Californias

The Russian River was running low and slowly. A few miles outside Guerneville at Steelhead Beach, several men stepped into the water, laden with flotation devices. A duck, a flamingo, a unicorn …

“Don’t you know?” asked Anna Deurloo, standing by me on the shore. “It’s Lazy Bear Week! That’s why the river is full of bears: big hairy men with beards. And Speedos.”

Deurloo, who lives in Guerneville, had made glittery bandannas for her crew of bears to wear at the annual celebration. Out on the water, Joe Souza of Long Beach adjusted his blinged-out headgear, hollering that he’d been coming to Guerneville every summer for more than 20 years.

“It’s a nice place to meet our friends from all over the country,” Souza said, “and get tricked into this river.”

1

2

3

1. Steelhead Beach is a popular starting place for warm-weather floats down the Russian River. 2. Families play in the Russian River near Johnson’s Beach. 3. The view from Korbel Winery includes vineyards and forest along the Russian River. (Photographs by Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

When the weather is warm, the Russian River draws dawdlers of all kinds, including LGBTQ+ vacationers, longtime locals and Bay Area families. On summer weekends, thousands show up in Guerneville with kayaks, canoes, inner tubes — just about anything that will float, preferably with a cooler attached. Then they spend hours gliding downstream past scenery that might as well be a Northern California highlight reel: vineyards, redwood forests and eventually a beach scene full of driftwood and sea stacks.

They know that time is of the essence. Many places on the river in and around Guerneville shut down November through early May because it gets cold and rainy and the river can run high and fast.

But for now through early October, with little rain and seasonal dams controlling the water’s flow, this might be California’s laziest river.

Still, for plenty of Californians, including me, this corner of Sonoma County is little-known territory. I’ve just gotten my first good look at the area, which is about 85 miles north of San Francisco, and I’m glad I arrived when I did.

For years, as Sonoma County’s wine country has grown ever more pricey and elegant, the communities of the lower Russian River have clung to their rustic, quirky and more affordable ways, in part because of the area’s vulnerability to changing seasons.

But the riverside scene is evolving. Since the pandemic, several new or revamped lodgings have boosted glamping and other upscale elements in a territory once better known for old cabins. At privately owned Johnson’s Beach in Guerneville, where parking was free in the old days, the fee is up to $10 a day. In the Johnson’s Beach lodgings, long known for summer-camp vibes, some rooms now come equipped with luxury linens and a French press. On the menu at the River Electric, there’s a “high-low dog” — a hot dog with black caviar — for $40. In other words, the lower Russian River is edging up-market.

“There’s a lot more new blood up here. A lot of new people in the last five years,” said Robert Baba, who runs Ideal Hardware in Forestville.

“Prices are going up and hotels are getting more posh,” said Michael Rex, owner of Guerneville’s Russian River Bookstore. But still, he said, “there’s a lot to do here where you don’t have to spend a dime.”

Here’s what I found in four days as a Russian River rookie.

River guide Keith Chandler prepares to kayak at the Russian River estuary at Jenner on the Sonoma County coast.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Forestville: Stepping into the river

If you want to imagine time standing still, start at Burke’s Canoe Trips, which has been renting canoes and kayaks for decades. At Burke’s, which sits at the edge of Forestville (population: about 3,300), most customers rent a watercraft ($95 per canoe, $60 per kayak) before noon, drift 10 miles down river to Guerneville, then catch a Burke’s bus back to where they began.

The river water is shallow, often 3 to 5 feet deep. The beaches are pebbly. The redwood groves begin within stone-skipping distance of the Burke’s property and follow the river downstream. Drinking water and sunblock are vital. Sightings of blue heron, egrets and river otters are common. (Burke’s also has camping with hot showers and fire rings, at $20 per person per night.)

Canoes await paddlers at Burke’s Canoe Trips in Forestville along the Russian River.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

A cat sleeps alongside a Jesus statue and beach gear at Burke’s Canoe Trips in Forestville along the Russian River.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

“People know that no matter how the world is doing, when they come to the river, it’s going to be like it used to be,” said Linda Burke, second-generation owner of the business.

“It could be 1946 when you’re paddling,” said Ted Schroeder, longtime manager at Burke’s.

But even at Burke’s, things change: Demand is up for kayaks, down for the metal canoes, which are heavier.

Along Front Street, Forestville’s tiny commercial core, you could get a corn dog for $3.30 at Carr’s Drive-Inn, which looks like a time capsule from 1979. Or you could get some wood-fired pizza on the big, bright patio of Sonoma Pizza Co., which opened in 2022; or maybe a cup of organic ice cream at Angela’s (since 2023).

If you want to go luxe, you can eat or sleep at the Farmhouse Inn, a 6-acre property on River Road that includes 18 rooms and cottages, a pool and some spa services amid lushly landscaped grounds. Its restaurant occupies an 1873 farmhouse. (Nightly rates start around $440.)

For a lot of people, however, Forestville is just a place to slip into the lazy river — often at Steelhead Beach, half a mile downriver from Burke’s.

Glamping tents are a central part of Dawn Ranch, near the Russian River in Guerneville, Calif.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

As glampers arrive, Guerneville gets fancier

Guerneville (population: about 4,500) is the hub of human activity on the Lower Russian River. River Road becomes Main Street there, and in summer its shops and restaurants buzz with people. Riverfront recreation at Johnson’s Beach is a block away. A network of redwood forest trails awaits 2 miles up the road in Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Preserve.

Be warned, however, that on weekends, Guerneville is often short on parking. Consider parking for the day ($10) in the big dirt lot at Johnson’s Beach, which has food, drinks, rental kayaks, canoes and inner tubes, campsites, historic bungalows, modern tiny cabins, canvas cabanas and a four-bedroom lodge. There are about 35 units in all, open mid-April through October. (The bare campsites start at $55, historic bungalows at $165.)

“It’s a lazy river and walkable to town, so we can camp and eat at restaurants,” said Kim Loda of Oakland as her son, Axel, 10, showed off his juggling skills near the Johnson’s Beach snack bar. “I don’t know why my family didn’t bring me here growing up.”

The River Electric, a resort along the Russian River in Guerneville, Calif., includes glamping tents.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Guerneville grew up as a 19th century logging settlement, prospered as a weekend getaway for San Franciscans arriving by ferry and train in the 1920s, slumped in the ‘30s and suffered extensive flooding in the 1960s. It entered a new chapter in the late 1970s, when a handful of gay entrepreneurs began buying up and revamping rustic resorts and bars.

First, in 1978, was a riverside getaway called Fife’s. Another early gay-owned venture was the Rainbow Cattle Company bar, still in business on River Road, a.k.a. Main Street. (Every week on Give Back Tuesday, the bar stages raffles, offers $5 dinners and earmarks 10% of revenue for charities.)

When the 1980s and 1990s arrived, Guerneville suffered deeply — from the AIDS epidemic and from repeated floods.

Nimble & Finn’s sells ice cream inside the Guerneville Bank Club building in Guerneville, Calif.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Yet a generation later, the community has gained ground.

Since 2008, entrepreneur Crista Luedtke has built a series of businesses, including Boon Eat+Drink and Boon Hotel+Spa. The Guerneville Social Club, “Russian River’s First Queer-Owned Social Club,” is due to open with a restaurant, bar and shop in 2027. Lazy Bear gatherings have been staged every July since 1996 by the nonprofit Lazy Bear Fund to raise money toward LGBTQ+ community health. There’s also a Russian River Pride parade Sept. 19.

Cars park along Main Street on July 30 in Guerneville.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

Timing my visit to avoid weekend crowds, I ate a dinner of chicken in tasty mole negro at Three Cultures Kitchen, which opened last year. I got ice cream at Nimble & Finn’s, lunch at Coffee Bazaar and a $15 sandwich to go at the Korbel Winery, which offers a deli, tasting room, wine shop and free tours at its scenic site about 3 miles west of Guerneville. I also browsed at Russian River Books & Letters.

“I ended up here because of the pandemic. It just went on and on, so I decided to open the bookstore,” said bookshop owner Michael Rex. Since that time, Rex said, he’s seen a growing number of remote workers.

Most notable among the new and renovated Guerneville resorts: Dawn Ranch and the River Electric, both with a glamping focus, both with docks on the river.

Dawn Ranch, dramatically upgraded in 2023, is a 22-acre, all-ages property that once held the Fife’s resort. The verdant grounds feature 86 cabins, cottages, chalets and glamping tents (open year-round) that share bathrooms and showers. There’s an upstairs restaurant, spa services, a pool and boathouse bar, along with a dock and private beach at the end of the short trail that feels like a secret path.

The tents, which start at about $300 nightly, have furniture, electricity and Wi-Fi, but if you show up on a 93-degree afternoon, as I did, your un-air-conditioned tent will be about the same temperature. That’s when it’s time to jump in the pool or river.

The Russian River runs past a dock at Dawn Ranch in Guerneville, Calif.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

The River Electric is sited on long-idle, flood-prone 12-acre expanse of riverside land that old-timers remember as the site of J’s Amusement Park in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s. In 2025, the current owners unveiled a newfangled resort with a restaurant, two pools (one of them round) and 46 furnished, electrified tent units, which start at about $260 nightly.

The resort stays open until Oct. 31. Then, by design, most of the resort will be carted away or submerged when the river rises.

“Everything except the concrete, we take off-site, Which is wild,” said River Electric’s Jessica Baker, who gave me a tour. The resort also sells day passes for $38 and hosts many weddings and special events.

Yet another glamping option is Guerneville’s Autocamp Sonoma, which opened in 2016. It doesn’t have river frontage, but it includes 25 Airstream trailers and 10 glamping tents in the shadow of a redwood grove.

Stand-up paddle-boarders are common at the Russian River estuary, next to Jenner on the Sonoma County coast.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

This is how the river ends: with roaring wind on an empty beach

Heading west from Guerneville, you roll through Monte Rio, seeing more redwoods, cabins and glimpses of river.

You might spot the 11-room Inn on the Russian River, a recently upgraded property whose riverside perch includes a private dock and summer rates of roughly $260 to $430 nightly.

Kayakers often come across harbor seals in the Russian River estuary at Jenner on the Sonoma County coast.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

What you’ll need to imagine is the Bohemian Grove, which hides in the nearby forest, serving as a haven for the rich, powerful, famous and all-male members of the Bohemian Club since the 19th century.

Gathering every July at that 2,700-acre compound, club members, who have included Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bob Weir, are said to stage a ritual “cremation of care,” burning an effigy of “care” in front of a 40-foot owl statue. (Suddenly, Burning Man seems a little less original.)

Anyway, a casual tuber or kayaker can’t float all the way to the Pacific from Forestville. (Obstacles include seasonal dams at Johnson’s Beach and Vacation Beach.) But if you drive the river road past Monte Rio and the historic but touristy shops at Duncans Mills, you reach the coastal hamlet of Jenner. That’s where the water flows into the Pacific, where the Russian River goes from mild (in summer) to wild.

To see the converging waters and feel the roaring wind, you can drive to Goat Rock Road and Goat Rock Beach. Or you could stop for a snack at Cafe Aquatica, whose patio fronts the water’s edge.

Or you could do both, followed by a night at River’s End, where a restaurant and five woodsy guest rooms enjoy sweeping views of the river, sea and sea stacks.

Kayakers paddle through sunset on the Russian River estuary, which looks out at the sea and sea stacks near Jenner.

(Christopher Reynolds / Los Angeles Times)

I did that. And on my last morning along the river, I got up early and met Keith Chandler of Jenner-based Watertreks Ecotours at water’s edge. Then we paddled around the estuary on a pre-breakfast kayak tour.

“I never get tired of this,” Chandler told me.

Some tours go out by night, focusing on bioluminescent plankton. We skirted Penny Island, where native Pomo people lived and farmed for generations before immigrants from Europe arrived. In fact, Chandler’s boss, Suki Waters, is part Pomo. Jenner might be small, but river, sea, natives and newcomers all converge there.

For a good chunk of this morning, however, there was just two of us in a kayak, sidling up to egrets, cormorants and harbor seals, watching pelicans glide in formation over the long, empty beach where the Russian River ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to revise and ultimately loosen state prison parole rules appears to be on its way to passage on Nov. 8, as a new poll finds strong support across a wide swath of California voters.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters in a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times survey backed Brown’s Proposition 57, and only 31% were opposed. While earlier polling showed an even wider lead, the proposal has had consistently solid backing throughout the campaign season.

“Proposition 57 should pass comfortably,” said Ben Winston of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the Democratic pollster who makes up the bipartisan team that conducts the survey.

The measure, which would allow more prisoners a chance at parole and give additional authority to prison officials to award good-behavior credits, has wide appeal among the state’s young voters.

As many as two-thirds of the poll’s likely voters under the age of 40 supported Proposition 57, with the highest backing from younger white Californians. Support was at, or surpassed, the 60% threshold among Democrats, white voters who are “independent” of any political party and Latino women.

The only serious opposition came from registered Republicans, self-described conservatives and older, non-college-educated voters.

Young voters may be a harbinger of a dramatic long-term shift on crime and punishment in a state where long prison sentences for sensationalized crimes were once the hallmark of successful campaigns.

“This generation of California voters simply wasn’t alive when a tough-on-crime approach was necessary to win a statewide election,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics.

Political analysts also point to a potential correlation in the poll between supporters of the parole overhaul and those who support Proposition 64, the effort to fully legalize marijuana. Seventy-one percent of the likely voters who support the marijuana measure also support Proposition 57.

“I think there are parallel issues here,” said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist. “They’re making the point that the criminal justice system is broken.”

The ballot box guide to California’s propositions »

Brown has fought bitterly with district attorneys across California over Proposition 57, which he contends is simply offering the chance for a prisoner’s request to be heard by the state Board of Parole Hearings. Under the measure, parole commissioners could consider releasing any prisoner whose primary sentence was not for one of the state’s specifically listed violent crimes, and then only for secondary crimes or enhancements added at the time of sentencing.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that Proposition 57 would almost certainly lead to the early release of dangerous criminals. And they believe the initiative’s expansion of good-behavior credits would mean less time behind bars even for high-risk predators.

The USC/Times poll, like most nonpartisan surveys, tested voter opinions by using Proposition 57’s official ballot title and summary — a description that has become a bone of contention during the campaign.

“The ballot title and summary is a gross and blatant misrepresentation of what this measure would do,” said Merced County Dist. Atty. Larry Morse. “It is incredibly dishonest.”

Law enforcement opponents dispute that new parole eligibility would be given only to offender, who are “nonviolent,” a word that Morse said he believes downplays the threat and thus artificially inflates any estimates of true voter support for the governor’s policy proposal.

“He knows damn good and well this applies to crimes that anyone would see as violent,” Morse said of Brown.

Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Proposition 57 campaign, said the measure is “exactly what voters want in a public safety policy — a focus on keeping dangerous offenders locked up while rehabilitating nonviolent offenders before they get out.”

While most of the focus is on the impact of revising prison parole procedures, Proposition 57 also would revoke provisions of a 2000 ballot measure that has sent some juvenile defendants into adult courtrooms. Prosecutors helped lead the campaign for that proposal 16 years ago, but Morse said he and other district attorneys now agree those teenagers should remain in the juvenile justice system.

Sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter »

The survey of 1,500 registered voters was conducted for USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint. Support for the ballot initiative was almost identical among the entire sample — 58% in favor — as it was among likely voters.

The poll results come as both sides in the Proposition 57 campaign ramp up efforts to persuade voters. Brown has raised more than $19.7 million in support of the measure, with the largest share of that money spent during the spring on gathering signatures to quickly qualify the initiative for the ballot after skirmishes in court over whether it was properly vetted under state election law. The governor’s effort had enough money left over for campaign mailers and a statewide radio ad blitz, while opponents, having raised less than $1.4 million, have had fewer opportunities.

That imbalance may help explain another strong marker for the initiative in the poll: It was winning with 63% of voters who said they already have cast a ballot.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Detailed poll results

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Prop 57 is a parole showdown with prosecutors

What you need to know about the 17 propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot

Track news on California ballot measures and campaigns

SACRAMENTO — For all the media attention California’s proposed billionaire tax has generated nationally — with some blasting it as a foolish Left Coast assault on American enterprise — the November ballot item has actually triggered a rift among progressive labor unions and Democrats, groups critical to the measure’s success.

Championed by California’s largest health workers union, Proposition 40 would levy a one-time, 5% tax on California’s roughly 200 billionaires. The measure aims to backfill Medicaid cuts signed into law last year by President Donald Trump, and would raise an estimated $100 billion.

Dave Regan, the measure’s architect and president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said the tax was intended to prevent “the imminent collapse of California’s health care system because of the Trump cuts in the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’”

Regan, who has become well-known for using ballot measures as leverage in negotiations with state lawmakers and the healthcare industry, seemed poised to channel public anxiety over economic affordability, access to medical care and anti-Trump sentiment when the initiative was announced last fall.

Today however, the initiative not only faces heavy and well-funded opposition from those it aims to tax, but also divided support among groups who traditionally favor taxes on the wealthy — labor unions. Both the powerful California Teachers Association and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California have come out against Prop. 40, while Teamsters California and AFSCME California support it. Others unions have yet to weigh in, including the California Federation of Labor Unions and SEIU California, a parent organization for Regan’s healthcare worker union.

Establishment Democrats are also divided. Gov. Gavin Newsom aggressively opposed the measure and sought to negotiate with Regan to remove it from the ballot beginning last year. Days before a state deadline to withdraw ballot measures in late June, Regan publicly offered to trim the wealth tax to 2% over two years, an offer Newsom quickly rejected.

To some close observers, the offer signaled that Regan may have been looking for a way out of an expensive ballot fight.

“I found it unusual that he did that because he’s usually not that kind of negotiating type — he’s no nonsense,” said Democratic political consultant Steven Maviglio. “I don’t know if he felt it was a hot potato or what.”

Regan’s union spent $31 million to gather 1.6 million voter signatures to put the tax on the ballot.

“At the outset, this may have looked like the replay of a strategy he’s employed successfully many times in the past, but he ended up painting himself into a corner, and so now he’s stuck with an initiative that he knows he probably can’t pass,” said Dan Schnur, a politics and communications professor at Pepperdine, USC and UC Berkeley.

A March poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies showed 52% of registered voters support the billionaire tax while 33% opposed it and 15% were undecided. However, campaign experts say its position remains precarious, due in part to the deep pockets of its opponents.

Several billionaires, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have so far pumped a combined $118 million into a campaign committee that gathered enough signatures to place two other measures on the ballot aimed at undercutting the billionaire tax.

Groups that might otherwise support more revenue for healthcare have also come out against Prop. 40, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Medical Assn.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” leaders of the California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association and California School Boards Association wrote in a joint statement.

Regan and fellow supporters insist that, without approval of the tax measure, Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will gut the state’s healthcare resources.

“This will take between $20 and $25 billion annually out of our healthcare system, meaning three and a half million people are going to lose insurance, 150,000 health care workers will be laid off and over 20 million consumers are already paying more in premiums, deductibles and copays,” he said.

While prominent progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) have voiced support for the measure, some progressive opponents say its near exclusive focus on healthcare is a problem. (Only a small portion of tax revenues would go toward education and food security.)

The CTA said after reviewing the measure, its council of delegates “determined that this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve.” Leaders of the state’s largest teachers union plan to focus their efforts on passing Proposition 3, which would make permanent an existing tax on certain high earners to fund schools and community colleges.

Labor unions have typically aligned in support of tax-raising ballot measures, including earlier temporary versions of this year’s Prop. 3 and an unsuccessful 2020 proposal to revamp commercial property taxes.

But the billionaire tax “doesn’t benefit everybody. It benefits workers in the healthcare sector primarily, and I think that’s why not everybody’s on board. It’s not a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ kind of proposal,” Maviglio said.

In the 15 years he has led SEIU-UHW, Regan has become known for using expensive ballot measures — or the threat of them — to bring lawmakers and industry opponents to the negotiating table.

In a landmark 2023 deal, Regan secured a statewide $25 wage floor for healthcare workers after qualifying initiatives to raise industry wages in Los Angeles and other cities. The deal included a 10-year moratorium on minimum wage propositions. He also pushed ballot measure regulations on kidney dialysis clinics for three subsequent election cycles. Though none of them passed, the dialysis industry spent hundreds of millions between 2018 and 2022 to defeat them.

“Everybody knows that he is wielding ballot measures as a weapon to leverage his unionization or political demands. It’s not a secret. He’s admitted it,” said Brandon Castillo, a ballot measure strategist who often finds himself opposite Regan in ballot fights including the dialysis clinic propositions.

The measure retroactively applies a tax on billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1. Newsom and other opponents say the initiative would drive the ultra-wealthy out of the state and their departure would blow a hole in the state budget.

California’s budget is dependent on income taxes the rich pay on stock market profits. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the measure would “likely” result in an “ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom wrote in a post on Substack in late June. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes.”

After the talks ultimately failed to result in a deal, Newsom endorsed the idea of a national wealth tax instead.

“It’s easy to see how they may have believed that Newsom’s strongest incentive was simply to stay out,” Schnur said. “There’s a huge potential downside for a Democratic governor [to weigh in] on either side of this initiative. If you oppose it, you’re alienating your base. If you support it, you’re putting your state in dire fiscal peril.”

Focusing on raising taxes at the federal level allows the governor to support a popular idea nationally, which he can campaign on if he runs for president. His opposition to the measure in California could still leave him vulnerable to criticism from progressives in a national Democratic primary.

Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

In a move that suggests a sharp battle to come with the administration of President-elect Donald Trump and upends conventional wisdom about who will emerge as the next generation of statewide elected officials, Gov. Jerry Brown picked House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) on Thursday to be California’s next attorney general.

If confirmed by both houses of the Legislature, he will succeed Kamala Harris, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November.

Becerra, 58, has served 12 terms in Congress. Just days before the appointment, he had announced a bid to become the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

“It’s a phenomenal opportunity,” Becerra said. “It means I get to be home a lot more.”

Few statewide offices are as powerful, or prominent, as that of attorney general. The role has often been referred to as the state’s top lawyer and its top law enforcement officer, a nod to the breadth of responsibilities vested in the office and its leadership of the California Department of Justice.

Attorneys general not only must pursue cases of criminal and civil wrongdoing, they oversee criminal forensic work for most counties and make the final choice about defending state laws — even crafting the language that summarizes ballot measures for voters.

Becerra was beaming during an interview in his House office Thursday morning shortly after Brown offered him the job.

“I’m still processing,” Becerra said with a laugh. “I didn’t expect it.”

Becerra would be the state’s first Latino attorney general. The son of Mexican immigrants, he was the first member of his family to attend college, earning a law degree from Stanford Law School and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Stanford University. Elected to a two-year term in the state Assembly and then to the House in 1992, he rose through the ranks to become the highest-ranking Latino in Congress.

Becerra worked in the civil division of the state attorney general’s office, writing advisory opinions for former Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, and defending the state’s constitutional officers from 1987 to 1990 before entering the Assembly. He said he had always wanted to return to the office.

“It was a great place to be,” he said.

Brown’s pick was so sudden that Becerra has not yet had time to reactivate his state law license, though he would not be the first attorney general to have to do so. Inactive status allows attorneys to hold on to their licenses when they are not actively practicing law.

Becerra would also be the first attorney general appointed by a governor since Thomas Lynch, who was chosen by former Gov. Pat Brown in 1964. Few political appointments are likely to be as personal to the current governor as this one, given his own four-year stint as attorney general starting in 2006 and the fact that his father used the office as a steppingstone to governor more than five decades ago.

“Xavier has been an outstanding public servant — in the state Legislature, the U.S. Congress and as a deputy attorney general,” Brown said in a statement. “I’m confident he will be a champion for all Californians and help our state aggressively combat climate change.”

The choice sent political shock waves through California, in large part because Becerra was not on any of the widely circulated lists of potential picks. Brown had offered no details on whom he would pick or when.

Many suspected that he might choose a caretaker, perhaps even a career staffer who would simply carry out the office’s functions through the 2018 election. Virtually no Democrats who heard the news on Thursday believed that Becerra would be that kind of officeholder.

“He has the smarts, political experience and ambitions to run and win reelection,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a former top political adviser to Brown.

If Becerra serves less than two years of Harris’ existing term, he could be eligible to run for up to two additional terms — eight years — as attorney general. Harris has said she plans to hold the position until she is sworn in to the Senate on Jan. 3, and at that point Brown could officially nominate Becerra.

Becerra said Thursday he’s thinking about the confirmation process at this point and not whether he’ll run for a full term as attorney general or another office in 2018. He must be confirmed by the state Senate and Assembly, both controlled by Democrats. Becerra said he hasn’t been told when a confirmation vote might happen.

Earlier, Becerra had flirted with a bid for U.S. Senate when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced plans to retire, but Harris’ quick entry into the race kept him and other California Democrats from running.

Holding such a prominent statewide post would raise Becerra’s profile as the Golden State’s foil to Trump, potentially setting him up to run for governor or U.S. Senate in the future. The attorney general, by virtue of the office’s broad power, will likely be a key player alongside Brown in pushing back against Trump’s proposed efforts on issues important to California, including immigration and climate change. In Texas, a state that has its own experience fighting the federal government, attorneys general have been a major force in the battle over states’ rights.

“He has great tenacity and he respects the rights of all Californians — much-needed qualities for an attorney general given the troubling times ahead,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said Thursday.

Several congressional colleagues echoed that sentiment.

“Many of the values that we stand by in California will be under attack in the next few years, and Chairman Becerra is the fighter I want in our corner,” Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement.

Becerra said that with Trump headed to the White House, he’s prepared to protect California’s progressive policies on immigration, the Affordable Care Act, energy and criminal justice. As California politicians embrace their roles in guarding the state against Trump’s policies, Becerra threw down his own gauntlet Thursday.

“If you want to take on a forward-leaning state that is prepared to defend its rights and interests, then come at us,” Becerra said.

A vocal advocate for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, Becerra was briefly floated as a potential pick for vice president or a Cabinet position. With Clinton’s loss Nov. 8 and no upward mobility available in House leadership, Becerra’s future political career was unclear.

He’d reached the time limit on serving as caucus chairman, the fourth highest-ranking House Democratic leadership position, and with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and the other two Democrats above him in leadership staying put, there was no path up the ladder headed into the next Congress.

Becerra serves on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and made a play as recently as Tuesday to be the committee’s ranking Democrat. He was quickly endorsed by the current ranking member, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), who said in a statement Thursday that he respects that Becerra “feels a special responsibility during these difficult times to look after vital legal interests in his home state.”

Democrats across California reacted Thursday with effusive praise for Becerra. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom called him “a thoughtful and effective leader, with a keen legal mind and a passion for giving a voice to the voiceless.”

In particular, some pointed out the importance of elevating a Latino politician to statewide office, alongside both Latino leaders of the Legislature and Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

“It’s good for the state’s future,” said Bill Lockyer, who served as attorney general from 1999 to 2007.

The announcement also meant early guessing as to who would replace Becerra in representing downtown Los Angeles and communities to the west and north in Congress. Becerra won reelection in November in the solidly Democratic district. A special election to fill the seat would probably take place in late spring of 2017, though the law gives Brown wide discretion on the precise schedule.

John A. Pérez, the former Assembly speaker and current University of California regent, announced his bid less than an hour after Brown’s announcement, and more contenders may follow.

sarah.wire@latimes.com; john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @sarahdwire and @johnmyers on Twitter

Read more about the 55 members of California’s delegation at latimes.com/politics

ALSO

After beating back rival for House leadership post, Nancy Pelosi says Democrats are ready for Trump

Trump seems ready to fight the world on climate change. But he’s likely to meet resistance

Updates on California politics

A bill to tighten California’s rules on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid prison for arrests linked to mental illness — is now on the verge of being signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges much wider discretion to decide whether a defendant should be eligible for diversion. Under the current law, judges must presume mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a legitimate diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to defeat a diversion request, the burden is on prosecutors to prove mental health issues were not a factor in the alleged crime.

The new measure — which moved through the state Senate with no opposition last month and is expected to clear the reconciliation process in the Assembly this week — also gives judges more latitude to block diversion if a defendant poses “a risk of danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher “unreasonable risk” standard that was passed in 2018. Defendants charged with attempted murder will no longer be eligible for diversion under the new bill.

Proponents of more inclusive diversion policies argue that many people with mental health issues are locked up in California prisons and jails, where they are unable to receive the help they need.

The pending bill’s supporters say its changes are designed to address cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man who has been accused of attacking his wife four times over the last 12 years.

In 2014, a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation landed Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought felony domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors allege, he carried out a “brutal attack” on his wife with a glass bottle, leaving her with “extensive injuries,” according to a motion filed in his current criminal case. That time, the court filings show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.

Despite objections from prosecutors and L.A. County probation officials, a judge granted a request to give Guttierrez mental health diversion last July.

A month later, prosecutors allege, he beat his wife until she fell into a coma.

When it passed in 2018, the original mental health diversion law was heralded as a needed off-ramp for defendants suffering from serious psychological issues — offering treatment to those who need it rather than a prison cell. But with voters statewide souring on progressive criminal justice reforms, lawmakers have sought to make it harder for defendants to qualify.

“AB 46 preserves diversion as an important pathway to care while ensuring judges have a clearer and more workable standard when serious public safety concerns are present,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.

Under the existing rules, defendants who successfully argue for pretrial mental health diversion spend two years undergoing a court-appointed treatment plan instead of facing a conviction. Prosecutors must prove the defendant is likely to commit a serious violent crime, a so-called “super strike,” again in order to block diversion.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors statewide who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that has been a nearly impossible standard to overcome.

“Guttierrez being your example: Judge, if you release him, he’s going to probably beat his wife up again, and if he does this time, he could kill her. But for the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her up until now,” Hochman said.

He added that due to the judge’s decision to grant diversion in Guttierrez’s case, “you have three little kids who likely won’t have their mom for the rest of their life.”

A spokesperson for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about his plans for the legislation.

A 2020 Rand Corporation study found 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates housed in Los Angeles County at that time were “likely appropriate candidates” for diversion.

But a number of troubling incidents have led to pushback against the existing diversion law.

In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. rattled off a list of cases in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where a defendant stabbed a 40-year-old man to death after he was granted diversion in a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the letter said, a woman on mental health diversion for carjacking proceeded to steal another car and slam it into an outside table at a restaurant, leaving one person dead and others injured.

Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said thousands of people benefit from mental health diversion every year without reoffending and chastised the bill’s supporters for cherry-picking horrible — but rare — cases to muster support for their proposal.

“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Pick up the most visceral, outrageous anecdotes and then repeat them and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”

Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating age-old mistakes of trying to arrest their way out of a mental health crisis.

“Without this option, you throw them into prison for a couple of years, they get out, and nothing changes. I’ve seen real change in my clients who have been granted these and who have just been on horrific mental health breaks and who, two years later, fully have their lives together,” she said. “You’re always going to be able to find an outlier. You’re always going to be able to find somebody who ruins what is a great project or program.”

Hochman said the modified mental health diversion law is a “rebalancing” of the scales in California after years of attempts to lower the state’s overcrowded jail populations affected public safety.

“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we did have a pendulum swing when these laws were being passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem on their surface to be very — I wouldn’t even use the word ‘progressive,’ but very helpful to people who are suffering.”

Over the last decade, California became a national leader in voter accessibility and security, expanding options for when and how ballots can be cast while also strengthening election safeguards.

But those reforms came at a cost: speed. And in a political climate where unsupported conspiracies about election fraud can run rampant on social media — pushed, at times, by top political leaders — some fear the slow vote count is becoming a liability.

Election outcomes in recent years have become more drawn out in California, most recently taking about a week to determine the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral candidates advancing to November’s runoff after hotly contested primaries. And in prior years, it’s taken even longer to determine tight U.S. House or state Senate seats.

That trade-off — election accessibility and security over quick results — has long been defended as a byproduct of California’s desire to make it as easy as possible to cast a ballot while ensuring accuracy and integrity, something backers say remains vital to a thriving democracy.

But some experts say the increasing backlash over the slow vote count sows distrust.

“We’ve allowed the long count to be normalized, … but that doesn’t mean it’s normal,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, who has become an advocate for accelerating the state’s vote count. “There’s no question that voter confidence is eroding.”

A slower vote count does not signal any indication of fraud, despite unfounded claims over the last week by President Trump and others. Election officials and nonpartisan groups make clear that voter fraud remains extremely rare in the U.S., and there’s been no evidence of any such issues in California’s latest primary count.

But studies have found that voter trust slides as results lag, and this primary made clear that disinformation gains more traction the longer contests drag on, especially with lead changes.

That came to pass this primary, particularly as reality TV personality Spencer Pratt slowly lost his initial second-place ranking in the L.A. mayor’s race, before later batches of votes bumped him from the runoff — fueling an onslaught of social media hysteria: claims of so-called corruption and vote dumping, misinformed examples of alleged fraud and right-wing disinformation campaigns.

But making any substantive changes — particularly before November’s general election — would be an uphill battle, especially in deep-blue California, where Democrats tend to resist limits to voter access. And some are urging restraint.

“We should never drive policy based on conspiracy theories and lies,” said David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “That said, are there things California can do?”

Some suggestions, such as increased funding for county election offices and more education about early voting, would probably make some difference.

But the crux of the slow count comes from a flood of last-minute mail-in ballots — in a state with about one-eighth of the U.S. population. When a large percentage of California’s voters mail or drop off these ballots on or just before election day — as they tend to — it creates what Alexander calls the “pig in the python” effect: a major backlog of labor-intensive ballots to process, in a state that already handles the largest-volume ballot counts.

While verification occurs simultaneously during in-person voting, election officials in California are required to confirm a voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere for each vote-by-mail ballot. Becker called it an “intensively human process” that cannot be sped through — but could be spread out by more early voting.

“It is a lot easier to report results out faster when ballots come in sooner,” Becker said.

Altering that process significantly enough to ease that bottleneck would likely come with other trade-offs, experts said, such as earlier deadlines to turn in certain ballots or more time-consuming ballot drop-offs — either of which might dissuade some voters from showing up. Mail-in ballots have overwhelmingly become Californians favorite way to vote, with more than 80% of voters using that method in every election since 2020.

But California didn’t become known for slow ballot counting overnight. Since the turn of the millennium, the state has taken several steps to increase voter access by expanding options for how, when and where voters can cast their ballot, while also strengthening its processes to become what the secretary of state’s office calls “the strongest voting security standards in the country.”

Those changes have included same-day voter registration, more early voting options, replacing neighborhood-specific polling places with vote centers, and most notably, universal vote-by-mail, which in 2021 required that all registered voters be mailed their ballot, which can be mailed back, returned to a secure drop box or vote center or ignored if the voter opts to vote in person.

Many Democratic voters this year waited to turn in their ballots due to the crowded pool of gubernatorial candidates, which probably exacerbated the already-slow process.

Still, that was expected. Election watchdogs and party officials from both parties tried to temper Californians’ expectations about the timing of results from the primary, reminding voters that it would likely take days if not weeks to call close races.

But when that exact process began to play out — particularly in the extremely tight contests for California governor and Los Angeles mayor — it almost immediately brought criticism and concern.

“None of the optics are good,” complained Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party. “None of this is designed to inspire confidence.”

As Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office tried to dispel misinformation about California’s ballot tabulation process, the statement also said, “For the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too.”

Not only would a speedier election count improve voter trust, which can often increase participation, Alexander said, it would also decrease harassment of election workers and help newly elected candidates step into their new roles faster — and eliminate a long limbo period for the losing candidate.

“We can get it right and do it faster, and we should,” Alexander said.

A 2023 law allowed counties to provide voters an opportunity to cast their vote-by-mail ballot as an in-person ballot, by submitting it sans envelope and signing for it at a vote center, which reduces the verification process required by election workers. About half of California counties have adopted some option of this expedited process, according to the California Voter Foundation, some calling it “Sign, scan and go!” or the “naked ballot” option, but more widespread implementation of this could help speed up the count, Alexander said. Los Angeles County, which processes more ballots than many states, has not yet implemented this time-saving option.

California also allows ballots, if postmarked by election day, to be accepted up to a week after polls close — though that policy may soon be forced to change depending how the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging ballots arriving after election day. Still, these late-arriving ballots don’t account for a large share of the delays in California: in 2024, only about 2.5% of all ballots arrived in the mail after election day.

But some election observers point out that even when compared with states with similarly run elections, California still lags behind.

“California simply counts the ballots it has too slowly and its elections offices are underfunded,” election analysts Eli McKown-Dawson and Nate Silver recently wrote in a Substack piece. “If you want people to be confident in your electoral system, a good first step is to build one that works properly.”

And while seven other states also automatically mail voters ballots, experts say it’s hard to make direct comparisons with California. Some critics often point to Colorado as an example of a state with similarly ubiquitous mail-in voting, yet a much faster count than California. But the scale of states’ elections are so different: In 2024, California processed about 13 million vote-by-mail ballots; not even 3 million were counted in Colorado.

Some have also pointed out that despite all the ways California has worked to expand voter accessibility, turnout hasn’t dramatically changed. California remains relatively in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout across the U.S., and while the state has seen some spikes in turnout during certain election years, there’s been no noticeable uptick over the last 15 years, according to a review of data from 2008 to 2024.

But Becker contended that there are many factors that can influence voter turnout, in particular, California’s strong blue tilt.

“Perceived competitiveness” — or lack thereof — often keeps voters from the polls, as can uninspiring campaigns or even the weather, Becker said, but he was adamant that shouldn’t be a reason to make it harder for people to vote.

“Accessibility is always worth it,” Becker said.

Hoge, the GOP chair, had a different take, highlighting concerns about the voter registration process as well as the slow count — though she has been clear that the latter doesn’t necessarily signal fraud.

She has continued to push a more tempered narrative to many Republican leaders, including from the White House. On X, she shared a post that fact-checked a photo of vote tabulations from L.A. County, which appeared to — erroneously — show reality TV personality Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes in a daily vote count. And she boosted a video that dispelled rumors about Democrats stealing votes and ones about widespread fraud in California’s process.

“It’s a horrible roller coaster,” Hoge said about California’s election results. “It doesn’t make sense, and the fact that you’re just noticing it today doesn’t mean that it’s newly not making sense. … But until we win, we can’t change it.”

No matter what California might change or improve, Becker said he is confident it won’t stop the criticism or campaigns of misinformation. He also said that most elections in California are called relatively quickly — take the state’s pick for president, which is usually confirmed on election night — but it’s a small share of extremely tight races that take longer, because they require a more complete count to call a winner.

“It doesn’t matter how fast California counts its ballots, … we would be seeing similar conspiracy theories, maybe just with a different framing,” Becker said. “California ends up being a very effective bogeyman.”

Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

California’s slow vote counting process — still underway and causing friction after last week’s primary — may be forced to change before November’s midterm elections, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether mail ballots must be received by election day to count.

Whether those changes will speed things up — and help tamp down baseless claims from President Trump and others that the slow count is evidence of fraud — will depend on a variety of factors, election experts said, including how the high court rules, how state lawmakers and local elections officials respond, and whether they push any additional steps to quicken the count.

“We’re all on the edge of our seats, waiting to see what the Supreme Court does,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

“We’re certainly planning for a bad Supreme Court decision in this case, but we don’t really know all of our options for how to respond until we see the court’s decision,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the Assembly Elections Committee and a former top elections official in Santa Cruz County.

Pellerin said she has been working on contingency plans with other state officials — including some from the offices of Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — and has requested $35 million in state funds to educate voters on any new midterm deadlines, though that funding has not been appropriated.

Federal law has, since 1872, set “election day” as the first Tuesday following a Monday in November, and gives Congress oversight over elections for the president and members of Congress. However, most authority for running elections falls to the states.

California currently provides a grace period for ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by and received within seven days of election day. More than a dozen states have similar laws that allow for counting late-arriving ballots, and most states accept such mail ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

In March, the nation’s high court heard arguments about a five-day grace period in Mississippi, with the court’s conservative majority appearing skeptical. Many observers expect from those arguments that the high court will rule, by the end of this month, that ballots — at least for federal races — must be received by election day to count.

That outcome — in the case Watson vs. Republican National Committee — is considered likely but not assured, and some elections experts believe the high court has little legal precedent to support such a conclusion.

“That is a bogus interpretation of the statute,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law. “It violates what the statute says as a matter of text and history, and just how it’s been understood since the Civil War basically.”

Hasen and others also doubt that such a change would have much impact on the speed of California’s vote counting process, given that huge volumes of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day would still count — and would still drag the counting process out for days after the election.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total.

“The main bottleneck is really not ballots that arrive after election day. The bottleneck is ballots arriving before or on election day,” Hasen said. “So I don’t think the Watson case — however it comes out — is going to appreciably change California’s timing on when they’ll get enough ballots counted in a close race for it to be able to be called by news organizations.”

Nonetheless, state and local elections officials are preparing for changes — and looking for other ways to speed up the vote count, which, as of Monday, had resulted in more than 7.7 million ballots counted from last week’s primary, but more than 1.7 million left to process.

State plans unclear

If the Supreme Court were to rule that votes cast in federal elections must be received by election day, California would need to respond quickly.

It would need to craft a messaging campaign to inform millions of voters of the new rules, and determine when to tell voters they must mail their ballots by in order for their votes to count, experts said. That calculation may be shaped in part by efforts by the Trump administration to assert federal control over the mail ballot process through the U.S. Postal Service, which California and other states are fighting in court.

California officials may also need to determine whether they will create a “bifurcated counting process” with different rules for primary and general elections and different rules for federal races and state and local races on the same ballots, Alexander said, as a narrow Supreme Court ruling may not apply to them all equally.

“That’s a big policy decision that lawmakers will need to make, and I’m not sure how that would go,” Alexander said, citing a lack of detailed public plans from state and local elections officials.

Weber — who urged voters to cast ballots early in last week’s election — did not respond to a request for comment.

Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor’s office doesn’t comment on “hypotheticals,” but that Newsom “is planning for all eventualities, including but not limited to attacks on our democracy and disruptions in our elections.”

Bonta’s office said it is “in communication with election officials and actively preparing for the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could require changes to California’s election procedures,” but that it could not provide details.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said he was “not in a position to discuss specific contingency planning details” given the high court has yet to rule, but that his office “is closely monitoring the case and has begun evaluating potential impacts to election administration.”

If changes are required by the court, Logan said his office “is prepared to undertake a comprehensive voter education and outreach effort to ensure voters understand any new requirements, deadlines, or voting options,” which would be “multilingual, multi-channel, and designed to reach voters directly across Los Angeles County, particularly in communities that rely heavily on voting by mail and those that have historically done so.”

Funds needed for faster count

Alexander’s group has backed Pellerin’s request for $35 million for a marketing campaign to encourage voters to send midterm ballots in early, and advocated for another $55 million in state funding to support county efforts to build up their vote processing capabilities.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said it would be “premature” to comment on those requests, but “discussions have been underway and are continuing.”

Both Alexander and Hasen said California should be investing more in its ballot processing capabilities even if the current process is fair and secure and the claims of fraud are baseless, because those claims have succeeded in diminishing trust.

“On the one hand, this is a manufactured crisis. There is nothing that is intrinsically bad about a slow count for a race,” Hasen said. “On the other hand, we live in an era of profound distrust in institutions and in the integrity of elections, in no small part because of Donald Trump.”

In 2012, slightly over half of all California votes were cast via mail ballots. However, that number has increased dramatically since, thanks in part to an expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nearly 89% of ballots were cast by mail in last year’s special election.

Alexander said that throughout that same period, California lawmakers have passed new laws to expand access to the ballot but have not provided counties with the necessary funding to keep up with the volume — meaning “counties are left holding the bag.”

Alexander said California should fix that by providing consistent state funding for new ballot counting machines, more modern and efficient county processing facilities, and an expansion of a program backed by Pellerin and available in some counties already that allows voters dropping off ballot envelopes in person to essentially convert those ballots into in-person votes on the spot — which Alexander called a “hybrid” option that saves counties a huge amount of processing time.

She said the state spent millions to educate voters on new COVID-related vote-by-mail protocols and deadlines in 2020, and it led to both record turnout and a faster count — proving access and speed are not mutually exclusive.

“We’re being asked to make a false choice,” Alexander said. “It is possible to have accessible, secure, reliable and verified elections, and also an accelerated vote count.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

Veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra won one of the top two spots in California’s primary election for governor, according to the Associated Press, a finish that puts him in a prime position to win in November and make history as California’s first elected Latino governor.

“The people of the great state of California, in the greatest nation on earth, have spoken — loudly and proudly,” Xavier Becerra said in a statement Friday. “We will not be bought. We will not be bullied. And we are never backing down. November, here we come.”

Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, remains in a close second and appears on the cusp of securing the right to face off with Becerra in the November general election.

Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager turned climate change activist, may be destined to finish in third place — which would be a disappointing end to a campaign that saturated California’s television screens, social media scrolls and mailboxes thanks to the progressive Democrat spending $216 million of his own wealth.

Becerra’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Friday evening, three days after the June 2 election — an indication of the competitive race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and California’s lengthy process of counting ballots. Still, Becerra and Hilton were within a percentage point of each other, though that could change as the vote tally continues. While his fate is not sealed, Steyer faces long odds to finish in the top two.

Under California’s primary system, only the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Becerra would enter the general election campaign with a significant edge over Hilton since Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

President Trump’s endorsement of Hilton helped consolidate support from Republican voters, which was pivotal to his success in the primary, but would likely hurt him in a face-off against Becerra. Nearly two-thirds of voters in the state want a governor who will fight Trump’s policies, according to the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Becerra could make history by becoming the first Latino to be elected governor — and the first to lead the state in more than 150 years. The last time a Latino held the office was in 1875, when then-Lt. Gov. Romualdo Pacheco was elevated to fill a vacancy and served for 10 months.

“California has made history. Xavier Becerra’s advancement to the general election is a defining moment both for the state, and for the millions of Latino families who have been instrumental in shaping the state’s future. … As home to the nation’s largest Latino population, California will once again demonstrate the decisive power of Latino voters,” said Voto Latino Executive Director Beatriz Lopez.

Though Latinos make up about 40% of the state’s population and are California’s largest ethnic group, they historically have lower turnout in elections and are underrepresented in government. Though Becerra often cites his upbringing as a child of working-class Mexican immigrants, he will still need to demonstrate he can deliver for those communities, said Christian Arana, vice president of civic power and policy at the California-based Latino Community Foundation.

“There’s a lot of excitement about the representation side,” Arana said. “You can have Latino representation, but whether or not that will actually lead to tangible outcomes for Latino communities, that’s what people want to know.”

Once stuck in the single-digits in public opinion polls with a handful of other Democratic candidates, Becerra rose quickly and unexpectedly following the political demise of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Becerra’s rise began days after Swalwell dropped out in April following allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies. Becerra quickly consolidated support from elected officials including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and influential groups like Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Medical Assn.

But both supporters and critics of Becerra struggle to explain exactly how or why he became the main beneficiary of Swalwell’s downfall.

Becerra’s campaign credits the timing of a major television and digital advertising push. The political ads began running just before the allegations against Swalwell came out and depicted Becerra as a calm, experienced leader with a record pushing back against Trump and support from Young Democrat groups.

Steyer’s campaign hired an intelligence firm to look into the online surge favoring Becerra and found thousands of bot accounts had amplified Becerra on various social media platforms. Becerra’s campaign denied any involvement and dismissed the influence of the fake accounts.

Political experts describe it as the stars aligning for the longtime Democratic politician. In the aftermath of the scandal, voters were apparently drawn to Becerra’s long resume and calm, thoughtful demeanor.

“He just never overreacted. Even when attacked [during debates], he was calm,” said Fernando Guerra, professor of Chicano Studies at Loyola Marymount University. That “gave the sense of being a moderate, while he’s really a liberal, so he was able to appeal not only to Latinos, but to liberals and to moderates.”

After Swalwell’s campaign crumbled, members of the political brain trust — many with ties to Newsom — that had been advising the former congressman began working for Becerra, including digital strategist Alf LaMont and veteran consultants Courtni Pugh and Lindsey Cobia.

“There was nothing going for him for a long, long time,” said Jason McDaniel, associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University. “I do think it was just people looking for someone who had a lot of experience who could win.”

Becerra’s first election victory was to the state Assembly in 1990. He served one term before successfully running for a Los Angeles congressional seat, which he held for 24 years.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Becerra as state attorney general in 2017, a post he used to challenge Trump administration policies in the courts more than a 100 times — with great success. Becerra helped craft the Affordable Care Act in Congress and defended it as attorney general, and Joe Biden nominated him to serve as Health and Human Services secretary.

The 68-year-old veteran elected official has faced criticism on the campaign trail for his record leading the massive federal agency, particularly over a New York Times investigation that found thousands of unaccompanied migrant children ended up working in dangerous jobs after they were released to sponsors.

Some former Biden administration officials, many of them anonymous, have also criticized Becerra’s leadership of the agency.

Still, Becerra’s supporters said the candidate’s experience, particularly when it comes to fighting the Trump administration, qualifies him for California’s top job.

“He’s had some very important positions in government,” labor leader Dolores Huerta said at Becerra’s election night party in downtown Los Angeles. “He is qualified. He doesn’t have to go into a learning mode.”

“He’s a legal scholar,” said David Dixon, a political science professor at Cal State Dominguez Hills and brother to a longtime Becerra aide. “When our Constitution is threatened, we need people like him to be in positions of power to reclaim things we are losing now.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.

We’re tracking races across California, including primary elections for U.S. congressional districts that were recently redistricted. Results for governor, statewide officers such as the attorney general and insurance commissioner, as well as state Senate and Assembly contests are available on this page.

In state-level primary races, the top two finishers will move on to the general election in November. Their names will be indicated with checkmarks once their races are called by the Associated Press.

Initial results are expected shortly after the polls close at 8 p.m.

Every registered voter in the state receives a ballot by mail. To vote by mail, these ballots must be postmarked by June 2. They may take several days to process. Results from provisional and conditional ballots also take longer, and will be added to the tally once they are cleared.

The data on this page updates periodically as results come in from the Associated Press. The secretary of state will certify results in early July.

Governor

The California governor’s race is a tight battle between 24 Democrats , 12 Republicans and 25 candidates from other parties or with no party preference . Half a dozen of which had real support in the polls. The crowded field is vying to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. California has never elected a woman as governor and only once a person of color, making this race potentially historic for the state. The top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of party preference.

Back to top

Statewide races

Back to top

Board of Equalization

Back to top

U.S. House

California’s congressional map was redrawn last year after the passage of Proposition 50. Several seats are expected to flip from red to blue due to Newsom’s redistricting effort. In some cases, districts were moved slightly and incumbents remain unchallenged. However, in one area, lines have been redrawn with no overlap at all with their current boundary: Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District in the Inland Empire was eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. Calvert is now challenging Republican incumbent Young Kim in the 40th District. Both are marked as incumbents on the table below.

The 1st Congressional District — which was redrawn further south to cover portions of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba counties — is holding a special primary election to fill the seat left vacant by Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s death in January.

Back to top

State Senate

Back to top

State Assembly

Back to top

On the ballot this year is an entirely new congressional map.

Redrawn with the passage of Proposition 50, the new districts favor Democrats in November. But those gains aren’t guaranteed. Candidates have to make it through California’s primary, where the top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of party preference.

While many districts shifted only slightly, some Republican districts were split, some Democrat districts were strengthened, and in one district lines were redrawn with no overlap at all with their 2024 boundary.

Several seats are competitive — either with a tight race between Republicans or because the seat is expected to flip from red to blue. With redistricting, only four seats are considered solidly Republican, according to the Cook Political Report, down from the nine GOP seats won in 2024.

The 1st Congressional District — which was redrawn farther south to cover portions of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yuba counties — is one to likely flip.

Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District in the Inland Empire was eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. Calvert is now challenging Republican incumbent Young Kim in the 40th District. Both are marked as incumbents in the results below.

In its new position, the 41st District was carved, in part, out of the previous 38th District. The current representative for the 38th District, Democrat Linda Sánchez, is running in the 41st District and is marked as an incumbent.

Several seats, such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 11th District, are competitive between candidates from differing wings of the Democratic party. While in District 22, Democrats are competing to challenge Republican Rep. David Valadao in a redrawn, Latino-majority swing district.

Also on this page are noncompetitive local districts that may still be of interest to Times’ readers in Southern California.

Not seeing the race you’re looking for? See all of California’s U.S. House races on the statewide election page.

It’s election day in California’s 2026 primary, and you’re headed to the polls — until you realize you’re not sure you’re registered, or fear you might not make it to the vote center on time.

Here are some common election day concerns and challenges and how to end your Tuesday with an “I voted” sticker.

I forgot to register to vote

You can still register to vote on election day as a conditional voter through the same-day voter registration process.

Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process and vote at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers. To register you’ll need to provide a driver’s license, a state identification number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

A complete list of county election office addresses can be found here.

Your submitted ballot will be processed and counted once the county elections office has completed the voter registration verification process.

If you’re unsure about your voter status, you can find your record here by providing some personal information including your date of birth and driver’s license number.

I don’t know where my polling place is

You can find your nearest polling place on the California secretary of state’s website here.

You can also use Los Angeles County’s voter center locator on the registrar-recorder/county clerk website here.

On election day, voting centers are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. across the state.

I can’t submit my mail-in ballot myself

You can have someone else submit your ballot.

Anyone can drop off your mailed ballot as long as you authorize them to do so and they do not get paid on a per-ballot basis, according to the secretary of state.

You and the person you’ve authorized to submit your mailed ballot must fill and sign the outside of the ballot envelope.

I forgot my check-in code for in-person voting

Los Angeles County election officials say you can check in at a vote center by scanning your “quick check-in code” — a number that verifies your voter registration.

Your code can be found on your mailed sample ballot and vote center postcard. Take either of those hard copies to the vote center.

If you forgot the hard copies, you can retrieve the code by verifying your voter registration here. You’ll need to input your last name, birth date, the house number of your residential address and ZIP Code. For assistance call, (800) 815-2666, Option 2.

I want to drop my ballot in a box but fear it’s too late

There are three ways you can submit your mailed ballot on election day:

• You can put it in a ballot drop box. The cutoff time for doing so is 8 p.m., which is also when the polls close on election day.
• Drop it off at a vote center, where the deadline is the same.
• Drop it off at a United States post office. Be sure to get a hand-stamped postmark from a postal employee. Mailed ballots must be postmarked on election day and received no later than seven days after election day.

I think I forgot to sign by mailed ballot envelope

If you failed to sign your vote-by-mail ballot return envelope, your vote will still count.

Your county elections official will notify you by mail, phone or email, according to the secretary of state. You can also be notified by way of the “Where’s My Ballot?” tracking tool if you have signed up for automatic notifications that will ping you if there are issues with your ballot.

Your county elections office will provide you with a form to fill out and return completed.

The form will be given to you two days prior to the day your county certifies the election, so be sure to fill it out and return it to your county elections office right away.

I’m going to be late getting to the polls; can I still vote?

In California, any voter who is in line at 8 p.m. when the polls are scheduled to close is allowed to vote, according to the secretary of state.

If there is a line when the polls close, a poll worker stands at the back of the line to let people who arrive after 8 p.m. know that the polls have closed.

Any voter who arrives after the polls have closed may not be allowed to vote, even if voters who were in line to vote before the polls closed are in the process of voting.

Xavier Becerra’s campaign for California governor appeared doomed just two months ago. Every major opinion poll showed the longtime Democratic politician mired near the bottom of the pack, overshadowed by his flashier or wealthier rivals.

Now Becerra tops them all, according to the most recent opinion polls, emerging as a surprise front-runner in a race that has confounded voters and political experts alike.

Both his loyal supporters and well-financed critics have a hard time explaining Becerra’s rapid ascent, with theories ranging from outright luck to a nefarious social media push. Others credit Becerra’s mild temperament, describing him as a steady figure — the Goldilocks candidate in a field of competitors who weren’t just right.

Becerra, when assessing his sudden rise, believes voters wanted experience, not “glitz and sizzle.”

“Folks put their faith in someone who’s done that kind of work and achieved results, someone who’s taken on real crises and been able to pull us out of them,” Becerra said in an interview Friday after a union rally in the Inland Empire. “Now it’s time to get things done. I think they’re looking for someone who could actually do that.”

Becerra’s team also points to the fortuitous timing of their seven-figure political ad campaign that launched shortly before explosive allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the then-leading Democrat in the race, former Rep. Eric Swalwell. After Swalwell suspended his campaign on April 12, Becerra’s ascent began.

Becerra is backed by 25% of likely California voters, followed by Republican Steve Hilton at 21% and environmental activist Tom Steyer, a fellow Democrat, at 19%, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Two months ago, before Swalwell dropped out of the race, support for Becerra registered at just 5%.

Whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s primary election, Becerra’s surge over the other Democrats in the final sprint of his campaign will be a defining moment of the 2026 governor’s contest.

“It’s almost too good to be true,” said Carrie Webster, a Becerra supporter and Long Beach hairdresser who interviews political candidates on social media using the name “Crowd Source Carrie.”

“He shot through the roof, but it feels like it’s all organic,” said Webster, 49, who said she isn’t paid for her political work.

A Sacramento resident, Becerra, 68, served one term in the state Legislature, more than two decades as a Los Angeles congressman and then as California attorney general, and most recently worked as the secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration.

His only previous statewide race was his 2018 bid for attorney general. In that contest, which he won handily, he had the major advantage of incumbency after being appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown to fill the vacancy caused by then-Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris’ election to the U.S. Senate.

Running for governor has proved to be much more daunting. His top Democratic challengers not only include Steyer, a free-spending billionaire, but also former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, current San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Orange County congresswoman Katie Porter and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

In early March, the chair of the California Democratic Party, Rusty Hicks, urged stuggling candidates to drop out of the race. He feared the crowded field of candidates would splinter the party’s voters and lead to a Republican being elected as the next governor of California.

Under the state’s top-two primary system, only the first- and second-place finishers in the primary advance to the November election, regardless of party. While Hicks did not mention Becerra by name, he was certainly among the struggling candidates at the time.

Until now, Becerra’s splashiest moment was in late March, when he launched a public pressure campaign to boycott a gubernatorial debate hosted by USC after he and other candidates of color were excluded from lineup. University officials based the invites on opinion polls and a controversial campaign fundraising formula. The debate was canceled less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place.

Then came the allegations against Swalwell, which prompted nationwide interest in the otherwise sleepy California governor’s race. Political data strategist Paul Mitchell compared the moment to a dramatic scene midway into a “Real Housewives” season.

“Finally, somebody flipped a table, threw wine on somebody else, and all the voters started paying attention,” he said.

Alf LaMont worked for Swalwell’s team as a digital communications expert until his firm quit on April 10 following news reports about the allegations against the East Bay Democratic congressman.

LaMont said he was “doomscrolling” that same night when he saw an “organic, random” push for Becerra on Threads and other social media sites. LaMont said he immediately called Becerra’s campaign team and signed up to work for him.

Webster, the Long Beach content creator, also noticed the online buzz about Becerra.

“People were saying, ‘Let’s print out yard signs, T-shirts,’” Webster said. “Or someone would say, ‘I’m going to start Gen X for Becerra,’ or ‘I’m going to start Millennials for Becerra.’”

The push was so noticeable that Steyer’s campaign hired an intelligence agency with ties to a major Israeli firm to study the trend.

The agency’s report found about 3,000 fake accounts that amplified Becerra across social media platforms X, Facebook and Instagram while also criticizing Steyer, according to Steyer’s team. In all, the fake accounts generated 1.3 million views and 42,000 engagements, the report stated.

Steyer spokesperson Kevin Liao alleged a coordinated network from Becerra’s team or his supporters. Becerra’s campaign denied any role and dismissed the influence of the fake accounts.

Earlier opinion polls also offer a possible explanation for Becerra’s rise.

Even as he remained stuck behind other candidates in support among voters, Becerra’s favorability ratings versus his unfavorability ratings were better than rivals, including Porter and Villaraigosa.

Swalwell also had high favorability ratings, and when he dropped out, Becerra was “seen as the least objectionable of the candidates that were remaining,” Mitchell said.

The UC Berkeley Institute poll released Thursday shows more likely voters viewed Becerra favorably (44%) than unfavorably (38%). By contrast, 39% of voters viewed Steyer favorably and 43% unfavorably.

Becerra’s campaign credits part of his April surge to good fortune. His team unleashed a large advertising buy — a major chunk of his remaining campaign funds — placing spots on cable TV and online beginning in late March.

The timing was opportune given the chaos caused by Swalwell.

Becerra’s ads depicted him as calm and experienced. One showed him speaking to a diverse group of young people about his record of challenging President Trump, suing his administration more than 100 times when he served as attorney general, and his plan to bring down the cost of living for “the next generation.”

At the same time, LaMont’s team — which also is behind Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political communications — created a more “earthy” and “grassroots” look to Becerra’s campaign ads and messaging. Words like “Tio” and “carne asada” emphasized the candidate’s Latino heritage.

Polls done in the wake of Swalwell’s exit showed Becerra gaining ground.

Special interest groups, including California Medical Assn., which had supported Swalwell, switched to Becerra. A well-financed, independent political committee campaigning against Steyer — an effort intended to benefit Swalwell — also moved over to Becerra. Major corporations, including Chevron, Meta and McDonald’s, lined up next.

Becerra appeared unprepared for the speed at which voters and others gravitated toward him. He stammered through hastily filmed videos asking for small-dollar donations as his campaign sought to convert the new interest around him into donors.

He appeared stiff during his first post-Swalwell debate appearance; he mistakenly referred to Trump’s “war in Iraq” instead of Iran during his first answer and fended off the first of many attacks to come during an April 22 debate. During a sit-down interview with a KTLA-TV reporter in Los Angeles in early May, Becerra went immediately on the defensive — questioning whether it was a “gotcha piece.”

Still, people flocked to town halls, including one in Oxnard in May, where he leaned into his “bad dad joke” persona. He greeted the large crowd with his corny, familiar line, “Did you think you were coming to a Bad Bunny concert?”

Oxnard audience member Rose Castren, 68, told The Times she liked Becerra’s “calm and reassuring” style. The retired nurse watched the CNN debate in early May, where the candidates piled on Becerra to try to undercut his momentum.

“The other candidates seemed to be coming unglued,” she said. “And he didn’t.”

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Reporting from Sacramento — Paul Taybi is part of the 1.5%.

The 59-year-old retired founder of a data analysis company from El Cerrito is among that percentage of the wealthiest Californians paying the higher income tax rates that voters approved four years ago.

Now, with those rates set to expire, a coalition of teacher and service worker unions, medical groups and others are pushing Proposition 55, a ballot measure that would extend these higher taxes on the the highest earners through 2030.

Taybi isn’t happy about it. He said he plans to raise rents in the four Bay Area properties his family owns and ultimately move out of state in the coming years if the measure passes.

“I have no problem paying more taxes than a poor person does,” Taybi said. “But we’ve reached the point where my behavior has changed. It will change more. And a lot of people like me will say, ‘That’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.’”

If voters approve Proposition 55, the state will continue depending on Taybi and other wealthy Californians to fund a significant portion of schools, parks, road repairs, police, prisons and many other government services. Those paying the higher rates, which kick in for single and joint filers making more than $263,000 and $526,000 a year respectively, contributed almost $34 billion in income taxes in 2014, roughly a third of all state general fund revenue.

California’s reliance on the wealthiest taxpayers means the state is especially vulnerable to their bottom lines.

When presenting this year’s revised budget plan in May, Gov. Jerry Brown carried with him a chart titled, “Unpredictable Capital Gains,” noting how the state’s revenues were highly dependent on booms and busts in the economy. California’s finances, he said, are a “zig-zag reality.”

“In order to manage this budget,” Brown said, “it’s like riding a tiger.”

In the same presentation, Brown estimated that if Proposition 55 didn’t pass, the state would have a budget deficit in the next three years, which could lead to a new round of cuts in education, health and social services programs.

Updates from Sacramento »

Though much more muted than before, the basic message is the same as it was in 2012.

Back then, the state remained at the height of a prolonged budget crisis. Brown and other proponents warned of massive cuts unless voters passed Proposition 30. The measure primarily raised income tax rates by 1% to 3% for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Under Proposition 30, the current tax rate is 10.3% for single filers earning between $263,000 and $316,000 in annual taxable income, 11.3% for those between $316,000 and $526,000, 12.3% for those between $526,000 and $1 million and 13.3% for those earning $1 million or more. The final 1% at the highest tax rate goes toward a mental-health fund that’s been recently retooled to pay for a $2-billion bond to help house the homeless.

Brown and other supporters pitched Proposition 30 as a Band-aid to carry the state through the worst of its financial calamities. Those higher income tax rates are set to expire in 2018. If Proposition 55 passes, the higher rates would be in place for 18 years.

The governor hasn’t taken a formal position on Proposition 55 and maintains he could balance the budget with or without it.

“I said it was temporary when I started, when I got Prop. 30 passed — I helped to pass it — and I think I’ll leave it there,” Brown said at the May budget presentation.

Some high earners who voted for Proposition 30 now say they’re opposed to the new measure because they were promised that the tax hikes would expire.

“I’m just incensed because I feel like a sucker,” said Martin Schwartz, 63, an electronics repair store owner in Chatsworth, who has paid the higher rates.

But supporters of the measure argue that the state’s still shaky revenues justify continuing to tax those in the top income brackets at higher rates.

“Have we stopped bleeding since 2012? Yes, but the problem still exists,” said Shay Lohman, president of the teacher’s union in the Rowland Unified School District in Los Angeles County. “The wound is still there.”

Increased tax revenues have also brought significant benefits. Since Proposition 30 passed, Lohman’s district brought back an elementary school music program that had been cut during the recession and is planning to start a dual-language Mandarin-English program next year, he said.

“Money has allowed something like that to happen,” Lohman said.

Though the income tax provisions are the same, Proposition 55 has some differences from Proposition 30. The new initiative does not extend a quarter-cent sales tax hike set to expire at the end of the year. It directs more of the money to the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program for low-income residents. The measure will raise $4 billion to $9 billion a year, depending on the economy and stock market, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The campaigns for Propositions 30 and 55 are different as well. Four years ago, business and taxpayer groups mounted a robust effort, spending millions, including running television advertisements, to oppose the tax and support a second, unrelated ballot measure.

This time, opponents have only raised $3,000, according to the state campaign finance reports, while supporters have collected almost $53 million, primarily from the California Assn. of Hospitals and California Teachers Assn.

In pro-Proposition 55 television advertisements, advocates including state Controller Betty Yee argue the measure will prevent education cuts without raising taxes.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found 57% of registered voters were in favor of the measure. The poll even found support from a majority of those making more than $100,000 a year.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter

ALSO

Can Gov. Jerry Brown keep the promises he made with Proposition 30?

Gov. Jerry Brown sends lawmakers revised California budget with less money to spend on new programs

Voters will likely be asked for 12 more years of higher income taxes on the wealthy

With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.

But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.

Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.

Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.

As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.

The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.

“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”

California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.

In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.

Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.

But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.

“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”

After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.

In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.

As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.

Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.

The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.

However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.

Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.

Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.

Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.

As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.

Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.

Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

Reporting from Washington — California is confronting the limits of its power to save federal environmental protections as Congress and the Trump administration take aim at a landmark law the state has relied on for decades to clean the air of noxious smog.

A push by Republicans to roll back parts of the Clean Air Act would affect California more than any other state, rattling its lawmakers and regulators. And their legal authority to pick up the fight against California’s smog on their own is constrained.

The House last month passed a bill fiercely opposed by doctors and public health groups, including the American Lung Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that would delay for years new anti-pollution standards aimed at ultimately preventing 160,000 childhood asthma attacks and as many as 220 premature deaths in California each year.

The Trump administration had already tried using regulatory authority to put the standards on hold for a year, but walked back that action Wednesday after California and 14 other states filed suit against the delay.

The bill advancing in Congress would go much further, permanently upending the way restrictions are imposed on the ozone and small particulate matter that make up smog. No longer would regulators base decisions solely on scientific findings about what level of smog is safe to breathe. The potential cost to business would for the first time loom large in setting limits, and ultimately guide such things as when people with breathing problems are warned to stay indoors.

“It would be disastrous to do this,” said Jared Blumenfeld, former regional director of the federal Environmental Protection Agency for California and other Western states.

“The Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful and revered public health measures taken anywhere on the planet. Everyone from China to India to European nations came to my office and said, ‘How do we achieve these kinds of gains?’ This all originated in Los Angeles at a time the air was so bad it led to the creation of the EPA.”

Many state lawmakers agree, and they are vowing to keep California in compliance with the Clean Air Act as it exists now — regardless of what happens in Washington. But that turns out to be a promise not easily kept.

“This is not an easy switch whereby Congress gets rid of the standard, and California just puts it back in place,” Blumenfeld said.

Some of the most damaging pollution released inside California’s borders can only be controlled by federal regulators. Among California’s biggest concerns is what is spewed from the exhaust pipes of trucks traveling through the state that are not subject to its strict emissions rules. Such fumes account for 60% of such heavy truck pollution.

The EPA has been under pressure to toughen federal rules for trucks to enable California to meet its obligations under the act. The state and EPA have also been working on research into new technologies to clean truck emissions.

Even if the industry-friendly Trump administration slows down those efforts, the act empowers states and activists to impose pressure on the EPA in court.

But that would change under the measure passed by the House, HR 806, which would weaken the air quality standards now motivating federal action.

“We need EPA to continue to move ahead aggressively,” said Kurt Karperos, deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board. “It has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to take action.… We are concerned this would be used as a justification to slow down.”

The pushback against the Clean Air Act in Congress is rooted in complaints, often driven by industry, that the EPA under the Obama administration set standards for air quality that are impossible to reach without harming economies in places that are already struggling, like California’s Central Valley, home to some of the worst air in the nation.

Among the most effective allies for Republicans pushing to weaken standards is the head of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which regulates 25,000 square miles. It is home to 4 million Californians, who struggle with smoggy air and soaring asthma rates.

Seyed Sadredin, the district’s executive director, said there is only so much his agency is empowered to do, and now it faces severe federal sanctions for emissions from cars and trucks it has no authority to regulate.

Sadredin recently told Congress that local businesses will soon be prevented from expanding and big highway projects forfeited under Clean Air Act sanctions the valley faces — even after the region has done everything in its power to control pollution with some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

“It all sounds nice and noble when you look down to the valley from the outside,” he said of the tough federal standards. “If you are with the elite crowd, you might say, ‘Let’s punish the valley for something they have no control over.’ We are talking real-life impact in a place suffering from double-digit unemployment, poverty, malnutrition. This has a real impact on our people. It is not just an academic argument.”

The San Joaquin board limited its support of the House measure to the part that would exempt air districts from sanctions in certain circumstances. A public outcry moved it to back away from its push to force the EPA to consider economic impacts in determining what air is safe to breathe.

But the economic impact language is still part of the House bill that the San Joaquin board helped get passed, creating no small measure of tension between Sadredin and other air quality experts who say his dire warnings served to benefit agriculture and drilling interests averse to stricter rules.

The valley is not going to lose big highway projects and businesses if it can’t control truck and car pollution it has no authority to regulate, according to state air regulators. But it will be pushed in the areas where it does have control, they say, including cutting pollution from oil and gas wells, and residential and agricultural burning.

“It is absolutely not in the cards,” Karperos said of the punishment Sadredin warns will befall the valley in coming years under current clean air rules. A good faith plan by the valley to further reduce emissions in the places it can would protect it from such sanctions, he said. But that plan will require more action by a region resistant to it.

“There are feasible strategies,” Karperos said. “The threat of sanctions is a red herring.”

Times staff writer Tony Barboza contributed to this report.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

High-speed rail backers lose another round in court

Oil companies outspent environmentalists during California’s climate change negotiations

Trump’s Cabinet seeks spiritual guidance from minister with a dim view of female politicians

With average gas prices topping $6 in Los Angeles, it can be painful to watch your fuel gauge creep toward “E” during a day out around town. It’s time to stop the car and walk. And where better to do that than in the most walkable city in California?

For more than a decade, West Hollywood has been designated a “Walkers Paradise” by Walk Score, earning a 91 out of 100 on the popular walkability index that looks at distance to amenities, pedestrian friendliness, population density and road metrics. The small city within a city scores two points above the state’s second most walkable city, San Francisco. It’s also a full 22 points above Los Angeles, which has a middling score of 69.

But you don’t need a formula to know that West Hollywood’s well-maintained sidewalks dotted with cafes, shops and historic sites is a great place for walking. Take a stroll around the city and you can find out for yourself.

That’s what I did on a recent Friday afternoon, where I met locals like Kimberly Beauchaine out in the neighborhood — yes — walking. “We really don’t use our car here,” Beauchaine said, pushing her 18-month old in a stroller past the Pacific Design Center on Melrose Avenue. “It’s very walkable and very central.”

Alex Uihlein and Kimberly Beauchaine walk down Melrose Avenue with their 18-month-old on their way to the West Hollywood Aquatic & Recreation Center.

(Scott Strazzante / For The Times)

While West Hollywood is easy to navigate on foot, getting there without a car can be a challenge. The closest Metro stop is along the just-opened D-line on Wilshire Boulevard, a two-mile hike from the West Hollywood border. Fortunately, West Hollywood has ample public parking. I found a spot in a public lot on North San Vincente Boulevard, where I paid $12 for the whole day.

The hardest part about planning a fun day in West Hollywood might be choosing a place to start. According to Walk Score, there are about 339 restaurants, bars and coffee shops in the city and you can walk to an average of 13 of them in 5 minutes.

I asked Eric Parker, director of PR and communications for the city of West Hollywood, why there’s such an abundance of spots to eat and drink in the tiny city. He explained that West Hollywood serves not just residents who live within its borders but also the many folks who live in the residential neighborhood of the Hollywood Hills.

“They need a place to live their lives too,” he said. “Beverly Hills has become a little jam-packed with tourists, so West Hollywood has become the heart of L.A. in many ways.”

My journey began at the Butcher’s Daughter on Melrose Avenue, a cheerful and bright plant-forward cafe a few blocks from where I parked my car. The croissant I ordered was fine, but the atmosphere was lovely — open and airy with a communal wood table inside and green and white bistro chairs outside. Pedestrians of all ages strolled by on the wide flat sidewalks, many with small dogs in tow. Trees along the street offered dappled shade, and there were several other cute restaurants nearby, many with outdoor spaces of their own.

Adisa Aditheparot, left, and Mari Muay enjoy a light lunch at the Butcher’s Daughter on Melrose Avenue after walking over from a nearby Pilates class.

(Scott Strazzante / For The Times)

Moving on from the Butcher’s Daughter I headed one block east to the corner of Melrose and San Vincente to take in the rolling lawns and massive green, red and blue glass buildings of the 14-acre Pacific Design Center, which first opened to the public in 1975 and currently houses nearly 100 showrooms. Across the street on San Vincente, I strolled past the excellent West Hollywood Library, the luxurious rooftop West Hollywood Public Pool, and the green expanse of West Hollywood Park where young children were shrieking on the playground.

The vibe shifted as I continued north toward Santa Monica Boulevard. Here, the city’s identity as a gay haven was in full view. The crosswalks were painted with stripes and triangles celebrating the full range of queer identity and although the many colorful bars were quiet on this early Friday afternoon, it was easy to imagine them filled with revelers after the sun set. On the weekends, a free bus runs down this street every 15 minutes, connecting the Troubadour to Formosa Cafe. The area felt fun and funky, but I was only passing through, determined to get to my next destination.

To be fair, walking in West Hollywood is not ideal for everyone. After having lived in Boston, New York and Santa Monica, Sean Patrick Gallagher points out that the hills are real.

“It’s walkable if you are walking east to west,” said Gallagher, who has lived in the city for two years. “If you have to venture north or south, you are destined to hit inclines that are not for every able body.”

Pedestrian traffic outside Book Soup on Sunset Boulevard.

(Scott Strazzante / For The Times)

At the same time, daily conveniences are generally in easy walking distance for many residents. “Most people in West Hollywood can walk to the gym, the grocery store and the laundromat,” he said. “There are enough things on each street that cater to your needs.”

Parker describes West Hollywood as a place where history is hidden in plain sight. I certainly felt that as I passed onto the quiet, shaded streets of Norma Triangle, a historic neighborhood in West Hollywood where Dorothy Parker and Christopher Isherwood once lived. The sidewalks here are more narrow but well maintained, and the streets are filled with locals walking dogs of all sizes. The homes and apartment buildings, many of which date to the mid-20th century, are beautifully landscaped and clearly tended to with care, but I was searching for one in particular — the Lloyd Wright Home and Studio, designed in 1927 by Frank Lloyd Wright’s eldest son who also worked as an architect.

The house was not a disappointment. It’s not open to the public, so I was only able to see the exterior, but it was worth it. The desert landscaping on the corner lot is on point and the building itself, a two-story space that makes use of the organic textile-block pattern popularized by Lloyd Wright’s father, has a unique interlocking design of stylized Joshua Trees. I loved it. It’s also located in deep shade, which is very welcome on a hot day.

With that done, I made my way up to Sunset Boulevard, which is loud and unshaded and not nearly as pleasant a place to walk as some of West Hollywood’s more green and leafy streets. However, there are some cultural landmarks here that I felt should not be missed along with a surge of oval-eyed delivery robots (seriously, so many). This is the famous Sunset Strip where you’ll find the Roxy Theatre, the Whisky a Go Go and the Viper Room. All very cool, but this writer was most excited about getting to spend some time in Book Soup, the iconic bookstore with a real-life magazine stand outside that celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. Down a narrow alley right next door is the more esoteric Mystery Pier Books, which specializes in first editions and is beloved by celebrities.

Taking a walk down Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood.

(Scott Strazzante / For The Times)

I had ambitious plans to amble past more spots in West Hollywood. More than one friend suggested I go to Mamie on Sunset and Fairfax for Italian sandwiches (the focaccia is supposed to be amazing). I considered ending my day at the perfect patio at Chateau Marmont on the border of the Hollywood Hills. But reader, I was tired, and walkability is not about exhausting yourself. It’s about enjoying your time car-free. So instead, I headed back toward where I started, walking past the high-end shops of Melrose Place before arriving at Zinque for a simple prosciutto and cornichon sandwich and an Arnold Palmer. At 4 p.m., a waiter came past my table to tell me happy hour had officially begun and asked if I’d like a drink.

There is more than one reason why it makes sense to live in a walkable community.

California’s population will grow more slowly in the next few decades than it has in the past — and that is good for the state’s still-struggling economy, according to a new USC report.

The study projects that the state’s population, now 37.3 million, will continue to increase at a healthy clip — about 1% annually — for years to come. But at least through 2050, we are unlikely to see the boom rates of recent decades, especially the 1980s.

“This is more manageable growth and that’s good news for California,” said Dowell Myers, a USC demography and urban planning professor who co-wrote the report with colleague John Pitkin. “We’re returning to a more normal rate of growth.”

The cooling pace means the state, city and county governments and other entities will have more time to prepare for a bigger population than they did in years past, allowing for more effective planning, Myers and other experts said. That could ensure that new roads and parks, for example, are put in areas where they are most needed and where growth is likely to be sustained, they said.

The researchers said the slowdown will mainly stem from a sharp drop in immigration to California, part of a nationwide trend detailed in other recent studies.

Although the slower pace of growth may be a net positive for California, it will require revisions to an array of public and private plans, including for schools, water projects, transportation, hospitals, highways and other infrastructure.

“Those of us who’ve been here for a while think of California as a place that’s grow, grow, grow — and go, go, go — but this shows that we’re not that anymore,” Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of California, said of the USC study released Tuesday. “We’re now more typical of the rest of the nation.”

Johnson noted that the brakes on California’s growth were evident in the 2010 census, after which, for the first time, the state failed to gain a new seat in Congress.

The report, the third in a series of projections by USC’s Population Dynamics Research Group, predicts that California’s population will grow at less than 10% per decade for the next several decades.

In the 1980s, the state’s population surged nearly 26%, adding about 6 million residents. The increases were fueled primarily by the booming aerospace industry and economic problems elsewhere in the country, which made the Golden State a powerful magnet for job seekers.

In the 1990s, the state’s growth rate fell to 14% but remained strong. It slowed further, to 10%, in the decade just ended, the USC report shows. Myers said the continuing falloff from 2000 to 2010 may have been partly due to the recession that began in 2008. Growth was slow even in 2005, when the economy was still strong.

The new predictions differ significantly from California’s official population projections. Those show that the state’s population by 2020 would reach 44 million, a level USC’s researchers now say will not be attained until 2028.

Bill Schooling, chief of demographics research for the state department of finance, praised the USC report and said his staff, too, is working on a new set of population figures, which he says will be lower than its previous estimates. Schooling’s office is racing to produce the new estimates ahead of its regularly scheduled report because demographic changes are so profound that state agencies urgently need fresh data to update their planning.

The USC analysis also predicts that as California’s growth slows, its population will change in various ways. The state in coming decades is expected to have more senior citizens, fewer children and more young adults. The state’s immigrant population will be more settled, with a larger share that has lived in the U.S. at least 20 years.

Each change has implications, the experts said.

The average age of the state’s population, as in the nation, is rising, partly driven by the aging of the huge baby boom generation, whose oldest members were born in 1946 and are of retirement age. The USC researchers say the number of Californians of retirement age compared with people of prime working age (25- to 64-year-olds) will rise to 36 seniors per 100 working-age adults in 2030. It stood at 22 to 100 in 2010.

As the boomers age, they will require more state services and that will create budget challenges, Johnson noted. Also significant is the loss of their workforce skills to the state, he said. Baby boomers are California’s most highly educated generation, he said, with a greater share having graduated from college than younger or older age groups.

A smaller population of children in years to come means savings for the state, mainly in education costs. It could lead to higher per capita spending for the education of those who remain, Johnson said.

The rising share of young adults age 25 to 34 in the next 20 years is good news for the state, which experienced negative growth for that age group from 1990 to 2010, Myers said. Young adults are crucial for the state’s economic growth. They are most likely to become new workers, rent their first apartment, buy a home, have children and be first-time voters, he said.

California’s increasingly settled immigrant population means that its members are more likely than before to have learned English, have children born in the U.S. and remain in the state, Johnson said.

“It’s important for us as a state to make sure immigrants and their families are integrated into our society and are successful, so it’s really important to look to their education,” he said. “The biggest challenge California faces long term is to ensure that enough of our residents go to college, and to make sure they graduate.”

rebecca.trounson@latimes.com

May 19 (UPI) — The Sandy Fire in Simi Valley, Calif., has spread across more than 1,300 acres Tuesday, putting thousands of people under evacuation orders.

The fire started as a brush fire on Monday morning but spread quickly due to heavy wind gusts. At least one home has been burned.

The California Department of Forest and Fire Protection said Monday night that “fire activity has decreased significantly” due to calmer winds and higher humidity.

“California is mobilizing resources to support Ventura County communities threatened by the Sandy Fire,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “This activation will ensure responders have the support needed to continue protecting lives and homes as dangerous fire conditions persist. We are deeply grateful to the crews on the front lines and urge Californians in impacted areas to follow guidance from local officials.”

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Fire crews continue to battle the blaze with 750 firefighters working overnight attempting to contain it.

As of 6:11 a.m. PDT on Tuesday the fire had torn through 1,386 acres with zero containment.

No casualties or civilian injuries have been reported.

“We have made tremendous progress on this fire,” said Andrew Dowd, Ventura County Fire Department spokesperson. “Zero percent containment, don’t let that number fool you. A lot of great work has been done.”

An emergency shelter is open at Rancho Santa Susana Community Park in Simi Valley for people needing somewhere to stay overnight.

The Simi Valley Unified School District has closed all schools on Tuesday due to the fire. On Tuesday afternoon, it will determine if schools will reopen on Wednesday.