Gavin Newsom playing political games,” said the 39-year-old warehouse manager, who commutes from West Covina to his job at a plumbing supplier in Ontario. “They always talk about Trump. ‘Trump, Trump, Trump.’ Get off of Trump. I’ve been hearing this crap ever since he started running.”

Riverside and San Bernardino counties form the heart of the Inland Empire. The next-door neighbors are politically purple: more Republican than the state as a whole, but not as conservative as California’s more rural reaches. That means neither party has an upper hand, a parity reflected in dozens of interviews with voters across the sprawling region.

On a recent smoggy morning, the hulking San Bernardino Mountains veiled by a gray-brown haze, Eric Lawson paused to offer his thoughts.

The 66-year-old independent has no use for politicians of any stripe. “They’re all crooks,” he said. “All of them.”

Lawson called Proposition 50 a waste of time and money.

Gerrymandering — the dark art of drawing political lines to benefit one party over another — is, as he pointed out, hardly new. (In fact, the term is rooted in the name of Elbridge Gerry, one of the nation’s founders.)

What has Lawson particularly steamed is the cost of “this stupid election,” which is pushing $300 million.

“We talk and talk and talk and we print money for all this talk,” said Lawson, who lives in Ontario and consults in the auto industry. “But that money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to go.”

Although sentiments were evenly split in those several dozen conversations, all indications suggest that Proposition 50 is headed toward passage Tuesday, possibly by a wide margin. After raising a tidal wave of cash, Newsom last week told small donors that’s enough, thanks. The opposition has all but given up and resigned itself to defeat.

It comes down to math. Proposition 50 has become a test of party muscle and a talisman of partisan faith and California has a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

Andrea Fisher, who opposes the initiative, is well aware of that fact. “I’m a conservative,” she said, “in a state that’s not very conservative.”

She has come to accept that reality, but fears things will get worse if Democrats have their way and slash California’s already-scanty Republican ranks on Capitol Hill. Among those targeted for ouster is Ken Calvert, a 16-term GOP incumbent who represents a good slice of Riverside County.

“I feel like it’s going to eliminate my voice,” said Fisher, 48, a food server at her daughter’s school in Riverside. “If I’m 40% of the vote” — roughly the percentage Trump received statewide in 2024 — “then we in that population should have fair representation. We’re still their constituents.” (In Riverside County, Trump edged Kamala Harris 49% to 48%.)

Amber Pelland says Proposition 50 will hurt voters by putting redistricting back into the hands of politicians.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Amber Pelland, 46, who works in the nonprofit field in Corona, feels by “sticking it to Trump” — a tagline in one of the TV ads supporting Proposition 50 — voters will be sticking it to themselves. Passage would erase the political map drawn by an independent commission, which voters empowered in 2010 for the express purpose of wrestling redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento.

“I don’t care if you hate the person or don’t hate the person,” said Pelland, a Republican who backs the president. “It’s just going to hurt voters by taking the power away from the people.”

Even some backers of Proposition 50 flinched at the notion of sidelining the redistricting commission and undoing its painstaking, nonpartisan work. What helps make it palatable, they said, is the requirement — written into the ballot measure — that congressional redistricting will revert to the commission after the 2030 census, when California’s next set of congressional maps is due to be drafted.

“I’m glad that it’s temporary because I don’t think redistricting should be done in order to give one political party greater power over another,” said Carole, a Riverside Democrat. “I think it’s something that should be decided over a long period and not in a rush.” (She also withheld her last name so her husband, who serves in the community, wouldn’t be hassled for her opinion, she said.)

Texas, Carole suggested, has forced California to act because of its extreme action, redistricting at mid-decade at Trump’s command. “It’s important to think about the country as a whole,” said the 51-year-old academic researcher, “and to respond to what’s being done, especially with the pressure coming from the White House.”

Felise Self-Visnic, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher, agreed.

She was shopping at a Trader Joe’s in Riverside in an orange ball cap that read “Human-Kind (Be Both).” Back home, in her garage-door window, is a poster that reads “No Kings.”

She described Proposition 50 as a stopgap measure that will return power to the commission once the urgency of today’s political upheaval has passed. But even if that wasn’t the case, the Democrat said, she would still vote in favor.

“Anything,” Self-Visnic said, “to fight fascism, which is where we’re heading.”