demand

Hundreds of police, some carrying batons and shields, are deployed around the rally site.

Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in India’s capital, New Delhi, to demand the resignation of the election chief over changes to voter lists that opposition parties say favour Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling party.

Indian National Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi led Sunday’s demonstration, the latest in more than a month of protests challenging the revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Opposition parties alleged the exercise, which removed more than 130 million names from voter lists, disproportionately affected Muslims and other minorities considered unlikely to support Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The Election Commission has denied favouring any party and said voters whose names were wrongly removed may register again.

The BJP has accused opposition parties of undermining democracy by challenging legitimate electoral procedures. India’s next general election is due in 2029.

Officials ramped up security measures and announced traffic diversions before demonstrators marched from central New Delhi towards the historic Ramlila Maidan ground.

Hundreds of police, some carrying batons and shields, were deployed around the rally site alongside riot-control vehicles. Demonstrators waved Indian and party flags as opposition leaders travelled in an open-top jeep.

Health Minister Jagat Prakash Nadda dismissed the demonstration as a “carefully orchestrated drama”.

“What is unfolding today at Ramlila Maidan is not an act of respect for democracy,” he told the ANI news agency. “It is a calculated conspiracy to plunge the nation into anarchy, all in the name of democracy.”

Opposition parties, student organisations and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party have staged near-daily demonstrations since late September, calling for Kumar to step down.

The protests began after Kumar’s two deputies raised concerns about revisions to voter lists, registration procedures and digital systems.

Analysts described the demonstrations and growing support for the opposition as Modi’s most serious political crisis since he took office in 2014.

Oct. 31, 2026 2:13 PM PT

ANCHORAGE — Alaska’s Republican-run state government Saturday urged a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed at President Trump’s direction to stop the certification of a possible Democratic win in that state’s pivotal U.S. Senate race, writing that there is “no reason for this Court to entertain this meritless lawsuit any longer.”

The scathing filing from the state’s attorney general’s office, headed by Republican acting Atty. Gen. Cori Mills, comes as U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason set a deadline of Saturday for arguments over whether she should dismiss the lawsuit without even a hearing.

The complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice has been roundly criticized by election law experts. It demands that the judge halt certification — only in the event of a win by Democrat Mary Peltola — until it is determined whether voters were confused by the presence of a second candidate on the ballot with the same name as her main rival, Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

The Department of Justice on Friday added a request that the judge separate all ballots showing votes for the challenger Dan Sullivan until it can be determined whether voters were fooled into wasting their votes for a spoiler candidate. In its Saturday filing, Alaska said this was “both disturbing and impossible.” It added there would be no way to do that without violating voter privacy.

Trump also demanded that Peltola be prosecuted after the New York Times this week reported that internal texts and posts appeared to show the Democrat’s campaign was involved in recruiting the second Sullivan, a retired schoolteacher in the remote fishing village of Petersburg, onto the ballot. But the state filing notes that the two Sullivans are distinguished from each other on the ballot — the senator is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, and the other is simply “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“State officials carefully designed the ballot to minimize voter confusion,” Alaska officials wrote. “The Court should immediately dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice and allow state officials to conduct the general election — including ballot counting and certification — free from unwarranted federal interference.”

The Trump administration argued that a preamble to the 1990s law governing voter registration gave it the responsibility for ensuring states maintained the “integrity” of federal elections. It has claimed it is trying to combat fraud by preventing the Democrat from being declared the victor in a race that could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.

The Department of Justice issued a wave of subpoenas and announced it was conducting a criminal investigation in the case as the administration has stepped up its use of its legal powers to support Trump’s side in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Peltola has denied involvement in the presence of the challenger Sullivan on the ballot. The New York Times report was based on interviews with her former campaign manager, texts and contributions from a political group backing Peltola to an out-of-state Democratic consultant who recruited the second Sullivan.

Alaska’s Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, who announced a state investigation into the situation after the Times article, has condemned the placement of the second Sullivan on the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled this summer that the second candidate fulfilled all legal requirements to stay on. The state government’s filing on Saturday says that the new revelations about the possible role of Peltola’s campaign don’t change the fact that both Sullivans are legally on the ballot.

“Not every wrong can be righted in federal court,” the state wrote.

Peltola’s campaign and voting rights groups also have urged Gleason to dismiss the case, putting them in unusual alignment with Alaska state officials.

“Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like ‘election integrity’ from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will, preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat and then subjecting voters to a law-enforcement-led inquest about who they ‘really’ supported,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a filing urging the lawsuit’s dismissal.

“Imagine that world and ask whether it is what the Framers wanted or precisely what they most feared.”

Riccardi and Bohrer write for the Associated Press.

A federal appeals court Monday denied an emergency request from the U.S. Justice Department to step in and block California election officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has questioned.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two judges appointed by President Trump and one by President Biden — ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the request, given that a lower district court has not yet made a ruling on it.

But two of the three judges also wrote separately to make clear they also would have denied the Trump administration’s request on other grounds, if they did have jurisdiction.

In an unsigned order — joined by Judge Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — the court granted a request from Los Angeles County to dismiss the appeal, writing that the Trump administration “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” its request for a temporary restraining order barring the ballots from being counted before filing its unusual appeal to the appellate panel.

The court found that the “emergency” the Trump administration asserted was in part a “self-constructed one” and that delays in the district court were partly attributable to its “own delay in filing suit, in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots, in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale, and in communicating to the court its desired relief.”

Both Bennett and Sanchez also each wrote a concurring opinion — in which they made clear that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request even if they did have jurisdiction, too.

Sanchez wrote that federal law would bar the court from issuing such a demand on state elections officials so close to an election.

“The United States seeks to have a federal court dictate to California the manner in which it must administer its own electoral process by segregating mail-in ballots and undertaking a citizenship verification process the State has never done before,” Sanchez wrote. “The proposed injunction would transform California’s election rules for an election that is already underway and would cause widespread confusion among voters and election officials, divert election administration resources, and ‘usher in electoral chaos.’”

Bennett wrote that he would have denied the Trump administration’s emergency request for several reasons beyond jurisdiction, including that it would be likely unconstitutional under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which he wrote “confers broad authority only on Congress and the States, not the Executive,” and Congress has not acted to say that California’s existing laws for ensuring only U.S. citizens vote are problematic.

“Thus, under the Elections Clause, the legislature’s statutory scheme remains as the only method to do so,” Bennett wrote.

Bennett wrote that there are existing California laws to deal with the harm the Trump administration claims it is suffering, but that granting its request to intervene could “result in immense hardship” to the state “and harm the public by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy.”

Bennett wrote that the Trump administration “offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California’s ongoing election.”

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee, dissented — arguing the Trump administration was well within its legal rights to intervene, and the appellate court did have jurisdiction to grant its request and bar the state “from accepting and processing ballots likely cast by aliens until their citizenship could be verified.”

“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”

The ruling clears the way for the lower court to proceed with a hearing scheduled Tuesday afternoon before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Los Angeles.

Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, previously rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to obtain California’s full voter rolls, calling that demand unlawful and a threat to democracy in January. Other federal judges made similar rulings in dozens of states across the country.

The question at issue Tuesday — and hashed over by the appellate court during oral arguments Sunday — is whether the courts should bar the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from processing and tabulating the flagged ballots until they can provide to the Trump administration proof that those individuals are citizens.

The Trump administration has argued in court filings that the federal government is suffering irreparable harm each day such counting is allowed to continue, as once California ballots are removed from their mail envelopes or cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate those ballots from others.

More than 3 million ballots have already been cast in the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections statewide, and more than 500,000 have already been cast in L.A. County.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued in court filings that the administration’s demands to segregate 20,000 ballots and vet those voters for citizenship with just days to go before the election are impossible to comply with and would cause catastrophic disruptions if elections officials across the state were forced to try.

They have also said the demands are clearly unconstitutional, illegal under state and federal law, and based on federal immigration and third-party data sets that have been shown to be deeply flawed, inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

While the appellate court’s formal ruling Monday adhered closely to the technical issue of jurisdiction, its conversation Sunday did not — with both Bennett and Sanchez expressing substantial doubts about the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s request, just as they did in their separate concurrences.

Bennett grilled Matthew Donnelly, the attorney for the Justice Department, on how the executive branch’s demands squared with the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly gives states the power to set laws regarding the time, place and manner of elections and Congress — not the executive branch — oversight over those laws.

Bennett said that while the Trump administration is “unhappy” with how California law ensures voters are citizens — namely by requiring that they attest to their citizenship upon registration — the state has the right to determine its election laws under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, and Congress has not challenged its process.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Bennett and Sanchez both questioned how the appellate court could step in and adjudicate whether to grant the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the state’s election when it is not a fact-finding body, and the district court was never given a chance to develop a record of facts — including around the dueling and contradicting claims about the origins and reliability of the federal government’s list of “likely” noncitizen voters and the state’s claims that an order forcing them to segregate out the votes at this late stage in the election would cause catastrophic harm to the election process.

Carter is sure to pick those issues back up on Tuesday.

BBC viewers have demanded Strictly to drop one popular host from Sunday night’s live show. It comes as Josh Widdicombe, Emma Willis and Johannes Radebe replaced Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman

Strictly fans are calling for one host to be removed from the results show – and it’s not who you’d expect. Although BBC Strictly viewers have been making the same comments about Josh Widdicombe remarks, he’s not actually under the firing line this time.

The 43-year-old joined Emma Willis and Johannes Radebe in a shake-up to replace long-standing hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman, who stepped down last year. Now despite a wave of complaints since the opening show, Josh has proved why he’s worthy of a spot in the ballroom. Now over on social media, many fans reckon another host should step down for Sunday night’s results show.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings…

Posting on Reddit, one person began: “Disclaimer: I love Emma Willis. She’s my secret girl crush. But she’s becoming over saturated. She reminds me of Holly Willoughby. The face of every prime show, followed by Alison Hammond.

“Emma is fronting Strictly and The Voice. Two prime time TV shows. I tuned into a show last night. Was celebs cooking, hosted with Emma and Tom Allen. She’s obviously very good at her job. But aren’t their any other presenters?”

The person continued: “I was thinking of the Strictly results show they could even drop Emma? Bruce Forsyth didn’t do the results show. Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want to get Emma fatigue.”

Although Bruce quit the Sunday results show in 2010, he did continue the Saturday night competition until stepping down four years later. The TV legend sadly passed away at the age of 89 on August 18, 2017.

Since the Strictly fan shared their opinion, many people rushed to the comments section to share their thoughts too. One said: “Yeah I think so too.” While another added: “She’s the only presenter on the show.”

Others said it “depends on your viewing habits”.

Now after week 5’s live show, many people are warming up to the trio of hosts. Over on X, one said: “John Widdecombe and Emma Willis have fully settled into #strictly now, this is such an enjoyable watch. The funny bits aren’t awkward anymore. Tess who?”

While another added: “I’m so loving Emma, she is just right at home. Perfect.”

Strictly Come Dancing’s results show airs on BBC One and BBC iPlayer at 7:10pm tonight (October 25).

The U.S. Justice Department expanded its efforts to intervene in California’s ongoing election Friday, sending letters to more than a dozen county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens.

The letters — which give officials 48 hours to act and threaten them with criminal punishments if they refuse — follow similar correspondence the Justice Department sent last week to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar’s office, calling for some 20,000 ballots statewide be set aside and left uncounted until state and local officials can prove that the voters are citizens.

When Weber and Logan balked, the Justice Department promptly sued them and the state in a case currently pending in federal court. The California officials have contended the Justice Department’s efforts are illegal.

The new letters, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, follow previous threats from Justice Department officials and President Trump warning that local California elections officials could face criminal prosecution for being “aiders and abettors to a federal crime” if they tabulate votes from the “likely noncitizens” the administration has flagged.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles said 57 of California’s 58 counties were served the letters, with the exception of Los Angeles, which had already received a notice.

“The letters speak for themselves. Any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy,” First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

Essayli wrote Friday evening on X that “California does not verify citizenship status. We did the work for them. We obtained the registered voter list and told them who we believe are noncitizens on their rolls.”

Essayli wrote that “knowingly processing noncitizen ballots is a federal crime,” and said authorities “will hold election officials accountable. No one is above the law.”

The Justice Department did not respond to an inquiry from The Times. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office declined to comment.

Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber, who is president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said, “From what I’ve been able to gather, most counties if not all of the counties are doing what I’m doing: Sat down with our counsel, went over everything,” Webber said.

Webber said two people with Justice Department credentials showed up at her office Friday and handed her a manila envelope with the letter inside demanding she comply within 48 hours to determine the citizenship of 81 people in her county.

“I can’t tell you anything other than I’m looking at it and doing my due diligence,” she said. “This is not normal protocol for us.”

Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, said she was also among those who received a letter. She said she had not yet responded as of late Friday, but was in contact with her county counsel and “colleagues around the state who received similar letters today.”

“The non-partisan Contra Costa County Elections Division administers elections according to all state and federal election laws, as well as the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. Our work is observable,” Connelly said. “This threat is not helpful and is intended to intimidate.”

The letter she received, from U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian, was full of threats of criminal punishment for tabulating votes from individuals whom the county is “on actual notice” may not be U.S. citizens.

Missakian, the top federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California, wrote that he was providing Connelly with a “subset” of “407 likely aliens” from the broader statewide list of 20,000 voters, and demanded that Connelly commit within 48 hours to working with Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security officials to identify who among those 407 “is a citizen and who is not.”

“That means sending us the nonpublic information associated with each suspected alien’s registration, which includes everything in your possession from the following: a social security number, a copy of a state ID or driver’s license or the information that appears on it, a copy of the voter registration application supporting the registration, and a copy or list of documents that were presented by the registrant at the time the person registered to vote or obtained their driver’s license if registered as part of motor voter,” Missakian wrote.

He also wrote that he was reaching out by letter “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications of continuing to send vote-by-mail ballots to those people on the list or tabulating ballots cast by them until citizenship can be verified.”

The Justice Department previously sued California for its voter records. A federal judge rejected the lawsuit, calling the demands a threat to democracy. The Justice Department has also lost similar cases demanding voter rolls in dozens of other states.

California Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement Friday that, “Donald Trump and Todd Blanche are trying to interfere in California elections.”

Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, added: No matter how many lawsuits they file or how many election officials they threaten, they do not have the authority to interfere.”

Padilla told local election officials, “We have your back.”

“The Trump administration is afraid and desperate,” he said. “Their attempts to take over our elections will fail.”

The Justice Department has received some records by subpoenaing state and county officials for the records of specific voters.

The letters were a topic of discussion among members of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials Friday, with officials working on how to respond.

Logan, L.A. County’s top elections official, sent an email to fellow association members saying he had seen a copy of the letter to some counties — which he condemned as misrepresenting facts and threatening elections officials “twelve days before the election” through a “posture of intimidation.”

Logan called the 48-hour deadline for responses “unenforceable,” and noted that the Justice Department was “demanding individual level data from the named counties similar to what it has previously only obtained through subpoenas.”

Logan’s office has also said that an initial review it conducted of a subset of the 20,000 voters the Justice Department initially flagged found many were born in the U.S., many weren’t actually registered and many had never voted.

Thousands of Venezuelans have taken to the streets in several cities to demand free elections and other political changes, in the first nationwide opposition protest in nearly two years.

US President Donald Trump and acting President Delcy Rodriguez have said there would be elections, but no date has been set for a vote to decide on a successor for Nicolas Maduro, after the former Venezuelan president was captured by US forces in a military raid in January.

Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who has been outside the country for nearly a year after living in hiding following a contested 2024 election, has said elections must take place by July 2027.

Her Vente Venezuela movement organised the protest, which took place in the capital Caracas and other cities, including Valencia, Maracay, San Cristobal and Maracaibo.

“Seeing this makes me happy because I know change is possible,” said 18-year-old cosmetology student Leosmary Hernandez, as she gathered with hundreds of others in northern Maracay. “I’ve been through so many hardships, so many problems because of the dollar, and difficulties studying. I have high hopes for my country and for our next leader and president, Maria Corina.”

“I went out to protest before, when things were much tougher, and I’m even less afraid today because I want my voice to be heard,” she added.

Since January 3, the country has been led by interim President Delcy Rodriguez of the long-governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

PSUV leaders have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses against political dissidents, including arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.

After the United States launched a military operation to abduct and jail former President Nicolas Maduro, the PSUV remained in power with the support of the White House.

US President Trump has backed Rodriguez’s leadership, despite her having been Maduro’s vice president.

His administration has maintained an active role in Venezuela, exerting control over its oil resources and pressuring the Rodriguez government for reforms.

Minimal security presence

Venezuela’s socialist movement, in power since 1999 under late President Hugo Chavez and then Maduro, has in the past deployed security forces against protesters, but government forces had minimal presence at protest sites on Thursday, and in many smaller cities demonstrators dispersed before dark.

The ruling Socialist Party called for its supporters to march from Caracas’ Plaza Venezuela, the same place the opposition planned to gather two hours later, to a location near the presidential palace to commemorate Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, known for his close ties to the security services, was pictured on state television attending the march, while the opposition supporters moved their protest to a nearby location.

US-backed talks continue

Talks between a faction of the opposition and the interim government, aimed at remaking the top court and the electoral council ahead of eventual elections, held their latest session this month, but changes could take significant time.

The negotiations, backed by the US, do not include Machado’s political movement, though she has said she will not stand in the way of their progress.

Machado’s proxy Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia claims to have won the 2024 election according to vote tallies by the opposition. But the government, which never released full counts, backed Maduro, as did the country’s legal and electoral institutions.

Machado has for years sought US support, aligning with hawks in the Trump team who argued that Maduro, through alleged links to drug gangs, represented a direct threat to US national security. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing drug and torture charges in the US. They have pleaded not guilty.

Caracas, October 22, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Students from the Venezuelan Experimental University of the Arts (UNEARTE) have staged multiple demonstrations in recent days to press for solutions to infrastructural and administrative issues.

Students from the UNEARTE branch in Maracay, Aragua State, blocked a major intersection on Tuesday to demand “dignified” studying conditions.

“We are staging a peaceful demonstration to demand improvements to our academic conditions,” student José Pérez told local reporters. “We do not have our own campus, and the facilities are inadequate for the artistic areas we are studying.”

Protesters held billboards and banners calling for a “dignified campus.” UNEARTE’s Maracay education programs function in different rented spaces, which students have complained are in deteriorating condition.

The Maracay demonstration followed a number of protests and sit-ins at UNEARTE’s main campus in Caracas. Students denounced that multiple university installations are shut down or in a state of disrepair. The Modest Bor center, which houses UNEARTE’s music program, has been partially closed for several years.

In addition, students decried that UNEARTE centers’ cafeterias have been shuttered for months, while many have additional grievances including inoperative bathrooms and software issues that  left many students unable to properly register for classes. 

In response to the protests, Venezuelan authorities vowed to address the concerns raised by students. UNEARTE Rector Ignacio Barreto approached students during a demonstration and promised that the registration process would start over.

The Ministry of Culture, which is responsible for UNEARTE alongside the Ministry of Higher Education, held an assembly with all university personnel and announced the creation of working groups with student representatives in several areas.

“This commission, apart from listening to the students and the authorities, should have a weekly plan that can be supervised,” Culture Minister Alejandro López told press. “Accountability before the students is key.”

López, Barreto and other officials were seen inspecting several university facilities last week. The minister pledged to address issues of running water, internet connectivity, and transportation in the near term.

UNEARTE was created by former President Hugo Chávez in 2008, bringing together several educational institutes dedicated to the arts with the aim of advancing a popular and anti-colonial pedagogical approach. It offers degrees in music, dance, film, theater, photography, and plastic arts.

The protests over UNEARTE’s disrepair and deficient conditions coincided with the Venezuelan government’s launch of the José Antonio Abreu Music University. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez headlined the inauguration ceremony earlier this month.

The new public university will have its state-of-the-art campus in the traditionally middle-class southwestern Caracas parish of El Paraíso, including three concert halls and a research center. It will also have 18 regional branches, with a maximum enrolment capacity of around 3,500 students.

Other Venezuelan universities have likewise seen student demonstrations in recent days. In the “Dr. Humberto Fernández-Morán” National Sciences University, students held a protest and an assembly on Monday over what they characterized as inadequate transportation.

The campus is located in Los Teques, some 25 kilometers outside Caracas, and was formally inaugurated in December 2024. Though the university promised to provide transportation, students have complained that the assigned buses are unreliable and have insufficient capacity.

Higher education trade unions have also been at the forefront of regular labor protests in recent months. Venezuelan working-class organizations have called for non-wage bonuses to be converted to salaries and for the restoration of collective bargaining agreements.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

A sweeping campaign by federal immigration agents to identify voter fraud by noncitizens through door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states must be reined in ahead of the Nov. 3 election, after a federal judge in Northern California ruled it has intimidated U.S. citizens and interfered with the work of voting rights groups.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin said in a ruling Wednesday that limiting the Department of Homeland Security’s surging operations in those states — which she wrote “sweep in U.S. citizens for investigation” — does not prevent the Trump administration from “exercising their authority to investigate voter fraud by lawful means.”

A Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency is “laser focused on identifying, prosecuting, and removing aliens who vote,” and has “no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens.”

The ruling was the latest to come out of an unprecedented legal war playing out between the Trump administration and California in recent days, in which an array of election cases are working their way through the federal courts at breakneck speed.

There is, for example, the lawsuit the U.S. Justice Department filed against California and state and local elections officials last week, demanding that they set aside any ballots from a list of 20,000 individuals identified by immigration officials as “likely noncitizens.”

There are also two cases out of Washington, D.C., in which a coalition of Democratic leaders, immigrant rights groups, voting rights experts and naturalized citizens in California are challenging the Trump administration’s use of Homeland Security data to target voters.

The litigation is playing out amid an intense political debate about election security at the national level — driven in part by President Trump, a longtime election denier — and a sweeping campaign by his administration to root out and parade examples of alleged voter fraud in the final days before the election.

White House, Homeland Security and Justice Department officials have all defended the administration’s efforts as necessary to ensure that noncitizens are not illegally diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has claimed to have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are doing so in California.

‘That is not normal’

Democratic leaders and prominent elections experts, meanwhile, have cast the administration’s claims as baseless and intentionally exaggerated to stoke uncertainty about election security and ultimately challenge midterm results the president doesn’t like, and the Justice Department’s legal arguments as fundamentally flawed and wildly out of line with long-established department policy to stay out of elections in the lead up to voting.

“That is not normal. We have literally never experienced that in American history. Not once,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former Justice Department elections attorney. “The fact that the administration appears poised for the first time to act as an adversary to the states and counties who have [the] undisputed constitutional authority to run elections? That is unusual.”

At the same time, Becker and other experts stressed that those efforts to date have failed, and state and local elections have largely proceeded in recent weeks without incident, with millions of Americans having already cast their ballots.

“California voters need to know that they’re in good hands, that we have leaders at the state and local levels who are protecting our ballots and are ensuring that these attempts by the federal government to root out supposed noncitizen voting are not going to prevent Californians from casting our ballots,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “Part of the strategy here is to distract people and scare people and raise fears, and the important thing is to continue to stay focused on … making a plan to vote.”

Status of cases

Federal courts have already rejected multiple Trump executive orders seeking to enforce nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements. The Supreme Court blocked an administration plan for the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots. The Justice Department has compiled a stunning record of losses in its 30 lawsuits demanding state voter rolls — with 26 of those cases, including the one in California, so far dismissed.

And election experts said they expect the Trump administration to rack up more losses in coming days — including in the Justice Department’s case challenging California officials’ refusal to segregate the ballots of some 20,000 voters based on the administration’s unsubstantiated claims they are noncitizens.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, shown in 2023, is overseeing a lawsuit in which the Department of Justice says 20,000 California ballots may have been sent to “likely noncitizens.”

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

That case was taken up — and scheduled for a Tuesday hearing — by Judge David O. Carter, an appointee of President Clinton who in January rejected the administration’s demand for California’s voter rolls, calling it a clear federal overreach that would have a “chilling effect” on voters and threaten American democracy.

California has called for the case to be dismissed outright, on the grounds that the administration has zero authority to make such demands, and that the demands are unlawful. The Trump administration has asked Carter to immediately rule in the matter.

“Every minute of [ballot] processing that occurs without segregating the ballots of suspected non-eligible voters causes untraceable disenfranchisement and dilution of the votes of United States citizens,” wrote Julie Hamill, an assistant U.S. attorney in Essayli’s office.

In D.C. federal court, Judge James E. Boasberg set an Oct. 30 hearing in a case in which UCLA Voting Rights Project attorneys, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo are challenging the administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege California voters aren’t citizens.

Carl Bergquist, an attorney for CHIRLA, said he looked forward to bringing a host of recent Trump administration actions to the court’s attention — including the administration’s lawsuit against California, the charging this week of 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, and Trump’s threats to arrest California elections officials who don’t comply with his administration’s demands.

“The events of the last few days, from threats to state and local officials, increased general immigration operations, the random knocking on doors by federal agents and the recent arrests are causing a chill in the community,” Bergquist said. “People, including naturalized citizens, are making their plans to vote and the Federal Government is doing its utmost to quash their attempts to exercise this fundamental right that they have lawfully acquired.”

The argument that naturalized citizens are being intimidated also features prominently in a second lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court Tuesday, in which top Democrats in Congress joined Nevada party officials and a California immigrant named Erick Jose Jimenez to challenge the Trump administration’s unprecedented voter fraud probes.

That lawsuit, also assigned to Boasberg, says Jimenez, a naturalized citizen since 2006, fears being “unlawfully targeted for voting and disenfranchised (or worse).”

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy advisor on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said there is “so much noise” around the election right now, in part because the administration has been making wild legal arguments about its authority over elections.

But he said “none of the federal government’s attempts to assert power that they do not have are working,” and voting “for 99.999% of the public” will remain “wonderfully normal.”

The thrilling ITV drama starring Richard Armitage returned for another episode, leaving fans asking the same question

The new ITV series has left viewers hooked.

ITV’s latest crime drama offering, Winter, aired another chilling episode on Wednesday (October 21), marking the fourth of the six-part series. Actor Richard Armitage portrays unconventional forensic pathologist Dr Ethan Winter, alongside Annabel Scholey as DI Lauren Bell and Jamie Kenna as DS Ellis Daldry, as they uncover and solve complex crimes.

Each episode presents its own gripping, standalone crime narrative, while a personal storyline for Winter threads throughout the entire series.

The latest instalment followed the discovery of human remains, which sparked a chilling investigation for Winter, Bell and Daldry. Winter suspects the body parts have been in the water for around 36 hours and notes the victim has been dismembered.

He also believes the male victim went to the gym frequently based on the development of his arms, but one part has signs of arthritis signalling that the remains belong to two different people.

Previous episodes have followed a brutal double murder that sparked a twisting investigation and the discovery of a faceless body at a Bristol demolition site. Meanwhile, Winter is constantly tasked with uncovering the truth behind Simone’s death after her dead body was found frozen during the first episode.

In the next episode, airing on ITV on Wednesday 28 October, viewers will see Winter race to save a stab victim after a cinema date turns to horror. The final episode airs on November 4 and follows a woodland car crash that hides a darker crime.

Following a string of gripping crime plots, Winter viewers have been left wondering if there will be a second series of the ITV drama after falling in “love” with the debut season.

Turning to X, one viewer wrote: “I loved Winter, better than The Party, can’t wait for the next series.” A second added: “It’s different, and I like that, all wrapped up in an hour too”, while a third asked: “We getting S2?”

“Nothing confirmed for season 2”, noting one fan as another added: “Great show, would love to see another series.”

Praising the ITV show, one person confessed: “Binged watched this in one day. Great series”, with another commenting: “Great series hope there will be series 2.”

Winter continues next Wednesday at 9pm on ITV and ITVX, with the whole series available now on ITVX

Real Madrid have called for the “immediate resignation” of La Liga president Javier Tebas after he drew comparisons between the club’s management and Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

Tebas said Real Madrid’s communication and the use of its in-house TV channel “recalls propaganda mechanisms exploited by Goebbels”.

Real Madrid have called the statement “deeply offensive” and “morally repugnant”.

The club have also demanded Tebas steps down as both the head of the Spanish top flight and vice-president of the Spanish Football Association (RFEF).

“Real Madrid considers it absolutely intolerable and extraordinarily serious that someone holding two positions of utmost responsibility in Spanish football resorts to a comparison with the propaganda methods of the Nazi regime to discredit our club, its management and its television,” the club said.

In a lengthy post published on X on Friday, Tebas said: “Real Madrid’s management directs an orchestra of mouthpieces and Real Madrid TV leads the singing.

“Their score is always the same: select the plays that suit them, repeat the grievance, feed the suspicion, and point fingers at the enemies.

“That method recalls propaganda mechanisms exploited by Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s minister of propaganda: systematic repetition, construction of an enemy, and subordination of facts to the narrative.”

Tebas later said he was drawing comparison with “those propaganda techniques” and “not with an ideology”.

Real Madrid rejected this clarification, saying it did not mitigate the “institutionally unworthy nature of his statements”.

The club added: “These statements constitute yet another episode in the repeated attacks by Javier Tebas against Real Madrid, its president and its media outlets.”

Last month, Tebas criticised Real Madrid for claiming there was a refereeing conspiracy against the club.

He also has been critical of Real and its president Florentino Perez in previous years after disagreeing with their plans to join a European Super League in 2021.

In 2025 he said Real had “lost their head” after the club sent a formal letter of complaint to the Spanish FA about officiating in the league.

The remaining Big Brother housemates returned to the Diary Room to nominate on Wednesday

Three Big Brother housemates are at risk of eviction this week.

The latest round of nominations took place in the house on Wednesday (October 14), with the remaining housemates entering the Diary Room to share their choices. This comes after Yasmin received a killer nomination this week.

After losing a dominoes task, Yasmin was chosen by the winning blue team to be put up for eviction for the first time. The group then made their own selections for who they wanted to be at risk of leaving on Friday (October 16) night.

For the first time this series, there will be three housemates facing the public vote. Twinks and Rob received the most nominations from their fellow housemates, meaning they will join Yasmin in facing eviction this week.

Twinks received six nominations from Rochelle, Frankie, Rhianna, Philip, Yasmin and Omar. Rob also received six nominations from Philip, Rhianna, Omar, Frankie, Lynx and Rochelle.

Rochelle received four nominations, while Omar and Rhianna each had two. Catrin, Lynx, Philip and Sam were all voted for once, while Frankie and Harry received no nominations from their fellow housemates.

Voting for Friday’s eviction opened at 10pm, with viewers being asked to vote for the housemate they wish to evict from the house. After learning the result of this week’s nominations, it didn’t take long for fans to share their frustrations on social media.

“My 3 current fave housemates are up for eviction,” one fumed on X. Another said: “Actually fuming.” Someone else commented: “Yasmin vs Twinks vs Rob is an abysmal eviction lineup while the horror group coast their way through btw.”

A fourth fan echoed the sentiment, saying: “Cancel the eviction. I don’t want any of them to go.” Another furious viewer wrote: “I’m done with this.”

Elsewhere in tonight’s episode, Omar played a prank on Rochelle by hiding her nail kit in the store room. However, she didn’t see the funny side, as she was soon heard screaming: “Where is it? Where’s my f****** bag? Where is it?”

Rochelle left the bedroom and headed to the garden to ask the other housemates. Lynx said: “I don’t know. I don’t f****** know,” before Yasmin added: “Rochelle, you haven’t even looked properly.”

Omar then turned to Lynx, saying: “She will never find it, where we put it. Does Frankie know?” After searching high and low for her nail kit, Rochelle headed to the Diary Room to share her frustrations.

“Where’s my nail, where’s all my nail stuff? The whole lot’s gone… where, who has taken it? I f****** hate him. I want my nail stuff… just tell them to give it to me back… I’m literally gonna rip this place apart till I find it.”

Big Brother is available to stream on ITVX

Physicians accuse Israeli Medical Association of remaining silent as Palestinian healthcare is systematically destroyed.

Hundreds of doctors have gathered outside the World Medical Association (WMA) summit in the Netherlands, calling for the suspension of the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) from the grouping of physicians.

On Saturday, 81 healthcare workers removed their scrubs and hung them in a line facing the WMA assembly in Rotterdam, each bearing the name of a Palestinian healthcare worker currently held in illegal Israeli detention.

It was part of a protest against the continued membership of the Israeli association in the WMA, “despite them breaching almost every ethical principle in the WMA’s Code of Medical Ethics”, the IMA Out! coalition that organised the demonstration said in a statement.

“These scrubs should not be empty. Our colleagues belong with their patients, not in Israeli prisons. Today, we literally placed their names at the WMA’s doorstep,” said Mejrem Ahmetaj, a general practitioner and member of IMA Out!.

Since October 2023, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has killed more than 1,700 Palestinian healthcare workers and destroyed nearly all the hospitals and healthcare facilities in the enclave.

The campaign accused the Israeli medical association of remaining silent as Palestinian healthcare has been systematically destroyed.

“The IMA is not a bystander. It defends these attacks and blocks international condemnation while Palestinian healthcare is being destroyed. That is not medical neutrality. That is complicity,” added Ahmetaj.

At a meeting of international doctors, medical leaders and human rights activists during the WMA summit on Thursday, the destruction of Palestinian healthcare and the responsibility of the international medical community were discussed, the campaign said.

“Our Palestinian colleagues are being killed and imprisoned, where they are starved and tortured. Their hospitals have been destroyed and patients driven out or murdered. The IMA has said and done nothing about these war crimes against health workers, patients and hospitals,” said a statement by Jonathan Fluxman on behalf of IMA OUT!.

“Thirty years of WMA dialogue with the IMA has done nothing but give the IMA a sense of impunity … It is time for national medical associations and the WMA to speak out and take action. Break your ties with the IMA and suspend the IMA from the WMA now,” he added.

The IMA OUT! campaign said it delivered a petition calling for the IMA’s suspension, signed by more than 6,500 health workers from around the world.

They also demanded accountability for the complicity of Israeli doctors in the starvation, torture and medical neglect of Palestinian prisoners.

Among those held by Israel is Dr Hussam Abu Safia, head of Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital, whose unlawful detention has prompted an international outcry.

He was briefly held at the notorious Sde Teiman detention camp and has been subject to torture and medical neglect. Doctors protesting in Rotterdam held up placards demanding his release.

Abu Safia’s son Elyas, addressing a meeting organised by the campaign, said, “My father and all Palestinian detainees must be treated in accordance with medical ethics, and doctors must abide by the Hippocratic oath they have taken. Care cannot be given based on whose life is deemed worthy.”

On a sweltering Saturday, around 100 people gathered in Culver City for a rally and march to deliver a message to several major media companies: Help us protect our democracy.

Spotlighting Sony Pictures Studios, Apple, Pinterest and Amazon MGM Studios, all with local offices, protesters demanded that the companies sign on to the “Business for Democracy Pledge” ahead of the elections in November.

After hearing from a few speakers outside Culver City’s City Hall, the band of demonstrators marched a few blocks to the offices of Sony Pictures Studios. From there — walking by posters for the upcoming Sony release “The Social Reckoning” — they made their way back across downtown Culver City to stop outside the historic Culver Studios, now owned by Amazon MGM.

Local groups Culver City and Friends Rising and Keep Showing Up led the protests. This week, they sent letters to the chief executives of all four corporations asking them to sign the pledge. No response has been received. (Messages from The Times to spokespeople for all four companies also were not returned.)

“Businesses and particularly large corporations like Sony, Apple, Pinterest and Amazon, who are our focus today, have a particular role to play in defending democracy,” Phil Ansell, leader of Culver City and Friends Rising, said before the rally. “They have weight, and this administration cares what business says.”

He added, “We’ve seen internationally that in situations where democracy has been under threat, that when the business community stands up for democracy, it can make a huge difference in preventing a full-on shift to authoritarianism.”

Bryan “Bubba” Fish, Vice-Mayor of Culver City, was on hand as a featured speaker and noted how Culver City, a relatively small community that is home to offices for multiple international media companies, is uniquely positioned to help ensure residents’ voices are heard.

“The message of this event is that these major corporations, that are the largest and richest corporations in the history of the planet, benefit from our civilized society,” Fish said before the rally. “…The only reason they’ve been able to grow to the size that they are is because we have stable, legitimate governance, and the bare minimum should be that they commit to defending and speaking out when our elections and our democracy is at risk. That should be the floor.”

Fish added, “We’re here saying you’re a part of our community, stand for free and fair elections and defend democracy alongside us.”

Demonstrators march to the offices of Sony Pictures Studios and past posters for the upcoming Sony release “The Social Reckoning.”

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Reverend Dr. Frances Wattman Rosenau, pastor at Culver City Presbyterian Church, spoke outside of both Sony and Amazon MGM.

“Democracy is one of our core values as a country, and me as a person of faith, I care deeply about giving voice to the voiceless and making sure that no one is marginalized,” Rosenau said while walking from one location to the other. “And calling our business partners to come alongside us is an act of partnership. It’s time for everybody to be in the boat and rowing, affirming what we stand for as a people for the common good.”

The Culver City event is one of a series around the country this week in collaboration with the group May Day Strong. Representatives of other local activist groups, including PowerSwitch Action, National Nurses United and Singing Resistance Santa Monica, were also in attendance on Saturday.

Amy Schur, campaign director with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), is involved with coordinating the national campaign for the “Business for Democracy” pledge.

“We’re in a unique moment where people are rising up all across the country of their own accord,” Schur said. “People are seeing what’s at stake. So they’re ready to march, they’re ready to speak out.”

Schur noted that much work remains to harness that energy and turn it into real change.

“The critical question is, can we do it in ways that are strategic and have the impact that we need in this moment?” she said. “Just marches are not enough because it’s kind of easy to ignore those. But when it’s a march with a purpose and calling out big corporations, it has more impact.”

The march in Culver City was one of several nationwide actions this week.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Ansell noted that companies such as Apple and Amazon spoke out after the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 and hopes they will continue in that same spirit.

“We’re here today to say don’t wait for the equivalent of January 6 to happen again,” Ansell said. “Commit yourself now publicly to opposing any efforts to undermine this election. And our view is that to the extent that many large corporations across this country take that public stance, it will significantly reduce the risk of a major effort to subvert this election.”

Organizers see Saturday’s protest as part of an ongoing effort and hope more people will feel empowered to participate.

“People are not alone,” Ansell said. “No one should feel like they have to stay home alone and despair. There are many opportunities for action, and we have to be prepared. Today’s action is one of many to defend this election.”