election

The updated lawsuit cites a new report that Democratic operatives recruited a competitor to confuse voters and unseat a Republican incumbent.

The United States Department of Justice has filed a revised lawsuit seeking to decertify the results of a Senate race in the state of Alaska if Republican incumbent Dan S Sullivan loses narrowly.

The updated lawsuit on Thursday comes just days before the November 3 midterm election, which will determine control of Congress.

The complaint accuses Democrats of trying to confuse voters by placing a candidate with the same name as Sullivan on the ballot.

Alaska’s Senate race is one of seven key toss-ups that will likely decide whether Republicans keep their majority in Congress’s upper chamber.

Democratic challenger Mary Peltola is seeking to unseat Sullivan, a Republican ally of US President Donald Trump.

But a New York Times report on Wednesday alleged that members of Peltola’s campaign helped recruit a retired teacher, Dan J Sullivan Jr, to run for the Senate seat as a spoiler candidate, designed to draw votes away from the incumbent.

The Times report prompted a renewed legal push under the Trump administration to bar Alaska from certifying its election results, should Senator Sullivan lose.

The Department of Justice issued 40 subpoenas and document preservation requests as part of the revised complaint, the Reuters news agency reported.

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy also ordered a criminal investigation into the allegations. Peltola’s campaign has denied involvement in Dan J Sullivan Jr’s bid for the Senate.

Prosecutors, however, have accused the Democrat and her allies of playing partisan tricks – and undermining voters as a result.

“They orchestrated his sham campaign for the purpose of misleading Alaskan voters and getting Peltola elected,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in their amended complaint.

But the Justice Department’s lawsuit has raised concerns about election integrity and federal meddling.

Under the US Constitution, election administration falls to the states, not the presidency.

In June, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that Dan J Sullivan Jr could compete in the midterms, and the state’s election office has already taken steps to reduce confusion between the two Sullivans.

Recruiting candidates to split an opponent’s vote – a practice known as ballot stacking – is also generally considered to be legal and has been used by both parties in Alaska.

Critics have been sceptical of the Justice Department’s bid to pause the certification of Alaska’s Senate results if Senator Sullivan does not win re-election, noting it would be impossible to divine voter intent based on the final tally alone.

Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official under President Joe Biden, also questioned what legal authority the federal government had to get involved in the case.

“I don’t know what they’re putting out subpoenas to investigate because I don’t know what federal violations are implicated that DOJ would have jurisdiction over,” Levitt told the Associated Press news agency.

“Sure makes it seem like the point of the investigation is to become the story.”

Democrats and Republicans are locked in tight races nationwide that will determine which party holds a majority in the US Senate for the remainder of Trump’s second term in office.

Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the legislature’s upper chamber, with 53 out of 100 seats.

Democratic candidates are hoping to win seats by capitalising on Trump’s deep unpopularity and frustration over the cost-of-living crisis.

Trump has suggested he may not accept the midterm results if his party loses its majorities in Congress, and he has pushed false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The Justice Department has also attempted to challenge the voting process in several states, including California.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is escalating a criminal investigation over an Alaska Senate candidate who shares a name with the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, issuing a raft of new grand jury subpoenas, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

Subpoenas seeking grand jury testimony or documents, along with records preservation demands, were issued after the New York Times reported that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign appeared to be involved in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan Jr. as part an alleged effort to confuse voters in the highly competitive race.

More subpoenas were expected to be sent Thursday, according to a person briefed on the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the ongoing probe. Neither the recipients of the subpoenas nor the number of them were immediately clear.

The Justice Department for months has been looking into allegations that Dan J. Sullivan Jr. entered the race to siphon votes from the incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

The potential targets of the Justice Department’s investigation are unclear, but President Trump earlier this week called for the criminal prosecution of Peltola and her campaign.

The new subpoenas were confirmed by a person briefed on the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the ongoing probe.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a Fox News interview on Wednesday said he wouldn’t discuss any criminal investigations but accused Democrats of “cheating.”

“They are trying to take votes away from the incumbent, not by running an election, not by running on issues, but by putting up a person with the same name,” Blanche said.

The race is among a handful of Senate contests this year expected to determine control of the chamber. Trump had previously directed his Department of Justice to sue to block certification of the Senate race should Peltola defeat Sen. Sullivan.

Dan J. Sullivan has long denied he was running at Democrats’ behest and has said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign. “Zero, none, zilch,” he said in June after announcing his run.

Separately, Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered an investigation into Peltola, saying the newspaper’s reporting “reveals disturbing new evidence of an organized effort to manipulate Alaska’s elections by recruiting candidates — including one with the same name as an incumbent U.S. Senator — to deliberately confuse voters and misdirect their votes.”

“Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections,” Dunleavy added, noting that the reporting “substantially supports” earlier findings by the state’s elections board into the matter.

Trump on Thursday cast doubt on whether Peltola would be seated in the Senate even if she won the election. “Well, you’re going to have to see what happens,” the president told reporters on his way to a rally in South Carolina. “It’s hard to believe that she could even be allowed to run.”

Later, as he rallied for GOP Sen. Darline Graham, Trump said he felt Peltola “actually should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted.”

Peltola’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a message Thursday seeking comment on Dunleavy’s order. But during a campaign stop in Soldotna, Peltola, a former congresswoman, suggested the Times’ report was a “distraction” from issues such as Sen. Sullivan’s support of the war in Iran.

“This is just another distraction. It’s another diversion,” she said in a video posted online. “This is all stuff to sell newspapers. This is all stuff to get subscriptions.”

And the situation in Alaska isn’t that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on ballots to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.

In Ohio’s Senate race, Republicans have been tied to an effort to boost a socialist on the ballot who would pull votes from the Democratic candidate challenging Sen. Jon Husted.

On Thursday, Vice President JD Vance didn’t go as far as Trump did in calling for Peltola to be prosecuted but said he supported a probe into possible election fraud.

“I mean, she is a person who, for months now, has pretended that she has had nothing to do with the fact that they have put a fraudulent person, a person explicitly designed to confuse Alaska voters, on the ballot,” Vance told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Texas. “She is trying to steal a Senate seat from the voters of Alaska, and it’s disgraceful.”

Earlier this year, a top state elections official ruled Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher in the small fishing community of Petersburg, ineligible for the primary ballot, concluding that his declaration of candidacy was filed “with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

The case went to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled he was qualified to run. Alaskan voters will see “Dan S. Sullivan” identified as a “registered Republican” and “incumbent” on their ballots, while “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” will not have a party affiliation.

The New York Times reported that interviews, text messages and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit showed Peltola’s team aimed to coax candidates into the race, with the aim of splitting support for the GOP senator.

Asked about the reporting on Wednesday, Trump told journalists, “I think they should be prosecuted.” He earlier had posted on social media that “Peltola should suffer the Legal and Political consequences for what she has done.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.

That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.

Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”

With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.

That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.

“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.

Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.

“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Appeal, rebuke, appeal

Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.

Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.

War of words

On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.

“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”

On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”

Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”

The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.

In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.

When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”

Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.

In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.

On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.

Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”

How would the late Anthony Bourdain have responded to our political climate in the United States with less than a week before the midterm elections of Donald Trump’s second term?

This speculative thought bubble emerged for me as I watched the last of two Los Angeles episodes Bourdain did through 12 seasons of his CNN food and travel series “Parts Unknown.” It aired just over a year before his death by suicide in France on June 8, 2018.

Set in our Pacific immigrant metropolis, the program predicts Season 2 of Trumpism, if you will. In another way, Bourdain’s ode to L.A. suggests a framework on how to think about the state of our nation as we head to the polls on Tuesday.

The universal glee of getting tacos

Customers line up at Ave 26 Tacos stand in a parking lot next to the Little Tokyo Galleria in 2024.

(Silvia Razgova)

Picture the moment when a taquero hands you a warm paper plate heaping with warm tortillas and meats on a street in Los Angeles. Do you also get that giddy, kid-like feeling for half a second? There’s nothing like it, right?

Halfway through the Season 9 opener of “Parts Unknown,” Bourdain experiences just that. In a moment you might miss without looking closely, that familiar look flashes on his face, an unbridled glee, as a taquero in downtown L.A. hands him tacos. In that moment he’s not some mythical man known to his best friends as “Tony.” He’s just a guy getting tacos. It’s super cute.

I came upon this episode recently, and it struck me as potently relevant for today, just before the midterm elections. Bourdain’s taco happiness reminded me that even when some sectors of U.S. society are calling for an effective de-browning of this country, everyone everywhere still really loves Mexican food.

Trump does. ICE agents likely do. Even the white ethnonationlists in the government and those cheering on the ICE surge happening right now across L.A. and California, all love to eat tacos, the unofficial culinary emblem of Los Angeles.

It’s worth pointing out that I’m not a Bourdain superfan. I’ve not seen every episode of TV he made. I didn’t read “Kitchen Confidential” until this year. But lately I’ve been studying him. In the past month I finally watched the biopic “Tony” about his coming of age, and I’ve started reading the entertaining memoir “Care and Feeding” by Laurie Woolever, Bourdain’s former long-term assistant and co-author.

I’m catching up on Bourdain because I’ve noticed that as we pass eight years since his death, the author’s cultural influence upon chefs, cooks and food lovers in general does not seem to be waning. It might even be growing.

“He taught me that being a rebel lets you enjoy life,” said Evil Cooks chef and co-owner Alex Garcia, who has an image of Anthony Bourdain tattooed on his leg.

(Daniel Hernandez / Los Angeles Times)

A multitude of chefs or cooks in L.A. have a depiction of Bourdain hanging somewhere in their restaurants, kitchens or homes. Some even on their skin. At least six portraits of Bourdain are on display along the black-clad walls of restaurant Evil Cooks in El Sereno, for example. Chef Alex Garcia has a Bourdain tattoo on his lower leg.

“I love Anthony Bourdain for his rebellious way of being, but also for his love for Mexicanos because he worked for many years with people from Puebla,” Garcia told me after I had dinner there Tuesday night. “He taught me that being a rebel lets you enjoy life, because the end of the day, being yourself, being happy, is the purpose of this journey that we call life.”

This enduring passion for Bourdain also springs from what so much of his television and writing do: Demonstrate an unflagging empathy for almost anyone he met anywhere in the world. Well, almost anyone — he said pretty clearly he’d never share a meal with Donald Trump.

His 2017 episode “Los Angeles” (currently streaming on HBO Max) proves it more than most. It was filmed in 2016, just before the election that took Trump to the White House. It is worth a rewatch before you cast your ballot anywhere.

The program delves into cultural identity, racism, police abuse and corruption and gentrification. Its whole thesis points to the fallacy of being anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican in 21st century America. “Los Angeles, like much of California, used to be part of Mexico,” Bourdain says in the intro. “Now, Mexico, or a whole lot of Mexicans, are a vital part of … us.”

The episode follows Bourdain dining at Indigenous mole specialists Gish Bac with UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda; going for mulitas with photographer Estevan Oriol and tattoo artist Mister Cartoon at the former diner La Reyna (which later became Guerrilla Tacos) on 7th Street downtown; tasting the taquitos at Cielito Lindo on Olvera Street with comedian Al Madrigal and Times columnist Gustavo Arellano; visiting Danny Trejo at Trejo’s Tacos; going to Mariscos El Chente in Inglewood with the Stockton-raised Diaz brothers, and sharing in street tacos with runners from the Boyle Heights Run Club.

“This show will air long after the election,” Bourdain tells Hinojosa-Ojeda at Gish Bac. “There is actually a national conversation now, unthinkable in my lifetime, where the notion of rounding up however many millions of undocumented workers in this country all at once … and then kicking them out. I mean, it seems unthinkable. But, you know, they said that in Europe in the ‘30s.”

In his characteristic tone, grumpy yet hopeful, Bourdain showed he believed in a shared human dignity that superceded all ethnic, national, religious or ideological boundaries.

Listening to him, the prospect of total MAGA Republican rule in all branches of government becomes something like a nightmare that we’ve seen play out in real life. It is a long list of gross constitutional violations targeting immigrants and brown-skinned people, and their supporters like slain U.S. citizens Renée Good and Alex Pretti of Minneapolis, on a daily basis in this country.

People gather at a memorial for Alex Pretti and Renée Good, both shot and killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

(Stephen Maturen / Getty Images)

Loving immigrants

On Tuesday, voters nationwide are expected to be thinking first of their pocketbooks and of corruption in Washington when they vote. On another level, this election along with the 2016 and 2024 results are also about litigating by the ballot box what it means to “be” an American.

Sandra Zweig, one of the executive producers on the show, told me Bourdain set out to highlight Latino Los Angeles from the very beginning in 2016. In March of that year, she recalled in an interview, he sent producers the initial list of the cities he was thinking of for Season 9, to start the production conversation.

From that first brainstorming session, Zweig found these notes about a second episode in L.A.: “All-Mexico edition.”

“This time we pretend nobody lives in L.A. who isn’t Latino,” the notes continued. “We live, play in that world without leaving it, we will explore Mexican and Central American immigration, how vital this population is to the SoCal economy.”

Those notes show Bourdain wanted to avoid a recycling of the pastoral mainstream modern narrative on L.A., which isn’t inaccurate but can sometimes feel stale: hyping its multicultural, polycentric, polyethnic etcetera identity. No. This time would be all brown.

“He worked in kitchens and restaurants for so long, he knew as well as anyone that a huge portion of that work staff were immigrants from Mexico and Central America,” Zweig told me. “He also knew that being an immigrant wasn’t a bad thing, to use the word pejoratively was just anathema to him.”

Pop figures like Bourdain and Trejo, despite his recent stumble (he was cast in a film by alt-right extremist Ben Shapiro’s film company), have arguably done a lot more to shape Americans’ perceptions of immigrants and Mexicans than any political leader.

“He would always say, ‘Travel allows you to see people, where they live, and understand where they’re coming from, and reducing that fear for the other.’ For the audience, you’re opening up a world that they may not be able to travel to yourself,” Zweig said. “In 2016, there were things being said about immigrants and immigration that he felt strongly about, and this was one way to discuss that.”

Zweig added: “I can’t predict exactly what he’d say, but it’s clear to me that’d be appalled by the whole sort of immigration enforcement and ICE tactics that’s happening now. That’s not a leap to assume that.”

When I look at the audacity and cruelty of the MAGA right’s stance on immigration, the killings of citizens and immigrants at the hands of ICE agents, I always turn back and remind myself how out-of-step with the nation it is to be anti-immigrant.

Alfonso Lira, 61, a dishwasher and busser from Michoacan, Mexico, sweeps the entrance at Chapter One restaurant in downtown Santa Ana during a double shift in 2024.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Gallup polling is a reliable benchmark on weighing Americans’ views on immigration. At its highest point just last year, the trend line showed 79% of Americans believe immigration is a good thing overall to the country by far. Currently that figure is 73%. Only 21% of Americans believe immigration is a bad thing, its second lowest point since 2002.

Polls and sentiments vary widely from there on how to reform and manage the immigration system — although certainly most people in the U.S. are against current ICE raids, roughly by 2-to-1 — but the basic truth is sitting there before us: The country loves and appreciates immigrants. For most of us, it’s always been about welcoming the stranger, honoring hard work, and contributing to the pursuit of social harmony.

Most of us believe anyone can join the party. There just has to be a better process for it. Political leaders therefore must offer a clear plan not for “mass deportations” but for normalizing people who are here and contributing to society, the economy and the tax base. And more than anything, offer as many people as possible a pathway to citizenship.

If anyone ever tells you they are opposed to any version of this notion, remind them that they are in the minority. Americans favor immigrants by 7-out-of-10, Gallup says. And remind them that as his last love letter to L.A. shows, Anthony Bourdain would have tried to snap them out of it if he’d ever gotten the chance.

Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.

It’s no longer hypothetical.

Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.

Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.

Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.

Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.

But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.

“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”

Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’

Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.

That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”

Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.

So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.

In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.

It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.

Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.

“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”

After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.

Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic

Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.

Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.

While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.

“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”

The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.

That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.

Can the institutions hold?

Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.

“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”

It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.

“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”

The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.

All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.

“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.

Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman rejects ‘disinformation campaign’ amid allegations by some Israeli politicians of voting interference.

As Israel awaits the final results of its highly contested elections, some political figures have sought to drag Qatar into the fray with claims of voting interference – an accusation Doha rejects.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party and media outlets associated with it have, without evidence, accused Qatar of sending money to Arab parties in Israel for get-out-the-vote drives.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman on Thursday categorically denied the allegations of interference or funding of any activities aimed at influencing the election results.

“We reject the accusations made by certain Israeli politicians and their contacts in the media, who have launched yet another disinformation campaign aiming to drag Qatar into Israeli political disputes following this week’s elections,” Majed al-Ansari said in a post on X.

The unsubstantiated Israeli claims, which the spokesperson described as “ridiculous and dangerous in equal measure”, are the latest in a long-running campaign against Qatar.

Netanyahu has previously boasted about attacking Qatar in September 2025 during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza while Israeli influence experts and political advisers also worked on a secret campaign targeting Qatar in the weeks after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israel.

“[Some Israeli politicians] accuse Qatar of buying off Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli political left and now, in this latest campaign, the Arab vote. If these claims were to be believed, Qatar would apparently own all of Israel,” al-Ansari said.

Partial results indicated that Netanyahu’s bloc would not secure a majority in the Knesset in Tuesday’s parliamentary elections. Those results showed the two Arab lists securing a record number of seats in the new parliament, but the main parties have rejected the idea of partnering with them.

Despite the latest claims, Dean Livine, the acting director for Israel’s Central Elections Committee, has rejected allegations of foreign interference in the elections. “The Knesset elections were conducted lawfully. The integrity of the elections at polling stations was rigorously safeguarded,” he wrote in a letter to an MP and fellow committee member.

“The repeated invocation of Qatar in Israeli electoral rhetoric reveals an excessive obsession with our country among certain Israeli political and media figures,” al-Ansari said, adding that Qatar should “not be used as a scapegoat for the political failures of certain Israeli politicians”.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman said some Israeli politicians, instead of shifting attention onto Qatar, “would be better off focusing on their own voters, improving people’s everyday lives, and undoing the damage they’ve created in the region”.

He reiterated that Qatar has “no involvement” in Israel’s political or electoral competition.

“These are internal Israeli matters in which we do not interfere, and we will not accept any attempt to draw Qatar into its domestic political disputes.”

Qatar is a key mediator in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and played a central role in talks to halt Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Doha is also leading mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran to end the United States-Israel war on Iran.

Al-Ansari said the latest accusations would not distract Doha from its “important role as a mediator, our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, our support for the Palestinian people, or our commitment to a just and comprehensive peace and regional stability.”

It’s finally election day and you’re ready to head to the polls to cast your ballot in California’s 2026 midterm, but you don’t know where the nearest polling location is. Or perhaps you misplaced your ballot.

Here are some common last-minute election-day hiccups and how to navigate them so you can earn your “I voted” sticker on Tuesday.

I forgot to register to vote

You can still register as a conditional voter on election day through the “same day” voter registration process.

Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers.

If you’ve become a U.S. citizen fewer than 15 days before the election, you may register to vote by visiting your county elections office anytime before the polls close on election day. You must bring proof that you are a U.S. citizen and sign a form saying you are eligible to vote in California.

For all those registering, the application requires a state driver’s license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four digits of your Social Security card.

If you don’t have any of those, you can still register. You’ll be assigned a unique identifier to validate your registration.

With same-day registration, you are “conditionally” registered to vote, and your ballot is provisional. Once officials have confirmed you are registered to vote in that county, your ballot is then processed and counted.

I don’t know where my polling place is

You can look for the nearest polling place by entering your address in the “Find your polling place” tool on the California secretary of state’s website.

The Los Angeles County office of the registrar-recorder/county clerk has a vote center locator that includes the wait time to cast your ballot.

I’m here at the polling place but forgot my ballot at home

You can request a provisional ballot at any polling place in the county in which you are registered to vote.

A provisional ballot is a regular ballot that is placed in a special envelope prior to being put in the ballot box.

It’s counted once election officials verify that you are a registered voter in that county and haven’t already voted in the election.

I can’t submit my mail-in ballot myself

You can have someone else submit your ballot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve heard about touch-screen voting machines not working

It’s a common issue: You touch your voting machine screen, and it doesn’t show your intended selection.

Election officials say touch-screen challenges are commonly caused by user error or an easily fixed screen miscalibration.

Flag a poll worker if you’re having difficulty. If you’ve already printed a ballot that doesn’t reflect your intended selections, don’t cast it; notify a poll worker who will follow procedures for replacing the ballot.

How late is too late to put my ballot in a ballot box?

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

• You can put it in a ballot drop box. The cutoff time to do so is the same time that polls close, 8 p.m.
• Drop it off at a polling place, vote center or county elections office by 8 p.m.
• Drop it off at a United States post office. To ensure your ballot is postmarked by election day, mail it at least by Thursday — five days before Tuesday’s election. If mailing on election day, get a hand-stamped postmark from a postal employee at a U.S. post office.

Where is my nearest ballot box?

The Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office has an online tool here to help you find a ballot box near you.

I think I forgot to sign my mailed ballot envelope

If you turned in your vote-by-mail ballot and forgot to sign it, your vote will still count.

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

To remedy the issue, your county elections office will provide you with a form to fill out and return completed.

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

How late is too late to vote at the polls on election night?

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

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

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

Israel’s parliamentary election on Tuesday produced no clear winner, with nearly 90 percent of ballots counted and both major political blocs falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is on course to win 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot is expected to secure 48 seats.

The Arab-majority parties won 19 seats, a historic high, driven by record turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel of about 80 percent. That has placed the Arab parties at the centre of coalition arithmetic, even as several party leaders ruled out governing with them.

So what did the main contenders say in the run-up to and during the vote, and how did they fare? Here is a look:

Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud: Elections ‘stolen by Arab parties’

Pre-election: In the build-up to the election, Netanyahu expressed confidence, telling The Jerusalem Post on October 22, “I’m gonna have five more terms.”

On Sunday, he targeted the opposition, with Haaretz citing a broadcast on Israel’s Channel 14 that Netanyahu warned if they win, they will “give citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians”, a move that would signal the “end of the Jewish state”.

Election day: On Tuesday, he said forming a government with Arab-led parties would be “a shame and a disgrace”.

“It is forbidden – simply forbidden – to endanger Israel and to establish a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties,” he told supporters.

Post-election day: After the elections, Netanyahu’s Likud party took aim at Palestinian citizens of Israel who voted.

In a party statement shared by Netanyahu, it claimed the elections “were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state through serious criminal offences”. According to The Times of Israel, police and the Central Elections Committee have already dismissed these claims.

What the results show: Likud is on course for 26 seats, the largest party, with 20.65 percent of the vote. But his bloc has 53 seats, eight short of a majority.

Gadi Eisenkot, Yashar Party: ‘I do not see an Arab party that accepts my principles’

Pre-election: In a September interview with The Jerusalem Post, he dismissed the idea he would need to form a coalition with Arab parties: “I believe the majority we receive will be much larger than what the polls currently show,” adding “I do not see an Arab party that accepts my principles.”

He also said his “inner feeling is that I now have the ability to defeat Netanyahu”.

Election day: Eisenkot rallied Israelis to get rid of “the worst government Israel has known”.

However, he acknowledged how tight the race was, saying, “We are on perhaps the most critical day since the founding of the state.”

Post-election day: On Wednesday, Eisenkot told his supporters the Israeli public “voted against” Netanyahu and promised, “to ensure that the people’s decision is translated into a Zionist government”.

What the results show: Yashar is on course for 21 seats, with 16.16 percent. His bloc has 48, 13 short of a majority, and he cannot reach 61 without the Arab-led parties.

Naftali Bennett, Together Party: ‘The October 7 government is going home’

Pre-election: In February, months before the vote, Bennett told a closed conference of party activists that he stood by his 2021 decision to govern with Ra’am, but said he would not repeat it.

He said, “We will establish a unity government under my leadership … We are going to win, and we are going to form it,” Israel National News reported.

Election day: “Netanyahu has lost, and the October 7 government is going home,” Bennett told supporters in Tel Aviv.

Post-election: In a post on X, Bennett told Israelis to “lift your heads” and said he will do everything “to establish a Zionist Alliance of Servants government”.

What the results show: Together is on course for 12 seats with 9.07 percent, narrowly behind the Joint List.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Otzma Yehudit: Palestinians in Gaza ‘shouldn’t live’

Pre-election: In his election campaign, Ben-Gvir expressed his most genocidal views yet, saying in August that there are Palestinians in Gaza “who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.” He called for Israel to kill “30 to 40” people in Gaza every night.

Election day: “If you want this country to stay Jewish and Zionist, if you don’t want it to be in the hands of (Israeli Knesset members) Mansour Abbas and Ahmad Tibi, go out and vote,” he told supporters at the entrance to the Arab city of Kafr Qasim.

What the results show: Otzma Yehudit is on course for seven seats, with 5.58 percent, less than half of the 15 he wanted.

Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Zionism-Zehut: ‘Jewish settlements will be established in Gaza’

Pre-election: In a statement he issued in August, he promised an expansion of his settlement “revolution” with a programme for the “Judaization of the Negev and the Galilee” at the expense of Palestinians, as part of his campaign.

Election day: He warned on Facebook of high turnout in communities of Palestinian citizens of Israel, claiming that failing to mobilise right-wing voters could let “terror supporters” into government.

That night, he told supporters “Jewish settlements will be established in Gaza.”

What the results show: Religious Zionism is on course for six seats, with 4.78 percent.

Yousef Jabareen, Joint List: ‘Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a true and equal partnership’

Pre-election: In August, he stated that only “a large and strong Joint List will work with all its might to send the Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir/Smotrich government home”, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Election day, night: In a video statement, he said Netanyahu knew “we can put an end to his bloody reign.”

Post-election: He wrote on X  that his party was ready for the “ousting of the Netanyahu government”, which he called one of “bloodshed”.

“Against a politics of supremacy, racism, and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative. The change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a true and equal partnership,” he wrote.

What the results show: The Joint List is on course for 12 seats with 9.14 percent, making it the third-largest party by vote share.

Mansour Abbas, Ra’am: Netanyahu uses ‘scare tactic to mobilise right-wing voters’

Election day, night: In July, Abbas set Ra’am a goal of at least seven seats, enough, he argued, to make it the balance of power in a “government of change”.

Election day: He hit back at Netanyahu’s posts about Palestinian citizens of Israel, stating in a video that he was “lying and inciting against Ra’am, using it as a scare tactic to mobilise right-wing voters and drive them to the polls”.

What the results show: Ra’am is on course for eight seats, with 6.09 percent, beating his target of seven.

Avigdor Lieberman, Yisrael Beiteinu: ‘We will reach 61 seats’

Pre-election: On October 15, he claimed: “We will reach 61 seats or more for the change bloc.”

Election day: He urged patience, saying on Friday, “we’ll be able to talk about a much better and more optimistic picture.”

What the results show: Yisrael Beiteinu is on course for seven seats, with 5.93 percent.

Yair Lapid, Together: Netanyahu is ‘busy fear-mongering’

Pre-election: In September, he posted a statement which said, “Netanyahu ignored every warning before October 7, and now, 28 days before the election, he’s suddenly busy fear-mongering.”

Election day: He declared victory, stating, “The Netanyahu bloc has suffered a crushing defeat.”

What the results show: Together, which he co-leads with Bennett, is on course for 12 seats, with 9.07 percent.

WASHINGTON — In the final days before an election that will decide control of Congress, President Trump’s closing argument — buoyant, digressive and characteristically off-script — is at times running headlong into the economic anxieties of the voters Republicans most need.

With a war in Iran driving up gas prices for Americans, Trump is boasting to supporters that the conflict is making the country rich. At a rally in Georgia, he said his aides had urged him not to brag about the billions of dollars the United States was earning on oil from the war, since Americans are “paying a little higher” in costs because of it. But he did it anyway.

“I said, I don’t give a damn,” Trump said. “We are making a freaking fortune. Our country is getting stronger and stronger all the time. And those pump prices are going to come down.”

The moment underscores the gamble at the core of Trump’s final pitch to voters. With polls showing an overwhelming majority of Americans unhappy with the economy, the president is offering a portrait of national prosperity that many voters do not recognize, and pairing it with jokes and digressions that can seem to make light of their struggles.

Tuesday’s results will be the clearest test yet of whether that message still moves his base, or whether the president has become a liability for a party at risk of losing Congress in part because of his sinking popularity.

Signs of GOP anxiety are reflected in where Trump is spending his final days campaigning. Rather than courting swing voters in battleground states, he is leading rallies in Mississippi, Texas, Ohio, South Carolina and Kansas — states that have long been Republican strongholds but where the party now worries its voters may stay home.

Still, the president is insisting to voters that the country is succeeding, and he is making the election a referendum on his agenda.

“The world is falling apart, and we are doing better than we’ve ever done,” he told a crowd in Mississippi on Monday. The next day, during a stop in Texas, he joked that the $5,000 he has promised Americans if Republicans win would not be enough for his supporters to eat a meal at Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach, Fla.

“You will be my guest at Mar-a-Lago. The problem is that for $5,000 the most you’ll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert,” Trump said, laughing. “I’m not even sure you could buy that.”

Democrats have criticized the president’s remarks, calling them dismissive of voters’ concerns. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump boasting that the country was making money out of the Iran war was a “fitting” slogan for Trump’s White House.

Trump’s personal oil and gas holdings are now estimated to be worth between $22.5 million and $81.6 million, up from $12.6 million to $46 million at the end of last year, according to a report released this week by congressional Democrats.

Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, rejected the idea that the president has dismissed voters’ financial pain.

“The president, I think, shows empathy about what we’re going through, and he is fighting like hell,” Gruters said in an interview.

Asked to sum up Trump’s closing message, Gruters framed it as a choice between “common sense vs. crazy.” When pressed on the economy, Gruters pointed to Trump’s push to limit federal taxes on tips and overtime pay, to create investment accounts for children and to bring back manufacturing jobs.

“He has transformed the Republican Party into the workingman’s party,” Gruters said. “He is all about trying to bring back jobs that will bring up real wages across the board.”

But that message can be overshadowed with the off-script riffs that have long defined Trump’s rallies. During a rally in Ohio, while praising Sen. Jon Husted, Trump detoured into remarks about the Republican senator’s backside as well as rapper Nicki Minaj’s.

“I looked at his ass and I’ve never done that with a man before. It’s true. Off the record: Women, yes, men, no, OK?” Trump said. “By the way, I looked at one hell of a beautiful ass before, Nicki Minaj.”

At a separate rally, Trump turned his attention to Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan, saying that if elected, El-Sayed should be forced to pass through a metal detector before entering the U.S. Senate chamber.

“Anyone with that record of support for jihadists would be screened and unable to get a seat on an airplane,” Trump said of El-Sayed. “They certainly should not give him a seat in the United States Senate.”

In those moments, the message is aimed squarely at his base, which over the last decade has celebrated his unfiltered style. And it is that base, more than swing voters, that Trump has spent his precious time courting in the final stretch of the campaign.

On Monday, Trump rallied supporters in Mississippi, a state he carried by 23 points two years ago. On Tuesday, he went to Texas for the fourth time this month to make the case for Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate nominee trying to stave off what could be the first statewide Democratic victory there in three decades. Then on Wednesday, Trump was in Ohio for the third time this month, playing defense in a state he has won every time he’s been on the ballot. And on Saturday, Trump is heading to Kansas, a state that has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1932.

Gruters said the red state swing reflects the need to get Republicans to the polls.

“You can’t take anything for granted. You have to fight hard in every single state, and remind people why they need to go vote,” he said. “This is a turnout, turnout, turnout race. And we’re doing everything we can as a party.”

Don Haider-Markel, a political science professor at the University of Kansas, said it is still surprising to see the party deploy the president in Republican strongholds so close to the election.

“It really reflects, not just the tilt toward Democrats, but also the lack of enthusiasm among Republican voters for this election,” Haider-Markel said.

Republicans outnumber Democrats in Kansas, but there is a possibility that Democrats can win if Republicans stay home, he said. One of the biggest assets the party has to mobilize the MAGA base is having Trump talk to them in person, he argued. But so far, it is unclear whether his closing message will resonate.

“I don’t think that he’s really speaking to the issues that voters care about, but I don’t think he’s coming to change people’s minds,” Haider-Markel said. “He’s looking for lines that get him applause and praise.”

In rally after rally, Trump has turned the event into a show about himself. In Iowa, congressional candidate Joe Mitchell presented Trump with a “man of the century” certificate. In Texas, Trump bemoaned that he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. And in several events, he has shown the crowd a video of a CNN analyst saying that among GOP voters, Trump is more popular than Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln.

But in the end, he also tried to appeal to his base with nostalgia.

“We’ve been doing this together for 11 years, and there’s never been anything like it and there probably never will be anything like it again politically or otherwise,” he said. “So let’s go out and do what we do best and that is win on Nov. 3. We gotta win!”

Following a series of scandals that shook public trust in local government, Los Angeles City Council launched a massive charter reform to boost accountability across city departments. Charter PRT emerged from that reform.

McOsker, who co-sponsored the amendment, said it would offer greater public access and participation into government processes. He believes it is important that those overseeing LAX and Van Nuys understand how neighboring communities are affected by airport decisions.

“The folks that live and work and drive around and experience the impacts of the airport operations should have some say in the future of airport operations,” McOsker said. “They know the best of what the impacts are on the tens of thousands of folks that live around each of those facilities.”

McOsker stressed that the port is on public land and another space that residents should have greater insight into by offering transparency into how leaseholder agreements affect the local economy.

The two sides disagree sharply over what the changes to the law would mean in practice.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., a trade group supporting the measure, said the state is the slowest in the nation when it comes to reaching a conclusion about whether projects can be built. Per Dunmoyer, it’s one of the top two reasons housing here is so pricey.

Supporters point to accumulating interest on loans, shelling out for litigation and rising costs for materials.

Dunmoyer believes the measure would make the review process faster and easier. He estimated it will reduce the cost of building single family homes by $75,000 a pop.

“We think … it will allow us to provide more housing of all types, not just for sale, but for rent and legally defined affordable housing, even homeless shelters, more quickly than under the current environmental review process,” he said, “and we think that’s beneficial to Californians who very much want a place to call home.”

Proponents of the measure characterize the effort as procedural: It will firm up timelines, but projects still will be reviewed. But those fighting it, as well as some legal experts, say the 41-page proposal essentially guts CEQA for projects that qualify.

Aruna Prabhala, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group opposing the measure, said it would eliminate the need to analyze a project’s specific impacts, such as how it affects people living nearby. Instead, the process would become a “checklist” to see if the project complies with existing environmental laws.

The measure also states it “should be interpreted and implemented to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” Prabhala and others believe it flips the purpose of CEQA to approve projects, rather than protect the environment.

“So much of what’s in the initiative mirrors what we’re seeing from the federal level and the Trump administration from rolling back environmental review, from really limiting public participation,” she said. “For not only failing to enforce protections for our air and water quality, but making it that much harder for agencies to do that.”

A federal judge in Los Angeles denied a Trump administration request Wednesday to immediately block California elections officials from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters whose citizenship the administration questions in a blistering opinion.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the administration’s allegations were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

Carter’s ruling was the second to deny the Trump administration a temporary restraining order against the state and Los Angeles County this week, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency request in a separate order Monday.

Carter ruled following a 3½-hour hearing Tuesday, where a slew of attorneys for the state, county and independent voting rights groups argued against the administration’s demands.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — who is the top federal prosecutor in L.A. and argued for the Trump administration at Tuesday’s hearing — did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Wednesday. After Tuesday’s hearing, he suggested the administration was likely to appeal Carter’s ruling if it didn’t immediately halt the counting of the flagged ballots.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The race for mayor of Los Angeles is a dead heat as the campaign draws to a close, with a new poll showing incumbent Karen Bass erasing the double-digit lead previously held by Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Raman and Bass now each have 40% of likely L.A. voters in their camps, with 19% still undecided ahead of the Nov. 3 election, according to the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, co-sponsored by The Times.

The neck-and-neck contest is a big change from September, when Raman jumped out to an 11-percentage-point lead with support from 39% of likely voters compared with Bass at 28%.

It follows weeks of relentless attacks on Raman by Bass, whom some analysts had predicted would need to campaign more aggressively to close the gap with her challenger.

“It’s certainly a breath of fresh air for Bass to see the race close. She’ll probably feel the campaign is having the effect she wants it to have, which is to put more focus on Raman and put Raman on the defensive,” said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Mayor Karen Bass greets phone banking volunteers at her South L.A. campaign headquarters.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

The survey released Wednesday was conducted online in English and Spanish with a sample of 2,197 likely city voters between Oct. 19 and Oct. 25. It has a margin of error of about three percentage points.

“The momentum in this race is with Karen Bass,” said Alex Stack, a spokesperson for Bass’ campaign. “Ever since Angelenos got their ballots, Nithya Raman has made headlines for all the wrong reasons — voters know they can’t trust her on public safety and other key issues.”

The Raman campaign cited high unfavorable numbers for Bass in the poll, and noted that the mayor “still can’t get ahead” in voter surveys.

“Bass hasn’t led a poll since August and an aggregate of all publicly available polls continues to show Nithya in the lead,” the Raman campaign said in a news release.

The leveling off of the race, along with the sharp decline in undecided voters, was spurred largely by conservative voters who chose Republican Spencer Pratt in the primary deciding to vote for the mayor in the runoff, said DiCamillo.

In the September Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll, 22% of Pratt voters said they planned to support Bass, while 16% said they favored Raman. That left a whopping 63% of Pratt voters undecided still.

In the new poll, Bass shot up to 41% of the Pratt vote, while Raman dropped to 14% and 45% were still undecided. Pratt hasn’t endorsed either candidate in the race and continues to bash both Raman and Bass on social media.

“The Pratt voters are the biggest insertion,” DiCamillo said. “The question remains, since we’re looking at Pratt voters, 45% remain undecided. Will they vote?”

Raman trailed Bass in every poll during the primary campaign. Neither candidate had ever cleared 40% in any of the polls conducted by Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times.

In the June 2 primary election, Bass received 34% of the vote while Raman received 29%. Pratt placed third with 26%.

In the new poll, Raman shed support in key areas, including among groups that previously appeared to be leaning toward her.

Councilmember and mayoral hopeful Nithya Raman, center, with supporters at Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

In the September poll, Raman led among Latinos by 24 percentage points, 45% to Bass’ 21%. In the October poll, Bass was up to 40% and Raman fell to 43%, leaving the two within the margin of error for that key constituency.

DiCamillo said part of that change had to do with the likely voter population becoming more clear as the election neared, and older Latinos appeared to be a larger portion of the electorate.

“The Latino likely electorate now includes more older Latinos; that benefits Bass,” he said.

Black voters, long considered the backbone of Bass’ coalition, solidified behind the mayor, with 71% of likely Black voters supporting her compared with 13% supporting Raman. While Bass led among Black likely voters in the September poll, the already wide margin was much slimmer at that time, at 48% to 20%.

The poll also affirmed a widely held belief among the Bass camp that the San Fernando Valley would tilt toward the mayor over Raman.

Raman was leading in the Valley in the September poll 34% to 26%, but that number flipped on its head over the past month, with Bass now in front of Raman 44% to 33%.

Bass’ surge in the poll was more notable because the mayor’s favorable ratings — which have been in the tank since the January 2025 wildfires — remained underwater, with 65% of Angelenos viewing her unfavorably compared to 64% in the last poll. Only 32% had a positive view of the mayor, up four percentage points from September.

Bass’ attacks on Raman appeared to be having a significant effect on voters’ opinions of the challenger.

For the first time in a poll by Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times this cycle, Raman posted a higher unfavorable rating than favorable, with 49% of likely voters saying they viewed her unfavorably compared to 42% who had positive views of her.

The mayor, her campaign team and her surrogates have stepped up their offensive toward Raman, seizing on any opportunity to hammer the council member over remarks she has made on the campaign trail that they argue make the her unfit for the mayoralty and “not ready for prime time” — a slogan the mayor and her allies have deployed against their rival.

In early October, the Bass campaign slammed Raman over a video she posted with a leftist influencer in which she urged viewers to “stop fascist liars” as a photo of Bass flashed on the screen. Raman criticized both Bass and LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell in the video.

Bass accused the council member of calling the city’s police officers fascists. A Raman spokesperson said she was referring to the “Trump administration’s violent kidnappings” as fascist, not the mayor or police chief or officers. The story dominated headlines for days.

The Bass camp also needled Raman that week after photos surfaced of the council member attending a happy hour on the day federal immigration authorities began raids in Los Angeles last summer, though Raman said she attended a protest that same day.

The Bass campaign sent out a news release calling it “Nithya Raman’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.”

The attacks continued the next week after Raman said during the mayoral debate that the “gold standard” for LAPD’s noncooperation with immigration enforcement took place during the tenure of former LAPD Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.

Gates, a controversial chief accused of racist remarks during his tenure, headed the department during the 1991 videotaped beating of Rodney King and Bass said Raman’s comments showed she was “not really familiar with L.A., especially the Black community.”

Raman retorted that Bass was twisting her words, but later apologized, saying that mentioning Gates was painful for people across L.A.

The poll also asked respondents for the top priorities for the next mayor to address. Reducing the number of homeless encampments was by far the top answer, chosen by 43% of likely voters.

Tied for second place among top concerns was ensuring public safety and building more affordable housing, selected by 29% each.

Protecting immigrant communities was the third-most cited concern, with 21%, followed by balancing the city budget at 17%.

No clear winner has emerged from Israel’s election, with nearly 90 percent of ballots counted and both major political blocs falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.

The Israeli Central Elections Committee said on Wednesday that it had counted more than five million votes as of 9pm local time (19:00 GMT). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is on course to win 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot is expected to secure 48 seats.

Projections from Tuesday’s voting also showed that the Arab parties – the Joint List and Ra’am – could hold a record combined 19 seats.

Final election results could come as early as Thursday evening, though no clear winner is expected to emerge.

More than 500,000 special double-envelope ballots remain to be counted, potentially changing the seat distribution. These include votes cast by soldiers, diplomats and others voting away from their registered polling stations.

The vote – the first since the October 7, 2023, attacks and the Gaza genocide – was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s premiership. The 77-year-old appears far from defeated, despite lacking a clear majority.

Netanyahu will remain caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed. President Isaac Herzog will begin consulting party leaders about forming a new administration next week, once the official election results are released.

Herzog has urged all parties to avoid another vote that would stall the formation of a government. But coalition building is the norm in Israel, and no party has ever won an outright majority in the country’s history.

Ahead of the vote, Eisenkot ruled out forming a minority government with Arab-led parties. Netanyahu has also rejected such a prospect.

As Netanyahu’s bloc is set to be the largest, analysts predict that he will form a unity government that could include Eisenkot. However, such an outcome is far from certain.

Eisenkot said in a post on X on Wednesday that his opposition alliance was now focused on the “heavy task entrusted to us – bringing change to Israel and establishing a Zionist mobilisation government”.

“This is the will of the people who expressed no confidence in the government of October 7th and the shirking, and in the bloc of shirkers in general. A bloc that is at the low point of two decades.”

Amid record turnout among Arab voters, Netanyahu’s Likud party accused Arab parties of stealing the election.

“The elections in the State of Israel were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state through serious criminal offences of bribery, threats, violence, forgeries, and the use of prohibited software to mobilise voters,” the party said in a statement.

“The Likud party is transferring to the police, the Shin Bet, and the Central Elections Committee hundreds of testimonies and pieces of evidence regarding election theft in many Arab polling stations,” it said.

Israel’s predominantly Arab Joint List political alliance said in a statement published late on Wednesday by Turkish news agency Anadolu that preliminary figures showed Arab voter turnout played a decisive role in keeping Netanyahu and his coalition short of a parliamentary majority, while cautioning that the final results were yet to be announced.

Voters answered incitement and intimidation at the ballot box, it said, rejecting a “government of butchers” and its policies of home demolitions, racism and war crimes.

The Joint List said its electoral support reflected demands for political unity and a force capable of defending Arab citizens’ rights without concessions.

It pledged to work to remove Netanyahu’s government and prevent its return, saying it was ready to cooperate towards an alternative government.

Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen said the alliance could back an anti-Netanyahu government from outside, but would not join it.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Far-right Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, along with his wife and two daughters, landed in Miami, Florida, in the United States on Wednesday, days after he was defeated in Brazil’s presidential run-off election.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes issued an order late on Sunday night for Bolsonaro to turn in his regular and diplomatic passports, believing him to be a flight risk in connection with a money laundering and currency evasion investigation involving the senator and his friend Willer Tomaz — who the local press says already left Brazil for Miami two weeks ago.

Argentine immigration authorities said on Wednesday that Flavio and his family used a land crossing to enter Argentina late Tuesday night, and less than an hour later boarded a private plane operated by Baires Fly destined for Guayaquil, Ecuador. That plane arrived in Ecuador, and later took off for Miami, Florida, with Flavio and his family on board. The Bolsonaro family landed at Opa-Locka Executive Airport near Miami on Wednesday morning.

The US State Department confirmed on Tuesday that it will issue visas to Bolsonaro and his family, allowing them to enter the country.

US President Donald Trump and Argentina’s President Javier Milei are the only two prominent world leaders who have not yet acknowledged Brazil’s Sunday election result, in which centre-left incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pulled off a jaw-dropping comeback to win re-election, scoring 51.8 percent of votes over Bolsonaro’s 48.2 percent. It was a difference of millions. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump said, without citing evidence, that Brazil’s election appeared to have been “rigged”, though he also expressed his admiration for President Lula.

News of Flavio’s abrupt departure drew swift indignation from some voters on the ground.

“He’s acting like a coward who’s unwilling to face the consequences of his actions,” said Cristiana Cunha, 36, speaking to Al Jazeera in Sao Paulo. She said she was unsurprised by news of his leaving the country.

Priscila Cardoso, a 45-year-old psychoanalyst also living in Sao Paulo, was even more scathing: “It’s a joke, it’s like a parasite fleeing through the sewer,” she said.

Political analyst Paulo Roberto de Souza of the Democracy in Check Institute told Al Jazeera that Flavio’s flight may kick off a new dispute for power among Brazil’s conservatives, in which the Bolsonaro family may be pushed to one side.

“By leaving the country, he’s made it easier for the right wing to start a fight over the Bolsonaro’s spoils,” he said, noting that, despite the relatively fine margins, Flavio’s defeat on Sunday was “humiliating” for the family.

“In 2022, [Flavio’s father] Jair Bolsonaro became the first incumbent Brazilian president to lose a re-election battle. And now, in 2026, Flavio became the first presidential candidate to lead after the first round and lose a run-off. It imposes a ceiling on the Bolsonaros’ power,” de Souza said.

In the aftermath of Sunday’s result, Flavio called a press conference in which he said it would be “impossible” for him to acknowledge the outcome of the vote, announcing he would pursue a petition to have the election annulled.

His claims were based on a last-minute Brazilian Supreme Court decision on Sunday that delayed the closing of polls by two hours, after both candidates had requested extensions due to insufficient availability of public transportation and adverse weather conditions. But official records show that fewer than 35,000 votes were recorded during the two-hour polling extension, and Lula’s winning margin was more than 4.4 million votes.

For some voters, Flavio’s call for an annulment came across as bad sportsmanship. Cardoso, who is a single parent, likened his behaviour to that of a “spoiled child who loses a game and takes the ball home with them”.

While Flavio has yet to concede defeat, his Liberal Party has recognised Sunday’s result, and prominent allies have sought to put the election behind them.

Sao Paulo Governor Tarcisio de Freitas, who campaigned alongside Bolsonaro and won re-election in a first-round landslide, published a two-minute video on social media on Tuesday outlining his own project for the country and mentioning Flavio only once.

“Without a doubt, Tarcisio is the main figure in this reorganisation process on the Brazilian right,” said de Souza. “For this election, he was the name floated and insisted upon by some key figures in Bolsonarism, as well as neo-Pentecostal leaders.”

His main obstacle, however, will be walking the tightrope between political pragmatism and continuing to convince hardline Bolsonaristas that he is a “loyal ally”.

It is unlikely, in de Souza’s view, that there will be a member of the Bolsonaro family on the presidential ticket come the next election in 2030. “They are much more likely to be figures that provide endorsement, rather than actual players themselves,” he said.

Among voters, however, Bolsonarism stepping into the background appears like a distant thought. “The Bolsonaro family is always trying to perpetuate its power in Brazil,” noted voter Cunha, pointing to the election of Flavio’s brother Carlos and mother-in-law Michelle to Senate seats.

“I definitely think there could be a Bolsonaro on the ballot in 2030; I just don’t know which one.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s alliance, made up of right and far-right parties, is short of a majority after the most consequential elections in decades.

Tuesday’s poll saw a record turnout. And the main opposition bloc, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, also does not have the numbers to form a government on its own.

Meanwhile, parties representing the Palestinian citizens of Israel have made unprecedented electoral gains.

While Netanyahu has refused to work with Arab-led lists, could the opposition alliance reach a deal with them?

Or is cooperation a bridge too far while the Israeli military’s assaults on Gaza and the occupied West Bank continue?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Mairav Zonszein – senior Israel analyst, International Crisis Group

Mustafa Barghouti – secretary-general, Palestinian National Initiative

Phyllis Bennis – fellow, Institute for Policy Studies, and author of Understanding Palestine and Israel

The leader of Israel’s Balad party has condemned the country’s main political leaders for refusing to form a coalition with Arab parties, even after a record showing in polls could make them kingmakers for the next parliament after no clear winner emerged.

Sami Abu Shehadeh told Al Jazeera that Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about a fifth of the population, are being treated as illegitimate partners despite their turnout.

“This is racism,” he said. “We are a legitimate elected leadership of the national minority. The vast majority of our people decided that we are their leadership.”

Arab parties are on course to win a record 19 seats, giving them potentially decisive leverage over the main political blocs. With 85 percent of the vote counted, Israel’s Central Elections Committee has Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc ahead with at least 53 seats, and the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot on 48.

Both are short of the 61 needed to govern. Netanyahu says Israelis chose a strong right-wing government, while Eisenkot says they voted for change.

Abu Shehadeh, who leads Balad, one of the Joint List’s three parties, was not a candidate.

Israel’s elections committee voted to disqualify him at the request of far-right Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who accused him of supporting the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack due to an article issued the following day in which Abu Shehadeh called it an “important historical event”.

Abu Shehadeh subsequently told the Supreme Court he did not support “armed struggle” but acknowledged that a paragraph in the article had been incorrectly worded. He said his intention was to call for moving the conflict towards a political process.

He withdrew in October after a majority of the Supreme Court panel appeared willing to approve the disqualification. He rejects the grounds and said the court had made clear that Israel has “two different judicial systems, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs”.

“We are very proud of the Arab Palestinian minority in Israel that went in this very high percentage of voting,” he told Al Jazeera. The community’s first promise to voters, he said, was to prevent “this gang of criminals” from returning to power, naming Netanyahu and far-right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. “So our first promise, we can keep it from now .”

Numbers point to Arab parties but opposition bloc resistant

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, said Netanyahu “has scared off everybody from talking to the Palestinian Israeli parties”, leaving him best placed to “call the shots”. She said that Eisenkot and his allies have indicated that they want a Zionist government and “do not want to form a government” with the Arab parties, leaving them few options.

Danny Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, told Al Jazeera that turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel came in “really unprecedented numbers” and that the parties “are going to have some significant clout”.

Mathematically, he said, Eisenkot’s bloc could join forces with the two Arab parties and pass the threshold, though it would take “political wizardry”. Yousef Jabareen, who leads the Joint List, has said his alliance’s “hands are extended” to oust Netanyahu.

Abu Shehadeh set out what Palestinian citizens want from the next government.

“We are against genocide and we are against apartheid. We want to promote a different political alternative, one which is based on the values of freedom, justice and equality for both people who are living between the river and the sea.”

Of Netanyahu, he said: “Our problem … is that he is a war criminal.”

A UN commission said in a report published on Monday that Israel has continued to commit genocide in Gaza after last October’s US-brokered ceasefire in the enclave.

The Hague-based International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024 for war crimes during the Gaza war.

Today we discuss board games, snacks and boomerangs.

So where do things stand less than a week from election day?

With the usual caveats, about no certainties in life or politics …

Of course …

…. it seems pretty darned certain that Democrats are going to take control of the House next week, notwithstanding the delusions (or professed confidence) of Speaker Mike Johnson and his Republican allies. The only question is the margin.

Democrats need to flip just three seats, and even the most conservative handicappers (in terms of circumspection, not political views) see them netting more than half a dozen, at a minimum. From there, forecasts climb into the double digits.

“In the best-case scenario,” Erin Covey wrote in a recent analysis for the Cook Political Report, Democrats “could enter the new Congress with more seats than they had after successfully flipping control of the House in 2006 and 2018.”

Didn’t Republicans gerrymander several states to boost their chances?

They did, starting in Texas. Then California moved to gerrymander its political map, to boost Democratic chances.

That helped precipitate a nationwide redistricting war which, once the haze cleared, resulted in a third of the nation’s 435 House districts being redrawn to at least some extent. But that only marginally increased Republicans’ advantage. And there are signs the rejiggering of political lines may have backfired, or boomeranged, on the GOP.

How so?

By spreading their reliable voters thin and counting on support from 2024 Trump backers who’ve since soured on the president. In particular Latinos. In doing so, Republicans have put several House seats into play, most notably in Texas and Florida.

That’s what’s known in the business as a “dummymander.”

A knife’s edge

What about the Senate?

That remains a toss-up, which few would have imagined at the start of this election season.

Virtually all the contests that will decide control of the Senate are being fought in states that President Trump carried — several by landslide margins — making them not exactly friendly Democratic territory. But war, inflation and Trump’s wretched approval rating have dragged GOP candidates down in states such as Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, which, a year ago, would have required hallucinogens to appear remotely competitive.

So what’s the math?

Democrats need to hold on to all of their seats and gain four to flip the Senate.

While incumbent Jon Ossoff seems certain to win in Georgia, Democratic-held seats in Minnesota, New Hampshire and, especially, Michigan are more problematic. In terms of pickup opportunities, the aforementioned Kansas and Texas are toss-ups, along with Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Maine. North Carolina seems ready to flip Democrats’ way.

And, who knows, there might be a surprise or two — which, obviously, wouldn’t be a surprise if we’re talking about it here.

One thing to bear in mind: Close races all tend to break in favor of one party or the other. Think of dominoes falling, not checkers hopscotching across the board.

Polls look good for Democrats.

They do. But as both of my faithful readers know, your friendly political columnist can’t stand the constant chattering about polls.

It’s not just how surveys understated Trump’s support the two times he won the White House. (In their defense, pollsters did pretty well in the last two midterm elections, in 2018 and 2022.)

It’s that too many people — including folks who should know better — ascribe a false precision to polls, which at best offer nothing more than an educated guess.

Are the polls again overstating Democratic support?

Could be.

In a recent analysis, the Economist found that polls tend to underestimate a party’s strength in states they dominate. That could mean surveys showing toss-up races in red states such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas could be overstating Democratic strength.

(Research also has shown that dispirited voters are less likely to participate in a poll, which could mean an oversampling of Democratic sentiments despite quite conscious attempts to adjust and weight the data.)

All of which is to say, ignore the polls and don’t let your hopes get too high, or your mood too low. We’ll have election results soon enough.

What does the early voting tell us?

Nothing dispositive. (That’s a fancy way of saying, again, don’t read too much into those numbers.)

Democrats are evidently way more enthused about voting this election than Republicans. And there have been some eye-popping turnout numbers among Black and Latino voters. But maybe Republicans are holding back to cast their ballots closer to or on election day.

Things will be abundantly clear after the fact, as they always are.

Table stakes

How about all the money Republicans — and Elon Musk — are pouring into the election?

It’s gross. But money alone is not determinative.

Just ask Tom Steyer, who spent the GDP of a small country on his failed run for California governor. Or Trump, who was outspent by Hillary Clinton nearly 2-to-1 when he was elected in 2016.

A certain amount of money is necessary to compete; it’s like the table stakes required for a serious competitor to get into the race. Beyond that, factors like candidate performance, external events and, especially, the overall political climate matter a good deal more.

The big Republican money advantage can help drive turnout, which is no small thing, especially if it helps coax reluctant GOP voters to the polls. But elections aren’t like vending machines, where the more money you put in, the more you take out.

Thankfully, we haven’t reached a point where public office can be purchased automatically like soda or a candy bar. At least not yet.

So get out and vote, or make a plan to, if you haven’t already.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Many Latinos are done with Trump. The shift is especially striking in Texas
The deep dive: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal:” Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth tax supporters
The L.A. Times Special: Skelton: Need help deciding on the state ballot measures? Here are my recommendations
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Israel has only ever been governed by coalitions. Can you put one together that reaches 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats?

Israelis voted on October 27, but there appears to be no clear winner.

The next government, like every government in Israel’s history, will have to be a coalition.

The question now is who can secure at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats to form a government and become Israel’s next prime minister.

Al Jazeera has built an interactive tool that lets you test different combinations of parties. Start with any of the four exit polls or enter your own seat numbers. Then add parties until your coalition reaches 61 seats. You can add an entire bloc at once or select parties individually.

Who is ahead?

Initial counting by the Central Elections Committee put Likud ahead as the largest single party, with 27 seats.

Netanyahu’s bloc was projected to win 54 seats, against 50 for Eisenkot’s.

Four exit polls published on election night showed how close the race is.

Kan 11 and Channel 13 put Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc and Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc level at 51 seats each. Channel 12 gave Netanyahu 52 seats to Eisenkot’s 49, while Channel 15 was most favourable to the incumbent, projecting 55 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc against 49 for the opposition.

How many seats are needed?

Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, has 120 seats. Parties win seats in proportion to their share of the national vote, provided they clear the 3.25 percent threshold to enter parliament.

A government needs the support of at least 61 politicians to secure a majority.

Neither of the main blocs has reached that number in the exit polls or the initial count. The next step is to find enough parties willing to join forces to make up the difference.

Why is forming a government so difficult?

The Arab-led parties Ra’am and the Joint List could hold the balance of power, with exit polls putting their combined support at between 16 and 19 seats.

But the political obstacles are considerable. Netanyahu has described a coalition with Arab parties as “shameful”, while leading figures in the Jewish-led opposition have also ruled out governing with them.

That leaves potential coalitions that may work on paper but face serious political barriers.

Which parties belong to each bloc?

Netanyahu’s bloc spans Likud, the ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the far-right parties Religious Zionism, led by Bezalel Smotrich, and Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Eisenkot’s opposition bloc includes his Yashar party, the Together list associated with former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu and Yair Golan’s Democrats.

What happens next?

Once the results are certified, the president gives the mandate to the member of the Knesset considered most likely to assemble a majority.

That politician has 28 days to form a government, with a possible extension of up to 14 days. If they fail, another lawmaker can be given a chance. If no one can form a government, Israel may have to hold another election, as it did repeatedly between 2019 and 2022.

Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, with 19 years in office across three stints, remains caretaker prime minister while coalition negotiations unfold. He is also standing trial on corruption charges, which he denies.

Official results are due on November 4. Negotiations to form a government could take considerably longer.