District

A tawny owl screeches nearby in the dark and her mate replies, hooting eerily from the forest below. A white dome floats in the gloaming above a plain black doorway outlined with red light, like a portal to another dimension. I’m in Grizedale Forest, far from any light-polluting cities, to visit the Lake District’s first public observatory and planetarium, which opened in May.

Grizedale Observatory offers immersive films in the planetarium and three-hour stargazing events that go on late into the night. There are sessions on astrophotography and, on moonless nights, dark sky astronomy with the chance to see “a glittering tapestry of stars, galaxies, nebulae and star clusters”. Its director, Gary Fildes, is a veteran in the field, having founded and led three UK observatories over two decades. The goal at Grizedale, he says, is to create “an immersive, year-round astronomy and science destination that brings the beauty of the Lake District skies to visitors”.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg giving you the latest on city and county government.

At her official campaign launch Dec. 13, Mayor Karen Bass told Angelenos that they face a simple decision.

After speaking about the Palisades fire, federal immigration raids and the homelessness and affordability crises, she turned to the primary election next June.

“This election will be a choice between working people and the billionaire class who treat public office as their next vanity project,” Bass told a crowd of a few hundred people at Los Angeles Trade Technical-College.

Attendees take their picture against a “photo booth” wall at Mayor Karen Bass’ reelection campaign kickoff rally.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

In one sentence, without uttering a single name, the mayor appeared to be taking a shot at three different men. Was she talking about President Trump? Mayoral hopeful Austin Beutner? Her previous opponent, the billionaire developer Rick Caruso?

Or how about all of the above, suggested Bass’ campaign spokesperson, Doug Herman.

The billionaire class certainly includes Caruso, who self-funded his 2022 campaign to the tune of more than $100 million. It also includes Trump, who the New York Times estimated could be worth more than $10 billion. Though the mayor is not running against Trump, she likes to cast herself in opposition him. And Beutner, a former Los Angeles schools superintendent, was once an investment banker, Herman pointed out.

Beutner confirmed to The Times that he is not a billionaire. To the contrary, Beutner said, he drives a 10-year-old Volkswagen Golf.

Herman said Angelenos don’t care if Beutner has billions or just a lot of millions.

“Whether you’re a billionaire or multimillionaire is not really important to someone having trouble getting by and playing by the rules,” Herman told The Times.

“I’m trying to find the polite words,” Beutner said when asked about Bass’ comments. “Frankly, I think it’s an attempt to distract people from her record or lack thereof.”

Caruso declined to comment.

In a speech at Bass’ campaign launch, City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez hammered the same point as the mayor.

City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez shows his support during Mayor Karen Bass’ reelection campaign kickoff rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

“We’re always going to have rich old white men, the millionaires and billionaires — they think they can do it better,” he said. “They didn’t get it last time, and they’re not going to get it this time.”

Then, Soto-Martínez seemed to reference Beutner.

“Do you want a healthcare worker over a hedge fund manager?” he asked the crowd, to roaring applause (Bass used to work as a physician’s assistant, while Beutner founded the investment banking advisory group Evercore Partners).

With Bass’ reelection campaign underway, Beutner challenging her as a moderate and community organizer Rae Huang running to her left, Caruso could be the last major domino left to fall.

The Grove and Americana at Brand developer, who has been mulling a run for either governor or mayor (or neither), still has not revealed his plans for 2026.

Karen Bass supporters created signs for her reelection campaign kickoff rally.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry & Commerce Assn., was among the diverse array of Bass supporters gathered on stage at Trade-Tech to voice their endorsements.

Waldman told The Times that he is supporting the mayor in his personal capacity, though VICA has not yet endorsed.

In 2022, Waldman and VICA supported Caruso, and Waldman spoke at some Caruso events.

He said he switched to Bass this time partly because of his unhappiness with the $30-minimum wage for airport and hotel workers passed by the City Council earlier this year. Businesses cannot move quickly enough to raise worker wages without laying off other workers, he said.

Waldman said that Bass arranged for him to meet with Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who then introduced a motion that would phase in the minimum wage increase over a longer period. The current law brings the wage up to $30 by 2028, while Harris-Dawson wants the $30 minimum to start in 2030.

“Bass was instrumental in making that happen, and we appreciate that,” Waldman said.

Harris-Dawson, a Bass ally, was at the campaign kickoff but did not make a speech.

Some were not pleased with his minimum wage proposal. Yvonne Wheeler, who is president of the Los Angeles County Federal of Labor and was at the Bass event, called it “shameful.” Soto-Martínez, who co-sponsored the minimum wage ordinance, also opposes Harris-Dawson’s proposal.

Waldman said that Soto-Martínez refused to take a meeting with him during the minimum wage fight.

“Hugo and I come from two different worlds and see the world differently,” Waldman said. “Unfortunately, I am willing to talk to everybody, and he is not.”

But at the Bass campaign launch, the two men delivered speeches one right after the other. Waldman said the diversity of opinion among the mayor’s supporters is a good sign for her.

“It’s a broad coalition,” he said.

State of play

— AFTER THE FIRES: The Times posted a project called “After the Fires” online Wednesday, nearly a year after the Palisades and Eaton fires. The stories, which document mayoral missteps, changes at the LAFD, failed emergency alerts and more, will be published as a special section in Sunday’s print edition.

— VEGAS, BABY: Councilmember John Lee is facing a steep fine for his notorious 2017 trip to Las Vegas, with the city’s Ethics Commission saying he must pay $138,424 in a case involving pricey meals, casino chips and expensive nightclub “bottle service.” The commission doled out a punishment much harsher than that recommended by an administrative law judge. Lee vowed to keep fighting, calling the case “wasteful and political.”

— EX-MAYOR FOR GOVERNOR: Four Los Angeles City Council members — Harris-Dawson, Heather Hutt, Bob Blumenfield and Curren Price — threw their support behind former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be the next California governor.

— POOLS OUT FOR WINTER: City swimming pools will be closed on Fridays “until further notice,” the Department of Recreation and Parks announced Monday. “These adjustments were necessary to continue operating within our available resources,” the department said on Instagram.

— HOT MIC: Bass was caught on a hot mic ripping into the city and county responses to the January wildfires. “Both sides botched it,” she said on “The Fifth Column” podcast, after she shook hands with the host and they continued chatting. The final minutes of the podcast were later deleted from YouTube, with Bass’ team confirming that her office had asked for the segment to be removed.

— HOMELESSNESS FUNDING: The Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency on Wednesday approved nearly $11.5 million in homeless prevention funds, the largest single allocation yet for the new agency.

— A YEAR OF JIM: After more than a year as the LAPD’s top cop, Chief Jim McDonnell is receiving mixed reviews. While violent crime is at historic lows, some say the LAPD is sliding back into its defiant culture of years past.

— “CALM AMIDST CHAOS”: LAFD spokesperson Erik Scott announced this week that he has written a “frontline memoir” about the January wildfires. The book is set to be released on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire.

— “THE GIRLS ARE FIGHTING”: Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath got into a tiff on X over homelessness. After Bass published an op-ed in the Daily News saying that the county’s new Department of Homelessness is a bad idea, the supervisor shot back, calling the mayor’s track record on homelessness “indefensible.” Following the spat, City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado posted on X, “I fear the girls are fighting.” And Austin Beutner, who is running against Bass, responded with a nearly six-minute video criticizing the mayor’s record on homelessness.

— OVERSIGHT OVER?: Experts worry that effective civilian oversight of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department could be in jeopardy following a recent leadership exodus. A succession of legal challenges and funding cuts, coupled with what some say is resistance from county officials, raised concerns that long-fought gains in transparency are slipping away.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program did not conduct any new operations this week. The team “returned to previous Inside Safe operation locations, building relationships with unhoused Angelenos in the area to offer resources when available,” the mayor’s office said.
• On the docket next week: Mayoral candidate Rae Huang will host a text bank and volunteer meetup at Lawless Brewing on Monday, Dec. 22. The City Council remains in recess until Jan. 7.

Stay in touch

That’s it for now! We’ll be dark next week for the holidays. 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.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”

Marian La Follette, who spent 10 years as a Republican Assemblywoman from Northridge before retiring in 1990, plans to enter the state Senate race in the new district that stretches from Oxnard to the San Fernando Valley, Republican sources said Tuesday.

“I just spoke to her a little while ago, and she has made up her mind that she will be running,” said Charles H. Jelloian, a Republican from Northridge. Jelloian said he has decided to withdraw from the state Senate race, partly to make way for La Follette’s return to politics.

“Marian’s jumping into the race is a very big factor,” said Jelloian, who became acquainted with La Follette when he was an aide to state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale). “I worked very, very well with her for a long time,” he said. “I have a lot of respect for her.”

La Follette has lived in Orange County since her retirement. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

If she enters the race, she could pose a formidable challenge to Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) in the new 19th state Senate District. So far, Wright is the leading candidate in the district that encompasses Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Fillmore, Simi Valley and Northridge.

“Both are new to this district,” said one Republican source. “I think they would start out about equal.”

Roger Campbell, a Republican city councilman in Fillmore, also has declared his candidacy in the heavily Republican district. No Democratic candidate has come forward in the district that has roughly 28,000 more registered Republican voters than Democrats.

La Follette, a conservative legislator, was best known for her persistent efforts to divide the massive Los Angeles Unified School District into smaller districts.

She decided to retire two years ago when her late husband, Jack, a Los Angeles lawyer, fell seriously ill with cancer.

When she was in the Legislature, she aligned herself with Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), who is vacating the Senate seat. Republican sources said they anticipate that Davis will support her candidacy against Wright, a longtime political foe.

La Follette’s candidacy is another indication that Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) will run for Congress. She and McClintock are strong political allies.

McClintock has toyed with the notion of running for state Senate, GOP sources said. The long-anticipated announcement of his plans has been postponed until later this week.

When Indiana adopted new U.S. House districts four years ago, Republican legislative leaders lauded them as “fair maps” that reflected the state’s communities.

But when Gov. Mike Braun recently tried to redraw the lines to help his fellow Republicans gain more power, he implored lawmakers to “vote for fair maps.”

What changed? The definition of “fair.”

As states undertake mid-decade redistricting instigated by President Trump, Republicans and Democrats are using a tit-for-tat definition of fairness to justify districts that split communities in an attempt to send politically lopsided delegations to Congress. It is fair, they argue, because other states have done the same. And it is necessary, they say, to maintain a partisan balance in the House of Representatives that resembles the national political divide.

This new vision for drawing congressional maps is creating a winner-take-all scenario that treats the House, traditionally a more diverse patchwork of politicians, like the Senate, where members reflect a state’s majority party. The result could be reduced power for minority communities, less attention to certain issues and fewer distinct voices heard in Washington.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky fears that unconstrained gerrymandering would put the United States on a perilous path, if Democrats in states such as Texas and Republicans in states like California feel shut out of electoral politics. “I think that it’s going to lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,” he said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Although Indiana state senators rejected a new map backed by Trump and Braun that could have helped Republicans win all nine of the state’s congressional seats, districts have already been redrawn in Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Other states could consider changes before the 2026 midterms that will determine control of Congress.

“It’s a fundamental undermining of a key democratic condition,” said Wayne Fields, a retired English professor from Washington University in St. Louis who is an expert on political rhetoric.

“The House is supposed to represent the people,” Fields added. “We gain an awful lot by having particular parts of the population heard.”

Under the Constitution, the Senate has two members from each state. The House has 435 seats divided among states based on population, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. In the current Congress, California has the most at 52, followed by Texas with 38. The District of Columbia and U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico have no voting representation in either chamber of Congress.

Because senators are elected statewide, they are almost always political pairs of one party or another. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only states with a Democrat and Republican in the Senate. Maine and Vermont each have one independent — who caucuses with Democrats — and one senator affiliated with a political party.

By contrast, most states elect a mixture of Democrats and Republicans to the House. That is because House districts, with an average of 761,000 residents, based on the 2020 census, are more likely to reflect the varying partisan preferences of urban or rural voters, as well as different racial, ethnic and economic groups.

This year’s redistricting is diminishing those locally unique districts.

In California, voters in several rural counties that backed Trump were separated from similar rural areas and attached to a reshaped congressional district containing liberal coastal communities. In Missouri, Democratic-leaning voters in Kansas City were split from one main congressional district into three, with each revised district stretching deep into rural Republican areas.

Some residents complained their voices are getting drowned out.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has defended California’s gerrymandering effort — approved by voters last month — as necessary to fight what he calls a power grab launched by Trump. Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe of Missouri has defended his state’s redistricting — approved by GOP lawmakers and signed into law by him — as a means of countering Democratic states and amplifying the voices of those aligned with the state’s majority.

All’s ‘fair’ in redistricting?

Indiana’s delegation in the U.S. House consists of seven Republicans and two Democrats — one representing Indianapolis and the other a suburban Chicago district in the state’s northwestern corner.

Dueling definitions of fairness were on display at the Indiana Capitol as lawmakers considered a Trump-backed redistricting plan that would have split Indianapolis among four Republican-leaning districts and merged the Chicago suburbs with rural Republican areas. Opponents walked the halls in protest, carrying signs such as “I stand for fair maps!”

Ethan Hatcher, a talk radio host who said he votes for Republicans and libertarians, denounced the redistricting plan as “a blatant power grab” that “compromises the principles of our Founding Fathers” by fracturing Democratic strongholds to dilute the voices of urban voters.

“It’s a calculated assault on fair representation,” Hatcher told a state Senate committee.

But others asserted it would be fair for Indiana Republicans to hold all of those House seats, because Trump won the “solidly Republican state” by nearly three-fifths of the vote.

“Our current 7-2 congressional delegation doesn’t fully capture that strength,” resident Tracy Kissel said at a committee hearing. “We can create fairer, more competitive districts that align with how Hoosiers vote.”

When senators defeated a map designed to deliver a 9-0 congressional delegation for Republicans, Braun bemoaned that they had missed an “opportunity to protect Hoosiers with fair maps.”

Disrupting an equilibrium

By some national measurements, the U.S. House already is politically fair. The 220-215 majority that Republicans won over Democrats in the 2024 elections almost perfectly aligns with the share of the vote the two parties received in districts across the country, according to an Associated Press analysis. It was made possible, however, in part by a gerrymander of North Carolina districts in the GOP’s favor prior to the 2024 election.

But that overall balance belies an imbalance that exists in many states. Even before this year’s redistricting, the number of states with congressional districts tilted toward one party or another was higher than at any point in at least a decade, the AP analysis found.

The partisan divisions have contributed to a “cutthroat political environment” that “drives the parties to extreme measures,” said Kent Syler, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University. He noted that Republicans hold 88% of congressional seats in Tennessee, and Democrats have an equivalent in Maryland.

“Fairer redistricting would give people more of a feeling that they have a voice,” Syler said.

Rebekah Caruthers, who leads the Fair Elections Center, a nonprofit voting rights group, said there should be compact districts that allow communities of interest to elect the representatives of their choice, regardless of how that affects the national political balance. Gerrymandering districts to be dominated by a single party results in “an unfair disenfranchisement” of some voters, she said.

“Ultimately, this isn’t going to be good for democracy,” Caruthers said. “We need some type of détente.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

With the 2028 Summer Olympics creeping closer, the Los Angeles City Council still has not come to an agreement with the private committee overseeing the Games over who will pay for the additional city services required to host athletes and spectators from around the world.

With hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the city has blown past its own Oct. 1 deadline for hammering out an “Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement” contract with LA28 and is now considering filing suit.

City officials indicated the potential for a lawsuit against LA28 Monday during a meeting of the council’s ad hoc Olympics committee. In closed session, the committee conferred “with its legal counsel relative to possible initiation of litigation,” according to the meeting agenda.

But after a lengthy closed-door meeting, the committee broke without moving any closer to suing LA28.

“There was no recommendation to move forward on litigation,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who sits on the Olympic committee, in a brief interview with The Times after the closed session.

Although it remains unclear exactly why the city might sue LA28, the stakes of the negotiations between the two parties are high.

The Olympics have repeatedly been billed as a “zero cost” event for Los Angeles, with the city’s costs reimbursed by LA28 and the federal government. But depending on how “enhanced services” are defined, the city, which is facing financial headwinds, could end up bearing significant costs for services, including security, trash removal, traffic control and paramedics, that will go well beyond what it provides on typical days.

One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working to keep athletes and spectators safe during the 17-day Olympics and the two-week Paralympics.

During a presentation before the council committee on Monday, City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo used the Dodgers’ 2024 World Series victory parade as an example of a similar, albeit much smaller scale, situation.

The baseball team reimbursed the city nearly $2 million for police, fire department, transportation and other services to pull off the parade safely.

Monday’s developments provided a small glimpse into the secretive negotiations between the two sides. Coupled with the missed October deadline to finalize an agreement, it was apparent that the negotiations were not going completely smoothly.

A senior city official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said the city is not at an “irresolvable impasse” with LA28 but that litigation is very much on the table in an effort to make sure the city is fully reimbursed.

The city and LA28 are meeting daily to try to hash out an agreement, the source said, characterizing the negotiations as “intense and focused.”

“All parties are working actively at the table to finalize the [ECRMA] that will ensure reimbursement of the city’s costs required by the 2028 Games,” the city and LA28 said in a joint statement to The Times.

Szabo told the council committee that it’s more important to get a good deal than an on-time deal.

“This needs to be the right agreement for the city,” Szabo said.

The city also hopes to recoup some costs from the federal government. President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” included $1 billion to reimburse state and local governments for security, planning and other Olympics-related costs. But exactly what the money can be used for won’t be known until next year, Szabo said.

But the unpredictability of the Trump administration has left the city and LA28 wary about whether all the security costs will be reimbursed, said Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

“With this administration, you don’t know what the hell is going to happen, right?” Harris-Dawson said during the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum Luncheon on Thursday. “So both of us [the city and LA28] are looking at a $1.5-billion bill, and we’re like, ‘Yeah, I’m not paying it. You’re gonna pay it.’”

So far, Harris-Dawson said, the federal government has been “good” about putting money aside for the Games. But that could change, Harris-Dawson said.

“I could show up here 10 days from now and the world could have turned on its head, because you just never know how the guy’s gonna wake up in the morning, or what he’s gonna see on TV to make him react,” he said of Trump. “So … it’s day to day, but on this particular issue, so far so good.”

Outside of security, LA28 should cover costs like staffing, expenses and equipment related to the Games, Szabo said.

Some don’t have high expectations that the costs will be completely footed by others. In a July letter to the city, retired civil rights attorney Connie Rice said she had heard from city employees worried that L.A. would be left with a massive bill.

What if LA28 dissolves after the Olympics — how would the city force it to provide reimbursement? Security and other city services typically extend beyond the Olympic venue itself — how large of a radius around the venue would be included in the reimbursement?

These are questions Rice feels the city has not yet answered.

“I have seen 10th-graders plan their prom better than the city is planning these Olympics,” Rice said in an interview.

State of play

— RECRUIT-GATE: Months of tension between Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and members of the City Council burst into public view Friday when the council rebuffed the mayor’s request to significantly increase police hiring. The council instead agreed to a more modest increase, which could ramp up if the city finds money for more police recruits.

— JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION OFF: L.A. County officials justified their $200-million purchase of the Gas Company Tower by claiming that seismic retrofits of their old 1960s headquarters would cost $700 million. But experts hoping to save the building now say the retrofits could cost under $150 million, using standard techniques applied to other historic L.A. buildings.

— STEP DOWN: The chief executive of Weingart Center, Kevin Murray, resigned from the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency board amid a federal real estate investigation. Federal prosecutors say a Cheviot Hills property was purchased for $11.2 million, then flipped to Weingart for $27.3 million. Weingart used public money to finance the purchase and conversion of the site into homeless housing.

— ED1 FOREVER: The L.A. City Council approved an ordinance on Tuesday formalizing Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracks planning department approval of 100% affordable housing projects. That initiative, which began as an emergency order issued by Bass in 2022, will now be a permanent part of city law.

— CROSSWALK VIGILANTE: An activist with People’s Vision Zero was arrested and cited while painting a crosswalk at an intersection in Westwood on Sunday. The arrest marks the latest clash between the city of Los Angeles and traffic safety advocates who are frustrated by delays in marking pedestrian crossings and are taking it upon themselves to do the work they say can’t wait.

— END OF WATCH(DOG): L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, who served as chief watchdog over the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department for 12 years, is retiring. In a farewell letter, he laid into county leaders, saying they ignored his office’s efforts at oversight.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to Downtown L.A., South L.A., Exposition Park, Hollywood, Silver Lake, North Hills, Pacoima, Woodland Hills, Shadow Hills and Van Nuys this week, bringing more than 70 people inside.
• On the docket next week: The city’s Ethics Commission will meet Wednesday. The City Council is on recess until Jan. 7.

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.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Friday asked an appeals court to block a contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March.

The department also is seeking Chief Judge James Boasberg’s removal from the case, which has become a flashpoint in an escalating fight between the judiciary and the White House over court orders blocking parts of President Trump’s sweeping agenda.

The department wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule on its requests before Monday, when Boasberg is scheduled to hear testimony from a former government attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint.

Department officials claim Boasberg is biased and creating “a circus that threatens the separation of powers and the attorney-client privilege alike.”

“The forthcoming hearing has every appearance of an endless fishing expedition aimed at an ever-widening list of witnesses and prolonged testimony. That spectacle is not a genuine effort to uncover any relevant facts,” they wrote.

Boasberg, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Obama, has said that a recent ruling by the appeals court gave him the authority to proceed with the contempt inquiry. The judge is trying to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for prosecution.

Boasberg, who has been chief judge of the district court in Washington since March 2023, has said the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador.

The Trump administration has denied any violation, saying the judge’s March 15 directive to return the planes was made verbally in court but not included in his written order.

Boasberg has scheduled a hearing on Monday for testimony by former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni, whose whistleblower complaint claims a top department official suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants.

The judge also scheduled a hearing on Tuesday for testimony by Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Drew Ensign. The Justice Department has said Ensign conveyed Boasberg’s March 15 oral order and a subsequent written order to the Department of Homeland Security.

“This long-running saga never should have begun; should not have continued at all after this Court’s last intervention; and certainly should not be allowed to escalate into the unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict that it now imminently portends,” department officials said in Friday’s court filing.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

In February 2023, Jaime Green, the superintendent of a tiny school district in the mountains of Northern California, flew to Washington, D.C., with an urgent appeal.

The Secure Rural Schools Act, a long-standing financial aid program for schools like his in forested counties, was about to lapse, putting thousands of districts at risk of losing significant chunks of their budgets. The law had originated 25 years ago as a temporary fix for rural counties that were losing tax revenue from reduced timber harvesting on public lands.

Green, whose Trinity Alps Unified School District serves about 650 students in the struggling logging town of Weaverville, bounded through Capitol Hill with a small group of Northern California educators, pleading with anyone who would listen: Please renew the program.

They were assured, over and over, that it had bipartisan support, wasn’t much money in the grand scheme of things, and almost certainly would be renewed.

But because Congress could not agree on how to fund the program, it took nearly three years — and a lapse in funding — for the Secure Rural Schools Act to be revived, at least temporarily.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House overwhelmingly voted to extend the program through 2027 and to provide retroactive payments to districts that lost funding while it was lapsed.

The vote was 399 to 5, with all nay votes cast by Republicans. The bill, approved unanimously by the Senate in June, now awaits President Trump’s signature.

“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats holding hands, passing this freaking bill, finally,” Green said. “We stayed positive. The option to quit was, what, layofffs and kids not getting educated? We kept telling them the same story, and they kept listening.”

Green, who until that 2023 trip had never traveled east of Texas, wound up flying to Washington 14 times. He was in the House audience Tuesday as the bill was passed.

In an interview Tuesday, Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents a vast swath of Northern California and helped lead the push for reauthorization, said Congress never should have let the program lapse in the first place.

The Secure Rural Schools Act, he said, was a victim of a Congress in which “it’s still an eternal fight over anything fiscal.” It is “annoying,” LaMalfa said, “how hard it is to get basic things done around here.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), greets Supts. Jaime Green, of Weaverville, and Anmarie Swanstrom, of Hayfork, on Capitol Hill in February 2023.

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

“I’m not proud of the situation taking this long and putting these folks in this much stress,” he said of rural communities that rely upon the funding. “I’m not going to break my arm patting myself on the back.”

Despite broad bipartisan support, the Secure Rural Schools Act, run by the U.S. Forest Service, expired in the fall of 2023, with final payouts made in 2024. That year, the program distributed more than $232 million to more than 700 counties across the United States and Puerto Rico, with nearly $34 million going to California.

In 2024, reauthorization stalled in the House. This year, it was included in a House draft of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act but was ultimately dropped from the final package.

While public school budgets are largely supported by local property taxes, districts surrounded by untaxed federal forest land have depended upon modest payments from the U.S. Forest Service to stay afloat.

Historically, that money mostly came from logging. Under a 1908 law, counties with national forests — primarily in the rural West — received 25% of what the federal government made from timber sales off that land. The money was split between schools, roads and other critical services.

But by the early 1990s, the once-thriving logging industry had cratered. So did the school funding.

In 2000, Congress enacted what was supposed to be a short-term, six-year solution: the Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act, with funding based on a complex formula involving historical timber revenues and other factors.

Congress never made the program permanent, instead reauthorizing versions of it by tucking it into other bills. Once, it was included in a bill to shore up the nation’s helium supply. Another time, it was funded in part by a tax on roll-your-own-cigarette machines.

The program extension passed Tuesday was a standalone bill.

“For rural school districts, it’s critically important, and it means stability from a financial perspective,” said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Sacramento-based Small School Districts’ Assn.

Calderon said he had heard from numerous school districts across the state that had been dipping into reserve funds to avoid layoffs and cutbacks since the Secure Rural Schools Act expired.

Calderon said the program wasn’t “a handout; it’s basically a mitigation payment” from the federal government, which owns and manages about 45% of California’s land.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) meets with a group of superintendents from rural Northern California in February 2023.

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

On Dec. 3, LaMalfa and Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, alongside Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo and Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, spearheaded a letter with signatures from more than 80 bipartisan members of Congress urging House leadership to renew the program by the end of the year.

The letter said the lapse in funding already had led to “school closures, delayed road and bridge maintenance, and reduced public safety services.”

In Trinity County, where Green’s district is located, the federal government owns more than 75% of the land, limiting the tax base and the ability to pass local bonds for things like campus maintenance.

As the Secure Rural Schools Act has been tweaked over the years, funding has seesawed. In 2004, Green’s district in Weaverville, population 3,200, received $1.3 million through the program.

The last payment was about $600,000, roughly 4% of the district’s budget, said Sheree Beans, the district’s chief budget official.

Beans said Monday that, had the program not been renewed, the district likely would have had to lay off seven or eight staff members.

“I don’t want to lay off anyone in my small town,” Beans said. “I see them at the post office. It affects kids. It affects their education.”

In October — during the 43-day federal government shutdown — Beans took three Trinity County students who are members of Future Farmers of America to Capitol Hill to meet with House Speaker Mike Johnson’s staff about the program.

After years of back and forth, Green could not go on that trip. He did not feel well. His doctor told him he needed to stop traveling so much.

Before hopping on a flight to Washington this weekend, the 59-year-old superintendent penned a letter to his staff. After three decades in the district, he was retiring, effective Monday.

Green wrote that he has a rare genetic condition called neurofibromatosis type 2, which has caused tumors to grow on his spinal cord. He will soon undergo surgeries to have them removed.

“My body has let me go as far as I can,” he wrote.

In Green’s letter, he wrote that, if the Secure Rural Schools Act was extended, “financially we will be alright for years to come.”

On Monday night, the district’s Board of Trustees named Beans interim superintendent. She attended the meeting, then drove more than three hours to the airport in Sacramento. She got on a red-eye flight and made it to Washington in time for the Secure Rural Schools vote on the House floor.

When Green decided a few weeks ago to step down, he did not know the reauthorization vote would coincide with his first day of retirement.

But, he said, he never doubted the program would eventually be revived. Coming right before Christmas, he said, “the timing is beautiful.”