debate

SAN FRANCISCO — As Californians cast ballots in the most unsettled governor’s race in recent history, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat surging in the polls, once again took most of the heat during a contentious debate among the top candidates for California governor.

Becerra’s rapid rise as the top Democrat in the race was greeted on stage by a fusillade of political attacks from rival Democrats and Republicans, notably regarding his former campaign manager’s guilty plea to federal corruption charges hours before the clash.

Then came accusations that he wavered on support for single-payer healthcare, and failed to stem healthcare and unemployment fraud while serving as California’s attorney general.

“This is what happens when you take the lead in the polls and you’re ahead of everyone else. They all come at you,” Becerra said. “I get it. So they have to try to beat you down. This is a great Trump tactic that’s used. I didn’t expect it to come from fellow Democrats.”

“With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Becerra later said.

The face-off took place at a critical moment before the June 2 primary. Republican voters appear to be consolidating behind Hilton, who was endorsed by President Trump, while Becerra and billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer are favored most by Democrats.

From left, Katie Porter, Chad Bianco, Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra at Thursday’s debate.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Pool via Associated Press)

Up for grabs

As ballots land in mailboxes, California voters are finally tuning in to the race to lead the nation’s most populous state and fourth-largest economy in the world. Thursday’s 90-minute CBS debate may have been the final opportunity for candidates to directly address large numbers of voters.

Until now, scandal drew the most attention to the contest, as former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), once an establishment favorite and nominal front-runner, dropped out in April amid allegations of sexual assault and misconduct

Five Democrats — Becerra, Steyer, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — and two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former conservative commentator Steve Hilton — clashed about affordability, housing, public safety, climate, education and healthcare. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, a Democrat, failed to reach the polling threshold to qualify for the debate.

CBS News Bay Area reporter Ryan Yamamoto, CBS News Los Angeles reporter Tom Wait, and San Francisco Examiner Editor-in-Chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas moderated the face-off in front of nearly 200 people at the historic Julia Morgan Ballroom in San Francisco’s Financial District, with sweeping views of the city.

The opulent Beaux-Arts venue contrasted with the tense confrontations among the candidates that underscored Becerra’s swift rise among Democrats in the field after Swalwell dropped out of the race. Even before the face-off, his Democratic rivals began ramping up their focus on Becerra.

Becerra under attack

The candidate faced a barrage of attacks over a string of unfavorable publicity this week, including a widely circulated exchange with a KTLA reporter in which the Democratic candidate asked, “This is a profile piece, this is not a gotcha piece, right?”

Earlier Thursday, his former campaign manager Dana Williamson, who also spent time as Newsom’s chief of staff, pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges alleging she and Becerra’s former top advisor were among those who illegally siphoned $225,000 from Becerra’s campaign accounts.

Although Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing, that did not temper criticism from his political rivals during Thursday’s debate. They questioned his judgment and said Becerra should have noticed where his money was going.

Hilton said Becerra should be preparing his own criminal defense, rather than running for governor. Porter warned that damning evidence against Becerra could come out later — which, if he finishes as the top Democrat in the primary election, could undercut his campaign and lead to a Republican being elected California’s next governor.

Becerra defended himself, pointing out that federal prosecutors never accused him of being involved and stated that none of the candidates for governor were implicated in scandal.

Democrats also painted Becerra as a leader who allowed fraud and mismanagement to fester under his watch.

“He wasn’t minding the shop” as state attorney general, Mahan said, pointing to fraudulent unemployment and hospice claims early in the COVID-19 pandemic. “I mean, the Biden administration had to sideline him during COVID. This is not good leadership.”

Matt Mahan, left, is polling in the single digits and made a last-ditch effort to leave an imprint during Thursday’s debate.

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Godofredo A. Vásquez/pool Ap Via Ap)

Major focus on kitchen table issues, a critical concern among voters

Affordability was a major theme in the debate, which included an introductory video of a single mother struggling to fill her gas tank and buy groceries.

Steyer said he would reduce costs by taking on special interests and bringing about structural change and breaking up monopolies.

“I am the person who will tax the billionaires like me, and the big corporations so we can afford to make the changes” to pay for healthcare and great education, he said.

Mahan said the answer was to “put more money in people’s pockets by bringing down costs,” and that that would not occur under either Steyer or Hilton.

“Tom Steyer’s structural change sounds to me more like socialism. His plans literally would double the size of state government,” Mahan said. “That’s not going to drive affordability. Steve Hilton is touting his Donald Trump endorsements. You’ve got tariffs and wars driving up costs.”

Hilton returned fire: “I love the way Matt talks about how he’s going to lower costs when his city was recently rated the most expensive, the least affordable for housing, in the world.”

Daylight between Republicans about climate change

The Republican candidates avoided attacking each other during the debates, offering compliments instead. But the two split when asked about whether climate change was having a real-world impact.

Bianco said California is destroying itself with its environmental policies.

“Of course we can say that temperatures are increasing,” he said, but he also said he was not “naive” enough to think that humans can affect or control the climate, which has been changing since he was a child, and that California has to stop all the environmental regulations that are “activist related” and destroying the state’s economy.

Tom Steyer spoke Thursday of affordability, a hot-button issue: “I am the person who will tax the billionaires like me.”

(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Pool via Associated Press)

Hilton said he believes in climate change but that California needs to have “common sense” on the issue rather than ideological responses. He said it is “of course” right to want clean water and air but that policies in California are not working — as has been made clear by the recent “mega-fires” in the state.

The Democrats on stage were closely aligned on the need to respond to the climate crisis and ensure that environmental protections are not dismantled by the Trump administration.

Last-ditch efforts by struggling candidates

Candidates in the crowded field who have struggled to break through — centrist Democrats Mahan and Villaraigosa, who have languished in the single digits in the polls — made a last-ditch effort to leave an imprint during Thursday’s gathering.

Mahan went after nearly every candidate on the stage in the opening moments of the debate.

“The change we need is rooted in accountability for results,” Mahan said. “It’s not the change billionaire Tom Steyer’s offering, which is higher taxes and bigger government. It’s not the change Fox News talking head Steve Hilton’s offering — fear, division and more Donald Trump. And let’s be honest, Xavier Becerra is not offering change; he’s the embodiment of the status quo.”

Villaraigosa leaned heavily into his experiences leading Los Angeles and in the state Assembly to argue that he was most qualified to lead the state while castigating his fellow Democrats’ policies.

“This is a state with big challenges, the challenge of affordability, the challenge of healthcare, homelessness, and dirty streets and crime-filled streets,” Villaraigosa said. “The fact is, I’m the only candidate on this stage who, in addition to hitting Donald Trump, which I do, have challenged us, challenged this party, and said, ‘Hold it, a lot of the problems that we face have come from Sacramento policies.’ We need someone with the courage to take on Donald Trump, but also take on our friends when they’re wrong. I’ve had a record of doing that.”

Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Nixon from San Francisco.

For the sixth and final time before votes are counted, the leading contenders for California governor gathered Thursday night for a televised debate, this one a 90-minute session in San Francisco.

Times columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria absorbed the rhetorical blows, followed the heated back-and-forths and took in each and every one of the candidates’ myriad policy prescriptions. Here’s their assessment:

Arellano: Near the end of the debate, co-moderator and San Francisco Examiner editor-in-chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas groaned as candidates talked over each other while trying to answer a question that was supposed to elicit a yes or no response.

That’s pretty much how California voters have reacted to this primary.

In an era where politics are far too often about choosing the least worst option, voters in this election are left with the political version of the Angels baseball team.

No candidate has polled higher than 20-some percent — a testament to how many are in the running, but also an indication that none of them has truly captured the zeitgeist of today’s California.

This year’s debates have done little to catapult anyone to the top, and tonight was more of the same. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for, and no one inspired me to side with them. No one offered a clear vision of how they would pull Californians out of a spiritual malaise that has so many of us leaving the state, or thinking about leaving.

Instead, what I heard too many of the candidates evoke was the glories of the past — their past.

Antonio Villaraigosa’s closing remarks made a mantra out of “Dream with me,” a slogan he used back when he was L.A. mayor — that was 13 years ago.

Xavier Becerra bragged about how he stood up to President Trump as California attorney general — that was five years ago.

Katie Porter pulled out a white notebook with something written on it and directly challenged Becerra to answer a question — a callback to her time as a congressmember grilling people on Capitol Hill with a whiteboard and a marker, which she first made famous seven years ago.

The two Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, spoke of a halcyon California destroyed by feckless Democrats and vowed a return to those days.

The only candidates who didn’t live in the past were San José Mayor Matt Mahan and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer — but they seemed particularly out of their league, with Steyer too often looking down at notes instead of speaking off the cuff with his well-rehearsed populist pluck.

The word “nostalgia” first emerged to describe what doctors back then considered a malady, thinking it unwise to long for the past. It’s a concept historically antithetical to California, long boosted as the land of today and tomorrow by everyone from the Mission fathers to orange barons, developers to politicians. Indeed, nostalgia has sometimes been a dangerous factor in California politics, unleashing the Spanish fantasy heritage movement, Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and all sorts of other nonsense.

The two candidates who advance to the general election would be wise to offer Californians a hope for the future that doesn’t call back to our yesterdays. For now, the only real winners are the political consultants, and the only real losers are Californians, because we still don’t know for sure that any of the candidates can make things better.

All we can expect is that they’ll turn things for the worse.

Barabak: A popular expression — which Steyer mentioned — defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

By that measure, was the audience for Thursday night’s throwdown insane? Masochistic? Or a group of high-minded, dutiful, quite-conscientious California voters?

The leading gubernatorial candidates have been at this so long that they’re like actors in a stage troupe, delivering well-rehearsed lines, or an old band getting together to play their greatest hits, though far less melodious.

Among those reprising familiar roles were Steyer as the boastful billionaire; Bianco as the angry white avenger; Hilton as the chipper doomsayer; Mahan as the kid brother insinuating his way into the conversation; Porter as the left-wing tribune promising a progressive Valhalla; and Villaraigosa as the old political war horse.

Once more, Becerra was the focal point of attacks, befitting his newfound status as the candidate to beat. “This is what happens when you take the lead in polls,” he rightly noted.

And so rivals again assailed Becerra’s performance as state attorney general and Health and Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. They accused of him being a shill for Big Oil. They tried, implying guilt-through-association, to rope Becerra into the scandal involving his former aides who embezzled from a dormant campaign account.

(Becerra, crisper and more lively than he’s previously been, noted that prosecutors in the case have described him as a victim and not a perpetrator or co-conspirator.)

It’s hard to see all the jostling and thrown elbows making a huge difference. The promises made and attacks scattered like buckshot on the San Francisco soundstage all seem much less important than the numbers that show up in opinion polls between now and Election Day.

Many Democrats, spooked by the prospect of their party being frozen out in June’s top-two primary, have been clinging to their ballots, intending to vote at the last moment for whichever Democrat appears likeliest to finish first.

In that way, the race seems to be shaping up as less a competition than a self-fulfilling prophecy. And Thursday night’s performance, while not wholly irrelevant, was just another television rerun broadcast to a less-than-mass audience.

Chabria: Here’s what I’ll say about Thursday night: It was a debate. The old-school kind where everybody is mostly well-behaved and polite, and the audience scrolls on their phones to stay awake.

The candidates themselves seemed low-energy, even with their jabs — which were largely directed at Becerra, as Mark said.

But no sparks also means we have more clarity. Barring an Eric Swalwell-style blow-up, the top three — Becerra, Steyer and Hilton — are really the only true contenders.

But I’ll give a shout-out to Porter, who had her best performance to date with answers that were clear and laid out policy with detail. Still, I fear it’s too little, too late.

Becerra, on the other hand, seemed subdued to the point of flat (sorry, Mark, he came off crisp like a week-old apple to me) often relying on the line that he sued Trump more than a hundred times as attorney general of California during Trump’s first term. I’m not sure that’s inspiring, though it did lead to some court victories.

Granted, Becerra has had a hard week, with a gaffe with a reporter that went viral and a plea deal by a former aide in that case of money misappropriated from his dormant campaign account. It’s not clear yet if voters care about either of those glitches — but if they stick in people’s minds, that could open a path for Steyer to scrape up the small margin he needs to get through the primary.

But Thursday night also did little to help Steyer’s cause — or hurt it. He made some clear, forceful points that positioned him as the changemaker progressive, especially around his policies on moving away from fossil fuels. He also had some convoluted answers that didn’t land. He didn’t give undecided voters much to work with.

I’ll end with one answer from Hilton that women should pay attention to: He said that if elected, he would allow California abortion providers to be extradited to states such as Louisiana to face criminal charges for mailing abortion medications.

Women across the U.S. now must rely on states such as California for any access to abortion care. Hilton’s position is not just bad for California but presents a risk to women everywhere.

For me, that answer should disqualify him for the highest office in our pro-choice state.

HumAngle Media, a Pan-African publication covering conflict, humanitarian, and development issues, held an X Spaces on Saturday, May 9, to discuss ethical dilemmas surrounding financial assistance to vulnerable sources, especially for journalists reporting from conflict zones and areas affected by humanitarian crises. 

The conversation was inspired by a recent HumAngle analysis examining the issue. Ahmad Salkida, HumAngle’s Editor-in-Chief and a veteran journalist who authored the article, argued that “in theory, [journalism] is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.” 

The article sparked widespread debate, particularly among journalists and media educators. While some argued that reporters should remain strictly bound by professional ethics, others contended that it is difficult not to extend a helping hand, especially when the source is struggling with basic needs like food and water. 

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, who moderated the X Spaces, opened the conversation with the story of Kevin Carter, a South African journalist who died by suicide three and a half months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. The award-winning image showed a visibly malnourished child in Sudan who collapsed to the ground while a vulture lurked in the background. 

In his suicide note, Kevin said, “I am haunted by the vivid memories … of starving or wounded children”. Hauwa noted that Kevin’s experience shows that the conversation about offering support to vulnerable sources in conflict-affected or humanitarian crisis-hit regions has serious emotional and ethical real-world consequences. 

The conversation was enriched with insights from other speakers, including Lami Sadiq, a data and investigative journalist; Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with Foundation for Investigative Journalism; and Ibrahim Adeyemi, HumAngle’s Investigations Editor. 

The speakers shared instances in which they felt compelled to offer bags of water, food, and sometimes money to people who were evidently struggling. They agreed that being a journalist does not excuse one from basic human decency and empathy.

Lami stressed that it is important to distinguish between support offered out of humanity and responsibilities carried out in a professional journalistic capacity. She emphasised that when the source outrightly demands payment at the start of an interview, journalists should not only not pay the source but also seek other sources to replace them, to maintain credibility.

“It makes everything transactional, and that affects the credibility of the journalists and the report in question,” she said. 

While it is sometimes difficult to deal with sources who are used to getting humanitarian aid in exchange for information, Lami said journalists must stand their ground and use other sources, especially if the issues to be reported are not exclusive.

Hauwa emphasised that helping vulnerable sources to understand that telling their story is in their best interest will help address issues such as financial compensation, especially when dealing with sources who can be very demanding. 

While speaking on the risks of financially supporting sources, Daniel urged journalists to be mindful of directly supporting sources, as doing so might incriminate them if the sources are later engaged or are linked to criminal networks. 

“If a source you once offered money to is later linked with criminal activity, it could look really bad on you. In Nigeria, you might even be dubbed a terrorist financier when all you are doing is your job as a journalist. We have seen this happen many times in Nigeria,” he said. 

Daniel added, “When I interact with sources or with fixers, I have to profile everyone I’m interacting with. Sometimes, I have to withdraw from sources or fixers because of the manner in which they approach matters.”

While paying for information remains unethical in principle, there are distinct instances in which journalists say they must step in to provide financial aid. 

Drawing on his field experience, Ibrahim recounted a time when he had to assist a source in taking her child to the hospital due to a medical emergency. He paid for the medical bills, and when the doctor said the child might have died if they had shown up an hour later, Ibrahim said he was glad he had helped. 

“Acting first as a human is at the core of humanitarian journalism,” Ibrahim stated. 

However, he stressed that moments requiring urgent humanitarian intervention should not blur ethical boundaries in reporting. Ibrahim further called on editors to educate reporters on the challenges they might face when dealing with sources who require monetary compensation for information. 

“They [reporters] should always look for ethical alternatives rather than compromising their standards just to get the stories,” he said. 

The speakers also urged journalists to be mindful when dealing with displaced persons or vulnerable communities, as they may exaggerate their situation to generate sympathy, believing it might lead to aid. For journalists, this makes verification especially important, even in highly emotional reporting environments.

That same need to maintain professional boundaries also came up in discussions about interviewing experts. Daniel, when asked whether experts should be paid for granting interviews, stated: “Never do so.” Instead, he stressed that building rapport with experts before they are needed helps address such issues. 

May 8 (Asia Today) — A new political group supporting Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is set to launch within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, raising questions about the return of faction-style politics less than two years after the party formally moved to dismantle its traditional factions.

The Yomiuri Shimbun reported Thursday that the new group, called the National Power Research Association, will hold its first meeting on May 21 with participation from senior ruling party figures including former Prime Minister Taro Aso and former Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi.

The organization is being positioned as a policy study group, but analysts say it could effectively serve as a new political base for Takaichi inside the party.

The group’s abbreviated name, “JiB,” is derived from Takaichi’s campaign slogan, “Japan is Back,” used during the Liberal Democratic Party leadership race last year.

Founding documents distributed to lawmakers this week state that the government and ruling party “will work as one” to implement policy, with a focus on security, energy and resource issues.

George Glass, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, has reportedly been invited to speak at the inaugural meeting on U.S.-Japan relations and related topics.

Although Takaichi herself is not expected to attend the first gathering, the decision to feature the American ambassador highlights the group’s emphasis on the U.S.-Japan alliance, economic security and defense cooperation.

The organization was reportedly spearheaded by Hiroshi Yamada, a lawmaker close to Takaichi, along with senior party officials including Koichi Hagiuda.

Other participants include prominent ruling party lawmakers and potential future leadership contenders such as Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and policy chief Takayuki Kobayashi.

The group is encouraging participation across current and former factions, both chambers of parliament and newly elected lawmakers.

Still, questions remain over whether the organization will be accepted as a legitimate policy forum or criticized as a de facto revival of faction politics under a different name.

The Liberal Democratic Party pledged reforms after political funding scandals triggered public backlash and accelerated efforts to dissolve traditional factions.

Critics argue that reorganizing lawmakers through policy groups risks recreating the same power structures the party had promised to dismantle.

The development is also being closely watched in South Korea because of its potential implications for regional security and economic policy.

If Takaichi strengthens her position inside the ruling party, analysts expect Japan to pursue more consistent policies on military expansion, the U.S.-Japan alliance, trilateral cooperation with the United States and South Korea, and energy and supply chain security.

At the same time, observers warn that a stronger conservative political base inside the ruling party could also affect disputes involving history, defense policy and constitutional revision.

Analysts say the launch of the new group signals that the Takaichi administration is beginning to build a longer-term organizational foundation for its security and economic agenda inside the ruling party.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260508010001815

I’m going to start this story on a quiet tree-lined street in Mar Vista, where a couple I met with on Thursday — the day after the L.A. mayoral debate — have a problem.

It’s not an unusual matter, as things go in Los Angeles. On both sides of the street, the sidewalk rises and falls, uprooted and cracked by shallow roots because over many decades, the trees were not properly maintained.

John Coanda, 61, who grew up in Los Angeles, was never bothered by torn-up sidewalks as a kid.

“In fact,” he said when he first emailed me about his predicament, “my friends and I sometimes used the ramping pavement as jumps for our bicycles.”

But his wife, Barbara, was diagnosed in 2024 with ALS, and she uses a wheelchair. When John pushes her, they can’t use the sidewalk if they want to go to the store or meet with friends, or just enjoy a nice pass through the neighborhood without getting into a vehicle.

So John pushes Barbara’s wheelchair in the street, which creates an obvious safety problem. And despite John’s best efforts to get City Hall to fix the sidewalks, he’s not expecting help anytime soon.

I’ll circle back to this story in a bit, but first, about that debate.

I recruited a half-dozen L.A. residents to watch and send me their thoughts about how the candidates tackled the important issues. And then I felt guilty for having done so, because the candidates didn’t do much tackling at all.

Candidate Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

They hit their talking points, for sure, and Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and TV personality Spencer Pratt each had their moments. But by the end of the debate, and two straight nights of gubernatorial debates as well, I came away thinking there were no clear winners, but there was a definite loser.

Voters.

This is the fault of the format more than of the candidates themselves. The deck is stacked against meaningful, substantive discussions, especially when moderators ask — as they did several times — for one-word answers.

“Moderator questions are so meaningless … and they make it easy for candidates to take potshots at each other,” said longtime political sage Darry Sragow. “The format is guaranteed to elicit nothing that matters.”

It’d be better to have single-issue debates, and to have candidates pressed for details by journalists who cover those issues and can push back against unrealistic promises and expose a lack of depth.

My debate watchers did some of that themselves. CSUN librarian Yi Ding had praise and criticism for each candidate, but was looking for concrete plans and didn’t get many.

Ding was also disappointed that two other mayoral candidates — Ray Huang and Adam Miller — were not invited to the debate, and I agree with her. Both have been polling low, but with so many undecided voters, and such high unfavorability ratings for Bass, they should have been in the mix.

Mike Washington, a retired pharmacist and West Adams resident, said Bass has done better than previous mayors on homelessness and he didn’t think Raman or Pratt came off as worthy of bumping her out of City Hall.

“The public would have benefited from more questions related to the challenges young people are facing,” said Juan Solorio Jr., president of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats club. His colleague David Ramirez agreed, saying he was hoping for “more discussion about the cost of living for young adults,” but he and Solorio are both backing Bass.

West L.A. software developer Mike Eveloff asked the million-dollar question in one of his many observations during the debate:

“Why is LA spending record amounts on homelessness, fire, police, and infrastructure while results deteriorate? Streets and sidewalks crumble. Even the city emblem right in front of City Hall is deteriorated. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, voters need to know: Do these leaders have the financial discipline and operational competence to manage a fourteen billion dollar city?”

Venice resident Dennis Hathaway, author of “An Octogenarian’s Journal,” said he thinks “these kinds of debates are pretty non-edifying.” And, as someone I wrote about two years ago regarding busted sidewalks in his neighborhood, he shared this lament about Thursday’s debate:

“No mention of broken sidewalks, potholed streets, other deteriorated infrastructure. To me, that’s a much more important subject than non-citizens voting in city elections.”

(Bass did say during the debate that there was a new infrastucture plan in place, and that’s a step in the right direction. But there was no discussion, and when you read the details, 2028 Olympics projects will be prioritized, and it’ll take years to figure out how to fund thousands of additional much-needed fixes.)

The Coandas live not far from Hathaway, and their lives have been upended first by Barbara’s diagnosis and then by John getting laid off in February from his job as a data analyst. Barbara still teaches French via Zoom, and John is tending to her needs. They started a Gofundme campaign to help pay their bills.

With Barbara in a wheelchair, John contacted the city’s Safe Sidewalks L.A. program last fall, and I think it’s fair to say that name is somewhere between a misnomer and a bad joke.

The “program” responded by email on Halloween, appropriately enough, informing him that under the City Council-approved “Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System,” his request for help merits only 15 points out of a possible 45.

“Currently,” he was informed, “the estimated wait time for completion of an Access Request with a score of 15 is in excess of 10 years.”

Happy Halloween.

Over the years, responsibility for sidewalk repairs has shifted between the city and homeowners. There’s a rebate program available to people who repair their own sidewalks, but it’s capped at an amount that doesn’t always cover the costs. And ruptured pavement is keeping lots of lawyers busy with trip-and-fall lawsuits that cost the city millions each year.

Barbara Durieux Coanda, who has ALS, and her husband, John Coanda, make their way down the ramp in front of their home in Mar Vista.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Coanda told me he doesn’t have the funds at the moment to pay for repairs, and even if he did, there are several more sidewalk disaster zones on both sides of his street, so he’d still have to push his wife’s wheelchair in the street even if he fixed the cracks in front of his own house.

Barbara graciously said she thinks the city has other, higher priorities, but in November her husband contacted the office of Councilmember Traci Park, saying he was told that he would have to wait 10 years for repairs.

“Sadly,” he wrote, “I don’t think my wife will live that long.”

A Park staffer wrote back, saying, “The turnaround time does sound realistic given the budgetary crisis the city finds itself in.” But, the staffer added, maybe the council member’s office could “help move the needle on this request.”

Coanda said he’s been too busy with his wife’s issues to follow up. But Pete Brown, Park’s communications director, told me Friday afternoon that the office is exploring ways to pay for fixes that don’t take 10 years, including the use of discretionary funds.

I don’t know how that might play out, but I do know that L.A. doesn’t need another debate like the last one.

We need a mayor and council members who refuse to accept that it takes 10 years to create safe passage for a wheelchair.

In the national capital of broken sidewalks, we need concrete plans.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

When Gavin Newsom ran for California governor in 2018, his support for a state-run single-payer healthcare system was considered a risky move and earned him hefty labor endorsements.

Today, leading Democrats in the wide-open race to succeed Newsom have embraced single-payer healthcare as a political necessity, an answer to voters fed up with rising premiums and other spiraling healthcare costs.

But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.

Healthcare and political experts said the concept of single-payer has shifted from progressive pipe dream a decade ago to today’s mainstream talking points in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. Democrats have pledged the model as the best way to lower costs in an attempt to woo voters worried about affordability as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary. The top two Republicans, meanwhile, have dismissed government-run healthcare as a “disaster” and “socialism.”

“In many ways, single-payer healthcare has become a progressive litmus test,” said Larry Levitt, a former White House policy advisor and a healthcare expert at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Few voters fully understand the term single-payer, let alone expect the next governor to achieve it, Levitt said. Rather, he added, the term has become more of a signal to voters about a candidate’s approach to healthcare reform.

Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, who for decades backed single-payer healthcare in Congress, has come under criticism from opponents for a nuanced but clear shift away from single-payer. It came after Becerra secured an endorsement from the California Medical Assn., a powerful group representing doctors and a longtime opponent of single-payer healthcare bills in California.

At a May 5 debate put on by CNN, Becerra declared his support for “Medicare for All,” a proposal for a federally run system that’s been stalled for years, but he declined to say whether he’d pursue a California-led effort. He said his immediate focus would be on mitigating the drastic federal cuts expected to hit low-income and disabled enrollees in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than a third of residents.

Becerra is counting on voters not to distinguish between the often-confused terms single-payer, Medicare for All, and universal coverage, noting during the debate that “Californians don’t care what you call it, so long as they have affordable healthcare.”

“A lot of people aren’t clear what single-payer is, and they need a metaphor to understand it,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and one of the lead pollsters for former President Biden’s 2020 campaign.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who’s touted his self-funding as a signal he can’t be bought, has emerged as the race’s most vocal advocate of single-payer after opposing it during a short-lived 2020 presidential bid. As governor, Steyer has said, he would pass legislation backed by the California Nurses Assn. that has failed to come to fruition under Newsom’s tenure. Pressed on how he would cover the estimated $731.4-billion cost, Steyer told KFF Health News that “God is going to be in the details.”

At a forum last year, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter said she didn’t believe achieving such a system was realistic in the near term, but the Orange County Democrat later told party delegates that she would “deliver single-payer.” Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Democrats who are trailing their competitors in the polls, don’t support single-payer. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to the November general election.

Some of the most seasoned politicians have failed to deliver single-payer. Newsom, who campaigned on the promise of being a “healthcare governor,” dialed back his ambitions upon taking office, choosing instead to pursue “universal access” to health coverage under a series of Medi-Cal expansions and efforts to contain healthcare spending.

The campaign bus for billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has made single-payer healthcare a central pillar of his run for governor, in downtown Oakland.

(Christine Mai-Duc/KFF Health News)

Vermont, which remains the only state to pass a single-payer healthcare law, reversed course when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.

To enact single-payer, California would need permission from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.

More than half of adults nationally say healthcare costs will have a major impact on whom they vote for in November, according an April KFF poll.

Danielle Cendejas, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who works with state legislative candidates, said single-payer healthcare increasingly appears on candidate questionnaires from small-business advocates as well as hyperlocal Democratic clubs, in state legislative races and national union endorsements. What most California voters want to hear, Cendejas said, is how candidates plan to give them more immediate relief from higher premiums, expensive drug costs and long waits to access care.

The high price tag doesn’t faze Jennifer Easton, a 63-year-old Democrat from Oakland, who said other countries with similar models have proved they can lower costs. She said she supports a single-payer health system because it’s clear to her that Americans have reached the limits of working within the existing system. But she isn’t expecting any of the current candidates to succeed in implementing one, and she hasn’t decided whom to support.

“No one can in four years,” she said. Seeing a candidate enthusiastically support the concept gives her a good idea of their philosophy. “It is, if we’re lucky, a 20-year, 25-year plan.”

Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said while Americans may be supportive of single-payer in polls, focus groups suggest that approval drops quickly when voters realize it could mean losing their current doctor or insurance plan.

At the CNN debate, Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate President Trump has endorsed, said Californians would end up with subpar patient care and “taxes sky high to pay for it,” like in his native United Kingdom. Instead, Hilton suggested the state stop providing “free healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.”

Mai-Duc writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The top candidates in California’s wide-open race for governor took the stage Wednesday night in a Los Angeles debate that began politely but quickly devolved into another raucous clash.

Former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra and billionaire Tom Steyer, both Democratic frontrunners, were primary targets of the political attacks — Becerra for his record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and Steyer over his past investments, including in private prisons that housed immigrant detainees.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan started off the debate by lashing out at both Republicans and Democrats.

“We do not need the leadership that MAGA candidates on this stage are offering that’s divisive. We don’t need the leadership of a billionaire who’s now against everything he made his money in, or a career politician who has failed again and again to deliver results,” Mahan said, taking shots at conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Steyer and Becerra, respectively.

Mahan had good reason to go on the attack. The moderate Democrat has struggled to meet early expectations that he would emerge as a top-tier candidate.

The California Democratic Party’s latest poll, released Monday, showed Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco, a Republican, with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan, former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — were in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for the televised debates this week.

Sanctuary state policy leads to kerfuffle

In a tense exchange on immigration and the state’s sanctuary laws, Porter said, “We ought to enforce our sanctuary laws everywhere so we don’t have crazy cowboys taking the law into their own hands.”

It was a shot at Bianco, who has criticized the law that blocks local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents.

“Tell that to the crazy mother who lost her child,” Bianco said, referring to a case in his county involving a 14-year-old who was hit and killed by a driver who he said had two prior DUI arrests and was in the country illegally.

“Sir, I don’t need any lectures from you about being a mother,” Porter, a single mother of three and the only woman on the debate stage, shot back.

“You might,” Bianco said, prompting a nasty look from Porter and groans and boos from the studio audience.

The one-hour clash followed another Wednesday evening debate, among candidates for Los Angeles mayor, part of a doubleheader hosted and broadcast by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 in Los Angeles. Both took place at the Skirball Cultural Center and were moderated by NBC4 News anchor Colleen Williams, chief political reporter Conan Nolan and Telemundo 52 News anchor Enrique Chiabra.

Republicans and Democrats divided on immigration

Democrats were in lockstep on most issues related to immigration, including opposing Immigration & Customs Enforcement raids and supporting the sanctuary law that prohibits police from coordinating with the federal agency.

Republicans said the controversial state law, which was approved in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, has hurt public safety.

“I have someone in my jail right now … he’s convicted of a felony, but the three prior convictions for DUI, he was released from jail,” Bianco said. “He was deported on two of them, [came] back into the country, and then he killed a 14-year-old boy with another DUI. So we have to wait until somebody dies before we deport criminals who are in our jail.”

Villaraigosa countered that the law allows for violent criminals to be deported and that thousands have been by state and local law enforcement agencies.

Hilton, a British national who became a U.S. citizen in 2021, declared himself “the candidate of the legal immigrant community” and said the governor’s job is to enforce laws, whether they agree with them or not.

All the Democrats said they would restore full Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants, which has been rolled back due to budget constraints, while Republicans said they would not.

Courting Latino voters

One of the many undercurrents of Wednesday’s debate was the ongoing tussle between Becerra and Villaraigosa. Both have been competing for California’s pivotal Latino vote, and the former Los Angeles mayor’s attacks have become increasingly aggressive as Becerra has ascended in the governor’s race.

At about 40% of the state’s population, Latinos are California’s largest ethnic group but also among the groups least likely to vote, casting just 21% of ballots in the 2022 primary election.

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, said Becerra’s surge in momentum could boost Latino turnout, “but I don’t see any evidence right now that actually tells us that will happen. The thing about primaries, unfortunately, is that turnout is always low. Even in a competitive primary like this.”

On Wednesday, Villaraigosa launched a new digital ad highlighting a former member of the Biden administration questioning Becerra’s record as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

He highlighted the issue during Wednesday’s debate after the moderates asked the candidates how they would address homelessness in California.

“Mr. Becerra, are you proud that you pushed out 85,000 migrant children? They were, according to the New York Times, they were maimed, they were exploited,” Villaraigosa said. “Some were even killed. You said those are MAGA talking points, it’s a MAGA hoax. Tell that to the children who died.”

“So I’m not sure what that had to do with homelessness, but cálmate, Antonio, cálmate,” Becerra responded, urging his opponent to “calm down.” He accused Villaraigosa of parroting the unfounded attacks that Trump deployed against former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

“We protected kids. We did not let them be abused,” Becerra said. “Stop lying.”

Speaking of homelessness

The Democrats and Republicans on stage were sharply divided on the best way to address California’s ongoing homelessness crisis.

People living on the streets are “pawns in the homeless industrial complex,” Bianco said, adding: “This is not and has never been about homes. This is about drug and alcohol addiction.”

Mahan, Villaraigosa and Becerra touted their records building housing and expanding mental health services, saying those will help reduce homelessness. They, along with Porter, also called for more oversight of state homelessness spending.

Hilton said the issue is one of the state’s biggest failures and blamed the Democrats — the party that has controlled state government for the past 16 years.

“Some of these Democrats are on this stage, they talk as if we’re in some parallel universe where Democrats haven’t been running this state for the last 16 years of one-party rule,” he said.

Democratic shift on nuclear plants, high-speed rail

A series of lightning-round questions highlighted some subtle shifts on traditional Democratic policies as candidates aim to make the state more affordable.

Democrats led the charge to decommission nuclear power plants in California over concerns of potential environmental and health catastrophes, but as the state struggles with energy affordability, all the Democrats (and both Republicans) said they would support further extending operations at the state’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County.

Most of the Democrats also said they support finishing a high-speed rail line from Bakersfield to Modesto, despite the massive cost overruns and delays, but said the project should be done cheaper and more efficiently. Hilton and Bianco want to scuttle the project.

And all Democrats except Steyer said they would vote against a proposed billionaire tax that will likely be on the November ballot mostly to backfill federal cuts to healthcare coverage. Although most of the Democratic candidates aside from Mahan say they support higher taxes on the wealthy, they have raised issues with the details of the proposal, including the fact that it is a one-time tax.

Karen Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman each came into tonight’s mayoral debate with goals for what may be their only time together on stage.

As the incumbent mayor, Bass had to weather blows from her challengers while trying to sell voters on her fitness for another term, despite a disastrous 2025.

As a reality TV star with no political experience, Pratt needed to show that he could offer substance instead of just AI fanboy videos and the name-calling — “Karen Basura” — he has indulged in on social media.

Raman’s task was perhaps the hardest. As a city councilmember whose two previous campaigns were backed by the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, she needed to convince Pratt-curious voters that she’s more conservative than Bass. Yet for others, she needed to appear liberal enough to peel away support from the mayor and come out as a progressive lioness to excite Democrats in a year where GOP candidates like Pratt have to answer for the disaster that is President Trump’s second term.

Only one of the three failed.

At times, Raman was tongue-tied trying to answer simple questions. Moderators kept telling her she was going over her time. Answering a yes/no question about whether noncitizens should be allowed to vote in city elections, the councilmember went on and on, until the moderator cut her off.

While Raman offered some policy plans, she also played a card straight out of Trump’s arsenal. She claimed that Pratt and Bass were teaming up against her — an unlikely scenario that drew laughs from the audience. She got more and more frustrated, to the point that when Bass was allowed time for a rebuttal, she dejectedly proclaimed, “I haven’t been offered that in a lot of this debate.”

Raman, who had endorsed Bass’ reelection before throwing her hat in at the last minute, came off as inexperienced, touchy and unprepared.

The line of the night was Pratt dismissing Raman as a “random councilmember” — which is how the L.A. political world responded to her entry into the race. She was so upset about Pratt’s remark that she continued to whine about it to a KNBC reporter after the debate.

What’s shocking about Raman’s flop is that she should know how important it is to project well to a television audience, given that her husband is a screenwriter. Her tone was flat, when she needed to be passionate.

No one had to remind Pratt of that. He was parrying tough questions on a big stage for the first time, facing an audience who knew him only as the Angry L.A. White Guy he has reveled in playing.

He mostly succeeded.

At his best, Pratt came off as a boisterous bro with enough charm to call himself “humble” without coming off as obnoxious. He dominated the flow of conversation without coming off as commandeering, even interrupting Raman at times to let Bass speak. At one point, he even said “Sorry” when he had taken up too much time and the moderators cut him off.

He was light on specifics, other than saying he was going to do better than the others and that he would prioritize public safety above all. Instead, he was the one person on stage who used anecdotes to sell himself, citing conversations about abused animals, downtown workers too afraid to eat outside and film producers hiring local gang members to keep their shoots safe.

As a TV personality-turned-influencer, Pratt knows that storytelling is far more effective than drowning the audience in statistics, as Bass and Raman did.

But the bad Pratt flared up at times. He earned a reprimand from KNBC anchor and debate co-moderator Colleen Williams when he called the mayor an “incredible liar.” Affecting high-pitched voices to mock Bass and Raman came off as juvenile and possibly sexist. And when it came to last summer’s federal immigration raids that terrorized Southern California, Pratt appeared flummoxed when Bass pointed out that 70% of those arrested didn’t have criminal records — a use of stats that hit.

Bass was also who she had to be — measured, forceful and raring to defend her record, without coming off as defensive. She wasn’t exactly inspirational, but she didn’t have to be. The city’s powerful labor unions have backed her, along with much of the Democratic establishment.

Raman and Pratt are right in deeming Bass the old guard of a beat-up city — but the old guard didn’t get there without knowing how to win.

Three of the leading candidates for Los Angeles mayor — incumbent Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and reality television personality Spencer Pratt — will share the stage for a debate Wednesday evening.

The hour-long forum, broadcast on NBC4 and Telemundo 52, will be held at the Skirball Cultural Center in Brentwood starting at 5 p.m.

The debate will also air online at nbcla.com and telemundo52.com and be available via streaming channels on platforms like Amazon Fire TV, Roku and Samsung TV Plus.

Voters have already been mailed their ballots for the June 2 primary election, which can be returned by mail or at designated drop box locations. In-person voting is already open at the county’s Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office in Norwalk, and will expand to county Vote Centers starting May 23.

Wednesday’s debate will be moderated by anchor Colleen Williams and political reporter Conan Nolan of KNBC-TV, and anchor Enrique Chiabra of Telemundo 52. The debate is held in partnership with Loyola Marymount University and the Skirball Cultural Center.

A gubernatorial debate will follow at 7 p.m.

RYANAIR boss Michael O’Leary has made the headlines today, calling for an early-morning ban on airports serving alcohol to passengers.

He’s calling for the big change following a rise in badly behaved passengers that have caused flights forced to divert.

He told The Times: “It’s becoming a real challenge for all airlines

“I fail to understand why anybody in airports bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning. Who needs to be drinking beer at that time?

“There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours,” he said. “We have been calling for many years for a limit of two drinks per person per airport, why don’t you limit people by boarding pass?”

So should we be banning morning beers at UK airports? Our travel experts go head to head…

LAST SHOT

Ryanair boss calls for BAN on beloved airport breakfast pint

AIR OFF

Ryanair boss demands EU axes new travel rules causing misery for Brit holidaymakers

‘Please don’t deny hard-working Brits this small holiday pleasure’ says Caroline McGuire, Head of Travel (Digital)

AIRPORT breakfast beers are one of those quirky British traditions, much like the Wetherspoons table number game and the dirty birthday pint.

It is pretty much guaranteed that you will see a number of sleepy-eyed Brits sinking a lager at the airport pub, no matter what time of day you arrive.

While I personally can’t stomach a drink before midday, I’m also not a fan of telling hard-working Brits how they can spend their precious seven days of holiday that they’ve been saving for all year.

Michael O’Leary has long called for there to be a two-drink limit on people drinking at airports and that is something that feels like a reasonable compromise to me.

But to ban airport bars from serving any booze outside of normal UK licensing hours – typically from around 10 or 11am – seems pretty unfair when passengers can still buy a drink on the actual Ryanair flight.

Pubs are under a huge amount of financial stress these days, thanks to a raft of anti-hospitality measures introduced by our current chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

Around two pubs are closing in the UK each day – more than 2,000 since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, should we really be penalising them any further?

Add to this the fact that pubs pay an extremely high rent for their airport locations, do we want to see boozers also disappearing from here too?

I’m not sure that cutting out morning drinking will see the solution to the problem that airlines are clearly having such a huge issue with, because it won’t have any effect on the thousands of flights that fly out of the UK post-midday.

I’ve been on more late-evening Ryanair flights to Ibiza than I care to remember, when I have deep sympathy for the cabin crew serving very rowdy passengers.

Mr O’Leary has been in the industry for a long time, in fact he’s one of the most experienced airline bosses in the business, and we should be listening when he says it’s a huge problem that needs sorting.

The measures he has taken in recent years to hold disruptive passengers to account with huge court fines is clearly a huge step in the right direction, although I appreciate this is a time-consuming and costly process.

But banning the small joy of a breakfast beer in these stressful modern times, with everything that’s going on in the world? Please no.

‘More drastic measures are needed’ says Kara Godfrey, Deputy Travel Editor

LOOK, I get it – you finally got that time off work, and you’re ready for a week of sunshine and relaxing.

But it has forever baffled me as to how that translates to a pint of beer or glass of champagne at 6am when normally you wouldn’t even be awake.

I can’t think of anything worse than sinking a Guinness when I’m waiting for my flight, and certainly don’t want that sloshing around in my stomach before a long journey.

If people could restrain themselves then a ban wouldn’t be needed but sadly, without airports willing to put a cap in place, it seems more drastic measures are needed.

Haven’t we all been on that awful flight where rowdy passengers just make it worse for everyone?

With Ryanair saying that as many as a flight a day are being diverted, those costs are likely to be passed onto the passenger too.

So those drunken idiots are essentially going to make your flight more expensive.

Maybe a full ban is too far, but I would say that a drink limit is definitely needed. 

I’d back airports being required to scan boarding passes, with a cap on 1-2 boozy beverages before you get on a plane.

Lets save it for the all-inclusive pool bar, guys.

Democrat Xavier Becerra’s rapid rise in California’s race for governor made him a ripe and constant target during a combative nationally televised debate Tuesday evening, his first real test in a high-stakes election that remains highly volatile.

Becerra was ripped throughout the two-hour CNN debate, primarily by his Democratic rivals, who accused him of dodging questions about his stance on single-payer healthcare, falling short as a Biden Cabinet secretary and pocketing a campaign donation from Chevron.

“I think everyone’s invoking my name. It’s nice to hear my name quite a bit,” said Becerra, who served as the U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. “I will tell you this: Distorting the facts in your quest to be governor is never good, but using Trump lies to try to damage your opponents is worse, and that’s what we see happening.”

As ballots land in California voters’ mailboxes, the state’s seven top gubernatorial candidates clashed over immigration, President Trump, tax policy, political temperament and a hodgepodge of scandals, mudslinging and other unsavory actions that have risen to the forefront of the hotly contested race.

The snarky, sometimes petulant exchanges reflect how unsettled the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is, as well as California’s outsize economic and political gravitas on the national and international stage.

Shortly after the debate began, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter chastised her fellow candidates for their unceasing attacks.

“I can’t believe [the] interrupting and bickering and name calling and shouting and disrespect for everyone up here who’s stepping into public service that anyone wants to talk about my temperament,” said the former Democratic Congress member from Irvine.

Here are the top takeaways from a two-hour debate that somehow seemed even longer:

Becerra takes his lumps

Beccera, who has surged in the weeks before the June 2 primary, faced a barrage of attacks from his Republican and Democratic rivals about his oversight of unaccompanied immigrant minors during his tenure at the Health and Human Services Department and his relationship with a longtime adviser who, along with other consultants, skimmed about $225,000 from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts.

Becerra is not accused of wrongdoing and has been painted as a victim in the prosecutor’s court filings. Still, conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, suggested Becerra knew about the scheme, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, questioned why Becerra paid an unusually high fee to one of the consultants named in the indictment.

“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” Villaraigosa said.

Becerra also was accused of changing his position on single-payer healthcare, a top priority of liberal voters that aims to create a healthcare system run and funded by the federal government.

Though Becerra has long supported single-payer healthcare, he recently assured members of the California Medical Assn. — one of the most influential medical lobbyinggroups in California, which has endorsed him — that he would not support it as governor, according to a KQED report.

When asked directly about this, Becerra said “those reports were inaccurate. I continue to be for Medicare for all.”

Becerra sidestepped repeated questions from Porter about whether he supported a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system in California, saying that he wants to cover “everyone with something like Medicare for all.”

“Covering everyone with something is not single-payer. It’s not even federal Medicare for all. But you won’t say whether you support California having its own state-run single-payer system,” Porter said.

Single-payer healthcare is a telling issue

Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer also has taken heat for changing his position on the issue. The hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior opposed single-payer healthcare during his 2020 presidential bid and now supports a statewide single-payer system called CalCare. He is endorsed by the California Nurses Assn., one of CalCare’s biggest supporters.

A recent analysis by UC researchers estimates CalCare would cost $731 billion to implement in 2027 — a price tag that’s $14 billion larger than all anticipated healthcare spending in California next year.

Villaraigosa said creating a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system — with a price tag larger than the entire state budget — is a “pie in the sky” proposal. He said he considers healthcare a human right but said a system such as CalCare would require approval from the Trump administration — and that’s not going to happen.

As a former British citizen, Hilton said he is the only candidate who has experienced government-run healthcare.

“As a patient, it nearly killed me,” he said. “That’s another story we don’t have time for. As a policymaker, you end up with the worst patient satisfaction, costs that you can’t afford, taxes, sky-high to pay for it. It is a total disaster.”

Race remains a toss-up

The 2026 gubernatorial contest has been an undulating, unpredictable whirlwind. Unlike every governor’s race for more than a quarter of a century, there is no clear frontrunner, leading to a sprawling field of candidates with notable resumes but little recognition among California’s 23.1 million registered voters.

On Monday, the state Democratic Party released its latest voter survey, which found Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, Villaraigosa and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — was in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for Tuesday’s debate or an NBC/Telemundo face-off taking place on Wednesday.

Tuesday’s debate with the leading candidates took place at East Los Angeles College and was hosted by CNN, the first time national media has paid such attention to a California statewide contest since 2010.

Partisan divide on immigration

On the debate stage in Los Angeles, a city that was targeted by Trump administration immigration raids, Bianco criticized California’s sanctuary state laws, which prevent local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement.

Villaraigosa defended the undocumented immigrants residing in California, saying they are vital to the economic success of the state. He also accused Bianco of not understanding how California’s sanctuary state policy works — with the former Los Angeles mayor telling him that California has turned over thousands of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes to federal immigration officials.

Bianco dismissed Villaraigosa’s comment immediately.

“I want Mr. Villaraigosa to tell the mother of the 14-year-old in my county that is dead because of an illegal immigrant that had been deported three times because of DUIs that sanctuary state policy keeps us safe. I don’t think she’s going to agree with you,” Bianco said.

Democrats Porter, Steyer, Mahan and Becerra accused the Trump administration of “terrorizing” Latino communities and targeting people for deportation based on the color of their skin.

Steyer said he would prosecute ICE agents “and the people who send them,” including former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump advisor Stephen Miller, for illegal racial profiling.

Agreement on need for housing

On the issue of housing, the candidates agreed that California has fallen short of providing enough homes to make the state affordable. Mahan, the mayor of San José, said he has reduced the city’s homeless population by making it easier to build ADUs in people’s backyards, and by reducing red tape for additional types of housing.

Villaraigosa said he built more market-rate, affordable and workforce housing when he was mayor of Los Angeles than anyone else on the stage.

Hilton pressed for building single-family homes in areas of the state with space, rather than forcing more housing into places where residents don’t want them.

Steyer said, “Californians can’t afford to live here,” and there has to be a greater conversation about building more housing, and faster. He also said that cities and counties “do not want new housing” because they can’t afford to pay the health and education costs associated with more residents, and he will solve that issue by closing tax loopholes for big businesses.

Still, housing, homelessness and affordability — top-of-mind issues for California voters — overall received scant attention during the debate, even though CNN debate moderators Kaitlan Collins and Los Angeles-native Elex Michaelson pressed the candidates on the state’s incessant problems with affordability.

Steyer did use the affordability issue to criticize Becerra, currently his greatest political threat, for taking a campaign contribution from Chevron.

“Being in bed with oil companies is a mistake,” Steyer said. “Xavier Becerra has taken the max amount of money from Chevron, and he has said they’re good guys that we need. The truth of the matter is the oil companies are ripping us off at the pump. They’re polluting our air and they’re burning up the climate.”

Becerra responded that it was “a rich response from a guy who made his billions investing in fossil fuels and oil companies, in coal companies.”

“Now he makes the billions, and he has spent more than every other candidate combined in this campaign, using those profits to now try to buy his seat in the governor’s office,” Becerra said.

Where they stand on the proposed billionaire tax

A notable area of policy disagreement among Democrats is a proposal to levy a one-time 5% tax on the wealth and assets of billionaires. Supporters of the measure say they have gathered enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot.

If approved, the funds would mostly pay for healthcare cuts approved by the Trump administration last year.

Porter said that, although she wants to increase taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents, she doesn’t support the proposal because it is a “one-time tax” that won’t solve the state’s underlying budget issues.

“Yes to a progressive tax code, yes to the wealthy paying more, but this tax is about cheap political points,” Porter said.

Steyer said he would vote for the tax, but he agreed that state leaders ought to go further, including by taxing corporate interests more.

Bianco agreed with Porter that the billionaire tax is a bad idea.

Villaraigosa said California relies too much on the its wealthiest residents to fill state coffers, which leads to “feast and famine” in its budgets. He said businesses and high-earners are leaving the state, and that a plan to tax the wealthiest Americans needs to be enacted at the federal level.

Republican vs. Republican

The two Republicans on stage appeared content to spend their time blasting the Democrats rather than each other.

Bianco was asked if he thought that Republican voters could trust Hilton.

“You’ve called Hilton unethical and dishonest and said that he swindled his way into the Republican side,” Collins said, citing an article from the Atlantic.

“I would never use the word swindled, but the context — yes, I have said that,” Bianco said after some back-and-forth about the particulars of his criticisms. “Have Steve and I disagreed? Absolutely we have.”

He avoided directly criticizing Hilton but said he was the only person on the stage “that their entire existence in their job revolves around honesty, integrity.”

Hilton swerved, saying voters cannot keep voting for the same thing — Democratic leadership — if they want to see change in the state.”

Times staff writers Dakota Smith and Doug Smith contributed to this report.

For the third time in as many weeks, the leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night.

The latest installment was a two-hour session, hosted and carried live from Monterey Park by CNN. The debate marked the first time the candidates appeared before a national audience and came as mail ballots have begun arriving in homes throughout the state.

Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria took in all 120 minutes, absorbed every zinger — scripted and otherwise — and dutifully observed each parry and thrust. Here’s what they took away:

Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa finally rises above his gubernatorial rivals. Is it too late?

I wrote my thoughts about this debate while writing my next columna on … something, stopping to pay attention only when issues in my bailiwick like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party were the subject of discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said came off as one giant shout-fest straight out of the studios of the late, great Wally George, with everyone playing true to form.

Chad Bianco raged, Steve Hilton tried to mask his MAGA-ness with his British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer channeled Bernie. Xavier Becerra did his best impression of the old Bunsen character from “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just … there.

You know who sounded the best? Antonio Villaraigosa.

Anyone who really knows the former L.A. mayor has always seen him as Chicano Prince Hal, someone who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His infidelities effectively killed his political career after his mayoral years; his consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife made Villaraigosa a walking joke among too many Latinos I know.

He has spent the last decade effectively embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He coulda been a contender. Even his gubernatorial run, announced way before many of his opponents, has mostly had the air of a has-been — that’s one of the reasons why Villaraigosa has polled so low through most of the race to the point he was excluded from many of the early debates.

But that hangdog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.

His wisecracks were kept to a minimum. He stayed mostly within his time limits and didn’t interrupt much. He hammered Hilton over his refusal to admit that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and his dismissal of undocumented immigrants.

Villaraigosa especially went hard on his forever frenemy Xavier Becerra on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to how former staffers have been charged with stealing millions of dollars from his campaign funds. (Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing.)

When CNN co-moderator Elex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa if he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “No” thundered down like a Lebron James dunk. He called out the waste on the multibillion-dollar project, said he revived L.A.’s subway to the sea, and spoke with a passionate gravitas that Becerra could only dream of doing.

“When I make a mistake, I’m accountable,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This sounded like a candidate who can win — and now he has a month to make a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.

Four weeks to prove them wrong, Antonio.

Barabak: It was a no-hitter.

No startling breakthrough. No game-changing moment. No candidate so irresistibly charming he or she knocked the race akimbo and stamped themselves as the far-and-away front-runner in the slowly consolidating contest.

By now, the candidates are plowing well-furrowed ground.

To anyone who has watched each of the debates — and there may not be a great many of those viewers out there — it was all quite familiar.

What is new, and what may have been the draw for those just tuning in, is a sense the race is finally taking a coherent shape, with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.

A month ago, Eric Swalwell was a leading contender in the dozy contest and Becerra was an afterthought, being urged to quit for the sake of his dignity and the good of the Democratic Party. (Fears of a Democratic shutout in the June 2 primary have greatly receded.)

When Swalwell left the race and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual assault and other potentially illegal misconduct, it was widely assumed much of his support would move to either Steyer or Porter, the two other leading Democratic contenders.

But Becerra has been the clear-cut beneficiary and his new status was evident Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. He didn’t particularly dazzle, but that’s not his appeal. It’s his steadiness and seeming unflappability in a time of great upheaval and stress, and that was again evident.

With less than four weeks to election day — and voting already underway — time is waning for another dramatic shake-up like the one that took place between Swalwell’s implosion in April and Becerra’s surge in May.

It seems, however, as though little to nothing will change, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton consolidating GOP support and the remainder of the field looking for something — or someone — to drastically shake up the race one more time.

Chabria: I don’t know about a winner, but the debate definitely had a biggest loser: Bianco. The Riverside County sheriff, to his credit I guess, didn’t try for a hot second to hide who he really is — a conspiracy-loving immigration hardliner with ties to an extremist group.

Bianco sort-of said he was a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization best known for some of its members participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. He threw out election fraud theories, even suggesting state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta could be involved. He made it clear that undocumented folks are breaking the law by existing in the state.

Maybe some MAGA voters will stick by that shtick, but I’m guessing independents and more moderate Republicans will find Hilton, the Trump-endorsed Republican, even more appealing after Bianco’s ragey ramblings. Hilton may well be sending his opponent a thank-you note and a bottle of bubbly for that performance.

As for winners, a couple of the Democrats had their moments. Porter spoke with clarity and force on issues including single-payer healthcare (she supports it) and resisting Trump’s immigration policies in this state of immigrants.

But she also directly addressed the criticism of her having a bad temper in a way that I think may haunt her.

As her male opponents bickered back and forth, taking swipes at each other, Porter said that given all the “shouting” and “disrespect” onstage, she was shocked that “anyone wants to talk about my temperament.” It’s a pushback she tried out earlier in the week with a new advertisement that sought to make a punchline out of the criticism.

I get her point and I don’t think a male candidate would face the same scrutiny for yelling at a staffer as she has, but also — what’s more unappealing to voters than an angry woman? A complaining one. That moment of resistance against the narrative may not land the way she intends with voters.

I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night, and that Steyer had Bernie energy — which may be good.

Steyer was the most lively and direct he’s been in a debate, landing a few punches and making points with clarity (far less wonky than he’s been in the past). He’s owning his far-left politics, and labeling himself the “change-maker.”

Steyer has been trailing Becerra in the polls, but Becerra again had a steady if less-than-thrilling appearance. For fed-up Democrats, Steyer may be looking better all the time.

Eight candidates for California governor shared a stage for 90 minutes Tuesday night, their second of three scheduled debates before the June 2 primary.

My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.

Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.

He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.

He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.

So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?

California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).

As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.

Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.

In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.

But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.

Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.

It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.

But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.

Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.

I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.

So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)

There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)

Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.

I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!

The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.

I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.

His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.

Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ‘This is like the Russian mafia’: L.A. judge elections see unusual drama
The deep dive: Gavin Newsom wants to break up with Elon Musk. Tesla is making that difficult.
The L.A. Times Special: John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

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

The top candidates for California governor clashed over the high costs of gas, housing and homeowner’s insurance in a testy debate Tuesday evening, a fiery exchange that may finally draw voter attention as the June 2 primary election fast approaches.

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, whose campaign blossomed after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out amid sexual assault and misconduct allegations, came under persistent attack during the 90-minute debate but also went on the offensive.

Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican who leads all candidates in the most recent opinion polls, ripped Becerra for promising to declare a state of emergency to address rising homeowner’s insurance rates, saying the governor lacks that constitutional authority.

“We can’t have a governor who doesn’t understand how the government works,” Hilton said.

Becerra, who served as California attorney general before joining the Biden administration, quickly defended himself, saying he knows the law better than Hilton does.

“We don’t need a talking head from Fox News to tell us how the government works,” he said.

And that was after Becerra got in an early dig at Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Trump, by referring to Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”

The debate was broadcast and livestreamed by CBS stations around the state. Hundreds of people watched from Pomona College’s historic Bridges Auditorium, a Renaissance Revival-style landmark with Art Deco flourishes that was once among the premier performance venues in Southern California.

With eight major candidates from both parties participating, CBS moderators billed it as “the largest and most inclusive debate of the election.” Becerra and Hilton were joined by Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Democratic candidates San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire Tom Steyer, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Some takeaways from the debate:

Candidates didn’t shy away from the top issues

Moderators set the theme for the first half-hour of the debate as “affordability,” a top concern among California voters, and almost immediately the candidates began sniping and talking over one another.

Almost all of them vowed to accelerate home construction in California, pivotal to reducing the state’s high cost of housing.

There was no shortage of ideas for other ways to ease the financial burdens facing Californians, but few specifics on how they would deliver on those promises given the state’s complex and arduous legislative process.

Hilton promised to cap the price of gas at $3 per gallon, and Mahan vowed to suspend the state gas tax. Bianco said Democrats have long overregulated and overtaxed Californians, and the state’s supermajority Democratic Legislature would have to get in line with him and end those things if he’s elected.

Becerra said he would reduce prescription drug prices. Thurmond said he would provide down-payment assistance grants to those trying to own their first home.

Barbs traded over climate-caused emergencies

Anchors and reporters from local CBS stations moderated the debate, including Los Angeles anchor Pat Harvey, Sacramento anchor Tony Lopez, Bay Area anchor Ryan Yamamoto and national investigative correspondent Julie Watts. They were joined by Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a member of California’s independent redistricting commission.

Moderators pointed to the surge in catastrophic wildfires across the state in recent years due to climate change, as well as the threat of earthquakes, and asked the candidates how they would respond to future emergencies.

As he did throughout most of the debate, Bianco responded by bashing California’s Democratic leadership, which he said created most of the ills facing the state.

Bianco said the root causes of fire disasters in the state are “not because of climate change” but due to “failed environmental activist policies” that prevented fire departments from clearing highly flammable brush around communities for years.

Mahan, after touting his actions as a Silicon Valley mayor during emergencies, quickly pivoted to take shots at Becerra and his role as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary during the pandemic.

He said Becerra had “never met a crisis that he couldn’t ignore” and accused Becerra of failing to deal with COVID-19, monkeypox and the surge of unaccompanied minors at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden administration.

Becerra responded by saying that his agency dealt with the crises by working with all 50 states and the federal government to quickly roll out vaccines and other resources.

“You’re not wearing a mask, are you, Matt? You’re not worried about catching monkeypox, right?” Becerra said.

Steyer also came under attack when he starting discussing his plans to “make polluters pay” for the effects of climate change. Porter criticized the former San Francisco hedge-fund founder for making millions off the oil and gas industry, and using those profits to fund his campaign for governor. Steyer has spent more than $143 million of his own money on his campaign, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the California secretary of state’s office.

“How about profiteers pay? You pay the lowest tax rate on this stage, and yet you made the billions that you’re using to fund your campaign off fossil fuels,” Porter said to Steyer.

Steyer responded that he is a “change agent” candidate opposed by special interests and pointed to campaign committees funded by utility and other industry groups opposing his bid. PG&E, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Assn. of Realtors have put more than $29 million into a pair of committees to fund attack ads against the billionaire.

Republicans focus on blaming Democrats

Just weeks before the June 2 primary, the race to replace term-limited Newsom remains wide open, with many voters still undecided.

Republicans Hilton and Bianco have led numerous public opinion polls while the large field of Democrats have split the vote, leading to fears among Democrats that the party could get shut out of the general election, despite outnumbering Republicans nearly two-to-one among the state’s registered voters. In California’s open primary, the top two finishers advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.

The two Republicans avoided overtly attacking each other at the debate but were regularly the targets of other candidates on the stage.

Becerra, speaking about federal healthcare funding cuts approved by President Trump and congressional Republicans last year, referred to the president’s endorsement of Hilton. “The first thing we have to do is stop Steve Hilton’s daddy,” Becerra said.

Hilton responded jokingly that his father, who was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team, hadn’t weighed in on the race. And he said Becerra’s comment pointed to what is wrong with California politics — a fixation on Trump despite Democrats controlling the state for more than a decade.

“We’ve had the same people in charge for 16 years now, and it’s such a disaster and such a high cost of living for everyone, and the highest poverty rate in the country and the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the worst business plan,” Hilton said. “All these things going wrong, they can’t do anything except blame Trump. Let’s see how many times you hear that tonight.”

Bianco grew visibly frustrated several times over the debate’s format and his opponents’ answers. At different points, he compared the event to “The Twilight Zone” and called it “the hour and a half that [viewers] are never going to get back.”

Pressed on what he would do differently if elected, the Riverside sheriff also focused on criticizing Democrats and accusing them of lying.

“We have a group of of 20-ish-year-old kids and we’re just sitting here lying to them about broken Democrat policies in California for the last 20 years, and we’re going to sit here and blame a president who’s been president for a year. This is absolutely ridiculous,” he said.

Hilton has seen a bump in his polling numbers since he was endorsed by President Trump earlier this month. A CBS News/YouGov poll of more than 1,400 registered voters released Monday showed Hilton leading with 16%, followed by Steyer with 15%, Becerra with 13%, Bianco with 10%, Porter with 9%, Mahan and Villaraigosa with 4% and Thurmond with 1%. The largest group of voters — 26% — was undecided.

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta reported from Claremont. Times staff writers Kevin Rector, Dakota Smith and Blanca Begert contributed to this report.

Contenders in the race to be California’s next governor will meet on stage Tuesday night for the second of three planned debates before the June 2 primary.

Last week’s meet-up in San Francisco didn’t provide the fireworks or memorable moments the candidates, and many voters, were hoping for — but it did manage to remind us all that ballots will hit mailboxes in coming days and decisions must be made.

Ahead of the forum at Pomona College in Claremont, a trio of our Times columnists — Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria — weigh in with a cheat sheet on what to look for, what to expect and why it matters.

Chabria: I’ll start us off with the obvious — let’s hope Tuesday gives us at least one breakout candidate who comes with some fire and vision.

After last week’s debate, there was lots of social media posturing about who won and who trolled whom the best. But as one of the six people who actually watched, I can tell you it was mostly bland with no clear winner.

That’s in large part because many of the Democrats have only slivers of daylight between their policies, and ditto for the two Republicans.

So my hope is that at least a single candidate ups their game and comes to voters with not just attacks, but something that inspires, something that sets them apart. This far into the race, that hope is slim, but I’m keeping it alive.

What are your hopes and dreams — and maybe fears — going into this?

Barabak: I know I sound like a broken record. (Google it, kids.) Anita, you and I, in particular, have gone round and round on this one. But I don’t feel a particular need for inspiration from the guys and gal that are running for governor. If I want inspiration, I’ll go back and reread the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” Or listen to a Grateful Dead show from May of ’77.

Give me someone who can work with the Legislature, and as difficult as it may be, President Trump, to get stuff done.

Pursue a “California First” agenda, to borrow a phrase. Put voters and their interests ahead of ego, careerism and personal ambition. Start by pledging, if elected, to serve a full four-year term and not run for president so long as they’re serving as governor.

Of course, that kind of promise can be broken. (See then-Gov. Pete Wilson, who made that vow when he sought reelection in 1994, then turned around and — unsuccessfully — sought the White House in 1995.)

At least we’d have them on the record.

Arellano: I’m all for this morass of democracy. A small part of me wants two Republicans to make it into the general election because the California Democratic Party deserves a meteor-like extinction event. No GOP statewide elected official since Schwarzenegger. Supermajority in Sacramento for most of a decade.

And what do they have to show for their one-party rule? This.

But then I hear Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton mewl, and I’m suddenly hoping alongside Anita that someone vanquishes their foes with an unassailable vision. Problem is, I think all the candidates have reached their ceiling. The only one who has any chance of showing us something new is Xavier Becerra, who needs to drop his Dudley Do-Right shtick for a second and channel the inner cholo we all know is in him.

Instead, he was at a fundraiser in Fullerton over the weekend with professional Latinos — you should’ve been kicking it with my cousins in Anaheim who were watching their Dodgers slaughter the Cubs, loco, because they’re the ones who’ll make or break you.

Chabria: How the first potential Latino governor is failing to excite Latino voters is exactly what I’m talking about. If you don’t give voters something to be excited about, they don’t vote, and our fragile democracy needs every voter it can get.

But if we are forced to vote on nuance, let’s do it informed. Here are some questions I hope these candidates have to answer:

For San José Mayor Matt Mahan, funded in the mega-millions by tech bros, it’s not enough to promise to regulate artificial intelligence, or billionaire influence, for that matter. Tell us what those regulations look like and tell us how you reconcile your own politics with those of big donors such as Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir, who has called Gen Z the “loser generation.”

For billionaire investor Tom Steyer, who has said he will reform Proposition 13 (which limits property taxes) for corporate land owners: What assurances do homeowners have that they won’t be next?

For former Rep. Katie Porter, polling third among Democrats, the clock is ticking — is there a point where you will drop out and endorse a fellow candidate if you can’t break through? Same-ies for state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond and former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who are included in this debate but polling in the single digits.

And I agree with you, Gustavo, Becerra is coming across as resolutely bland, but to Mark’s point, he’s using that to position himself as drama-free and experienced. So in an era when fraud and abuse are the words of the day, how does Becerra explain not catching fraud in his own office?

Mark and Gustavo, what are the topics you hope candidates will be grilled on?

Arellano: Slight correction, Anita — California already had a Latino governor: Romualdo Pacheco, the lieutenant governor who replaced Newton Booth in 1875 when the latter became a U.S. senator. Pacheco — a Latino Republican! — served all of 10 months before becoming a Congress member.

See, Californians? Political musical chairs is as much a part of our state as free-spending oligarchs — but enough about Steyer.

Issues? Immigration, of course. I want each one to address the state’s undocumented immigrants for 90 seconds in whatever matter they choose. Water: Believe in climate change or not, but our supply is shrinking faster than the gubernatorial chances of Thurmond. And since I believe that the more random the question, the more you learn about who a candidate truly is: What’s the best song about California, and why? Anyone who says “California Girls” or “California Gurls” deserves disqualification, even if both songs rock.

Barabak: Not an issue, per se. What I’d like to see is a bit of backbone.

The next governor is going to have to make some tough decisions, especially around spending priorities and/or cuts to the state budget. Inevitably, the next governor is going to make some people unhappy. And I’m not talking about just those members of the opposite party, or folks who didn’t vote for them.

So I’d like each of them to name an issue where, for the good of the state, they’re willing to take on their friends and allies, knowing they’ll be displeased. If you’re a Democrat, name something you would do that would, say, tick off organized labor. And for Republicans Bianco and Hilton, what’s an area where you’re willing to say to Trump, “Sir” — the president imagines everyone bowing and calling him sir — “you’re dead wrong about this and California needs to go its own way, whether you like it or not.”

Arellano: Good luck seeing any candidate buck their masters. I think we need to lower our expectations way, way, well, lower. So a simple question to conclude: Who needs to do the most tonight besides Mahan’s beard? I think it’s my fellow Orange Countian, Katie Porter. She’s now to the right of Steyer and left of Becerra, which means she needs to peel off supporters from both of them and grab undecideds if she wants to advance. Not sure how she can pull that off — but if anyone can bring necessary fire, it’s her.

Chabria: Porter definitely has a lot on the line.

One standout moment for her, Steyer or Becerra — good or bad — could tilt this very-much-undecided race — not so much because people will be watching, but because it will fuel the social media and advertising sure to follow. These next two debates are high-stakes, not just to avoid a Biden performance, but to do something, anything, that fires up momentum.

Politics ain’t beanbag, as the old saying goes, and it’s time to bring the heat. So in the spirit of Gustavo’s song request, I’ll leave it with these lyrics from the Rivieras (or the Ramones, if you prefer): We’re out there having fun, in the warm California sun.

Barabak: Not to be the pooper at the party but I think we shouldn’t overstate the import of tonight’s debate. For one thing, as Anita suggested, the audience will be exceedingly small — minuscule, even, relative to the state’s 23 million registered voters.

We know, from experience, that most folks will take away what they do based not on the debate itself but rather the coverage of it and whatever soundbites, memes, chatter and advertising it produces — and that’s only to the extent people are paying attention.

So, yes, what’s said and done in Pomona, will matter some. But we’re still five weeks away from election day, and I suspect many folks will be waiting at least another week or three to start focusing on the race and finally make up their minds.

I’ll end with something that Jerry Garcia sang: All good things in all good time.

A much-anticipated debate featuring leading candidates in the Los Angeles mayor’s race is set for Cinco de Mayo before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. But it won’t include all the leading candidates.

The influential homeowners group has invited just incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, and not the three other top contenders Spencer Pratt, Adam Miller and Rae Huang.

The group explained its decision by saying that big, crowded debates can often feel chaotic.

“Rather than hosting a stage filled with a long list of candidates, we have chosen to invite these two leaders specifically because they represent Sherman Oaks on two critical — and complementary — levels of government. This format allows for a deeper, more meaningful discussion about the issues that directly impact our neighborhood and our city,” the group wrote in its description of the debate.

Some of the other top candidates took issue with being excluded.

“If the SOHA wanted a real debate on topics like public housing, a public bank, free and fast transit, and the things that matter to Angelenos all over the city, they should call off their gate-keeping process that keeps the system and the establishment protected,” Huang spokesman Emel Shaikh said in a statement.

From the Miller camp, spokesperson Jaime Sarachit called it “a missed opportunity for these voters not to hear directly from a candidate offering a different approach to solving L.A.’s biggest issues, especially on housing, homelessness and public safety.”

Pratt didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Angelenos could have a chance to see more of the major candidates the next day, May 6, for a televised debate featuring Colleen Williams and Conan Nolan of NBC4 and Enrique Chiabra of Telemundo 52. KNBC hasn’t yet confirmed the lineup, but the station said to participate candidates must have received at least 5% support in two reliable 2026 polls.

Homeless camp skirmish

Raman scouted out a Harbor Freeway overpass in South L.A. last month after parents at nearby 61st Street Elementary voiced concerns about a homeless camp that students had to pass on their way to school. Raman documented her visit with a post on Instagram, saying “these parents have tried again and again to get someone to listen to their needs — and again and again their concerns have fallen on deaf ears.”

But when City Councilmember Curren Price on Tuesday proposed making the area an anti-encampment zone under the city’s municipal code 41.18, Raman voted against the motion, which passed anyway.

Raman routinely votes against 41.18 zones, saying that reducing homelessness requires connecting people to housing.

“This provision at best shifts encampments around a neighborhood.” Raman said in a statement. “Our working protocols are dependent on that. However, enforcement alone does not drive reductions in homelessness. What works is connecting people to shelter and housing.”

That explanation didn’t stop Bass and Curren, who represents the area in question, from throwing shade Raman’s way.

“It is frustrating when efforts to move forward are met with opposition from those who are not fielding these calls, not hearing from parents, and not seeing these conditions firsthand,” said Price spokesperson Angelina Valencia-Dumarot.

Bass campaign spokesman Alex Stack chimed in: “Raman went to this very school to make an Instagram post about how nobody was helping them, and then turned around three weeks later and voted to allow the encampments to return.”

It’s Miller Time!

Adam Miller has scooped up a couple of names from Bass’ past.

Bill Burton, Miller’s senior advisor, who was a deputy press secretary under then-President Barack Obama — also moonlighted for Bass’ 2022 mayoral campaign as a stand-in for Rick Caruso during Bass’ debate prep, though he didn’t work for the campaign in a formal role.

Burton said during that campaign that the race between Bass and Caruso was “essentially a Democrat versus a Republican.”

Now, Burton is running the campaign for Miller, who voted for Caruso in 2022, though he describes himself as a lifelong Democrat.

Separately, Sarah Sheehan, who worked as Bass’ communications director on her 2022 campaign, is working as a consultant for the Miller campaign.

Sheehan said in a statement that the city needs an outsider.

“That is why I decided to work with Adam Miller,” she said.

Lauren Perez-Rangel, who also worked on Bass’ 2022 campaign as a spokesperson, is also working for Miller.

State of play

— BUDGET: Mayor Bass released her $14.9-billion spending plan Monday, which included a proposal to hire 510 police officers — roughly enough to cover retirements and resignations. The budget must be approved by the City Council, and will be the subject of weeks of hearings.

— COVER UP: The Department of Water & Power has drained the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades to replace the damaged floating cover, frustrating residents who fear there won’t be water to fight potential wildfires.

— EYE OF THE STORMWATER: Los Angeles officials announced a $40-million project at MacArthur Park this week that’s aimed at turning rainstorm runoff into lake water — and maybe improving the park’s tarnished reputation as well. The project will also include new landscaping, walking paths and other features to enhance the location’s appeal as a park.

— LAHSA LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority announced Monday it plans to lay off nearly 300 employees, citing the county’s decision to withdraw funding and set up its own homeless services department.

— INTO THE BREACH: After the massive leak of LAPD files due to a data breach in the L.A. city attorney’s office, officials are seeking explanations from the city’s top lawyer. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said she expected City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to appear before a council committee this week about the data leak. “When did the city attorney’s office become aware, what actions were taken, and why were city officials not notified promptly?” Jurado said. “Right now, we’re still left to question and trying to assemble the information.”

— CULTURE OF FEAR: In the LAFD, firefighters rarely question orders because doing so could invite retribution from bosses. That culture was evident in firefighters’ testimony about the Lachman fire, which reignited into the Palisades fire days later.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Echo Park and Venice this week, bringing inside more than 40 Angelenos and clearing eight RVs and trailers off the streets.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will continue to meet to speak about Bass’ proposed budget.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Xavier Becerra needed to land a knockout punch, even more so than the five other candidates for California governor he was facing at Wednesday night’s debate.

Instead, he fired off some slaps.

He needed to roar about his many accomplishments in his 35-year career in Sacramento and Washington, to distinguish himself from the relative political neophytes around him.

Instead, Becerra recited his resume with the vigor of someone rattling off his LinkedIn page.

He needed to uplift Californians with a vision of hope, when many feel the state is going in the wrong direction.

Instead, he offered the oratory equivalent of a pat on the shoulder.

No candidate had more at stake that night than Becerra, who went from an afterthought to a contender after Eric Swalwell dropped out and resigned his congressional seat over sexual assault allegations.

Five weeks ago, Becerra and other candidates of color were protesting their exclusion from a USC debate because they were all polling so low. Now, the 68-year-old has a chance to become California’s first Latino governor.

This possibility seems to have uncorked California’s silent majority — the rancho libertarians turned off by hard-right politics but also the wokoso politics they feel have left them behind. The people who yearn for an unglamorous, competent leader after eight years of all-about-me Gavin Newsom and a decade of Donald Trump.

Becerra’s campaign, once as rudderless as a leaf in a river in a race so chaotic for Democrats that many feared two Republicans would win on June 2 and face each other in the general election, suddenly latched onto a palpable wave.

At the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books last weekend, I saw people sporting Becerra campaign buttons who had just come from a rally that was expected to draw a few hundred but instead had over 2,000 RSVPs. On social media, friends who had never especially cared for state politics suddenly declared they were for Becerra and fought off their more lefty pals who think he’s a Latino Ned Flanders not up for this fraught moment.

Unglamorous and competent are Becerra’s middle names, and they were on display at the debate — for better and mostly worse. This was his chance to show both his new followers and undecided voters that they could trust him as California’s next governor.

But where he needed to be limber like a prizefighter, the former California attorney general was as tightly wound as a Rolex.

While the other candidates pressed their palms against the podiums, ready to pounce on every question, Becerra clasped his hands like an altar boy. When he did gesture, his movements never went further than the span of his shoulders.

As the others grinned and grimaced at their rivals’ responses, Becerra was as stone-faced as Buster Keaton. He stumbled more than he should have — how could someone in his position mistake Iraq for Iran when criticizing Trump’s Middle East quagmire? — and rarely seemed at ease, as if the weight of the moment and the good luck of his surge had suddenly hit him at the worst possible time.

Candidates in California’s gubernatorial race, from left, Matt Mahan, Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, and Steve Hilton look on during a debate Wednesday, April 22, 2026, in San Francisco.

(Jason Henry / Associated Press)

Becerra’s supporters say a level-headed leader is what California needs. But voters almost never go for what they need — they pick what they want. And California wants someone who’s loud, or at least louder than Becerra. There’s a reason why strident partisans like Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton and progressives Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have consistently placed high in the polls, while moderates like Becerra, his frenemy Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose mayor Matt Mahan have lagged.

The weird thing is that Becerra does know how to brawl. Wallflowers don’t go from a working class Mexican immigrant family to Stanford Law School. Wimps don’t survive the ruthlessness of Eastside politics as an outsider to become a congressmember at just 34. Cowards don’t file over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration as California’s top prosecutor or tackle the coronavirus pandemic as President Biden’s health secretary.

I’ve only encountered the Sacramento native a few times but always came away impressed. In small crowds, he makes people laugh and tear up. He’s quick with ripostes, righteous in off-the-cuff remarks and has a do-gooder aura that never comes off as sanctimonious.

We saw hints of that Becerra at the debate. To Hilton, he quipped, “You can be a talking head and not worry about the consequences of what you do” after the former Fox News host babbled on about how one-party ruled had failed California.

After Porter accused him of not offering hard numbers for his economic plans, Becerra responded that he has balanced federal budgets larger than California’s. “It’s easy to say you haven’t done this; it’s easier to prove that you actually have,” he concluded.

But after Becerra described the evils of racial profiling by law enforcement and Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, ranted that California politicians need to stop thinking so much about race, it was Porter who responded with a verbal haymaker as Becerra silently looked on.

You don’t fight as a choirboy in a battle royale. Becerra wasn’t bad at the debate but he also wasn’t great — and that won’t win this race.

Voters want someone who’ll do the job, yes — especially if it comes with no drama. They also want to elect someone they think is a human, not a joyless bureaucrat. So how did Becerra respond to the debate’s last question about what was the last series you’ve streamed?

Becerra flashed his biggest smile of the night. It was such a softball query that even a kindergartener could have slammed it à la Shohei Ohtani.

“I wish I could tell you I had time to watch streaming shows,” he replied.

Dude. We’re all overworked, but everyone I know unwinds by watching mindless drivel (my current obsession is “Vanderpump Villa”). We all need to relax, even for a moment. As my dad says when he sees me filing one columna after another and urges me to take a break, “El trabajo nunca se acaba pero uno sí se acaba.”

Work never ends, but people do.

Xavier, you know you’re on the wrong side of California when the only other candidate with a similar answer was Bianco, who said he doesn’t watch television at all.

Being careful has served you well, but this is the greatest opportunity of your life. You don’t have to suddenly become a flamethrower, but some sparks would help. It’s six weeks until the primary, so time to throw down — channel your inner cholo and go get what should be yours.

SAN FRANCISCO — With the California governor’s race quickly approaching, six candidates will face off Wednesday evening in the first debate since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race in the aftermath of sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

The debate takes place at a critical moment in the turbulent contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. Ballots will start landing in Californians’ mailboxes in less than two weeks, and voters are split by a crowded field of eight prominent candidates. The debate also takes place after former state Controller Betty Yee ended her campaign because of a lack of resources and support in the polls.

Two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — and four Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer, former Biden administration Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — will take the stage at Nexstar’s KRON4 studios in San Francisco. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, both Democrats, were not invited to participate because of their low polling numbers.

As the candidates strive to distinguish themselves in a crowded field, the debate could include fiery exchanges about the role of money in politics and potential heightened attacks on Becerra, who has surged in the polls since Swalwell dropped out. With the debate taking place on Earth Day, environmental issues are also likely to be raised.

The Wednesday night gathering is the first televised debate in the gubernatorial contest since early February. Last month, USC canceled a debate hours before it was set to begin over mounting criticism that its criteria excluded all major candidates of color.

The 7 p.m. debate is hosted by Nexstar and will be moderated by KTXL FOX40 anchor Nikki Laurenzo and KTLA anchor Frank Buckley. It can be viewed on KRON4 (San Francisco), KTLA5 (Los Angeles), KSWB/KUSI (San Diego), KTXL (Sacramento), KGET (Bakersfield) and KSEE (Fresno). NewsNation will also air the debate.

In a letter to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the three governments say Israel is violating ‘human rights’.

Spain, Slovenia and Ireland have urged the European Union to debate suspending its association agreement with Israel, saying the bloc can no longer remain “on the sidelines” as conditions worsen in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon.

Speaking before a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Tuesday, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares said the three countries had formally requested that the issue be placed on the agenda.

“Spain, along with Slovenia and Ireland, has requested that the suspension of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Israel be discussed and debated today,” Albares said.

“I expect every European country to uphold what the International Court of Justice and the UN say on human rights and the defence of international law. Anything different would be a defeat for the European Union,” he added.

In a joint letter sent last week to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the three governments said Israel had taken a series of measures that “contravene human rights and violate international law and international humanitarian law”, adding that it breached the 1995 agreement that outlines political, economic and trade relations between the EU and Israel.

They said repeated appeals to Israel to reverse course had been ignored. The ministers pointed to a proposed Israeli law that would impose the death penalty by hanging on Palestinians convicted in military courts, describing it as “a grave violation of fundamental human rights” and a further step in the “systematic persecution, oppression, violence and discrimination” faced by Palestinians.

They also cited the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying conditions there were “unbearable”, with continuing violations of the ceasefire agreement and insufficient aid entering the territory.

The letter warned that violence in the occupied West Bank was also intensifying, with settlers acting “with absolute impunity” alongside ongoing Israeli military operations, causing civilian deaths.

“The European Union can no longer remain on the sidelines,” the ministers wrote, calling for “bold and immediate action” and saying all options should remain on the table.

The three countries argued Israel was in breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which ties relations to respect for human rights. An earlier EU review had already found Israel was failing to meet those obligations, they said, adding that the situation had deteriorated further since then.

During a donor conference in Brussels, Kallas said the estimated cost of rebuilding Gaza had risen to $71bn.

Ireland and Spain first pushed for a review of the agreement in 2024, but the effort failed to win enough backing from member states supportive of Israel. A later Dutch-led initiative succeeded in triggering an EU assessment, which concluded Israel had “likely” breached its obligations under the pact.

Possible trade measures, including suspending parts of the relationship, were later discussed but not implemented after Israel pledged to significantly increase humanitarian aid entering Gaza.

Occupied Territories Bill

Ireland is also seeking to revive its Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, which would ban trade in goods and services from illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank. Progress has stalled despite unanimous backing in the lower house of parliament, the Dail.

Meanwhile, Spain and Slovenia have moved to curb trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following sustained public protests and growing political pressure. In August last year, Slovenia banned imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied territories, becoming one of the first European states to take such a step.

Spain followed later that year with a decree banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, with the measure coming into force at the start of 2026.

All three countries formally recognised the State of Palestine in May 2024, in what was widely seen as a coordinated diplomatic move aimed at increasing pressure for a two-state solution.