election

A highway bomb attack in southwestern Colombia has killed 19 people and injured at least 38, the latest spate of violence ahead of next month’s presidential election.

Buses and vans were left mangled in the blast Saturday on the Pan-American Highway, in the restive southwestern Cauca department.

Several cars were flipped over by the force of the explosion and a large crater was blown out of the roadway.

The department’s governor on Saturday evening provided a death toll of 14, with more than 38 injured, but the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences said Sunday morning it had begun the examination of 19 bodies.

Military chief Hugo Lopez told a news conference on Saturday that the bomb had exploded after assailants stopped traffic by blocking the road with a bus and another vehicle.

The attack comes just over one month ahead of national elections, in which voters will pick a successor to President Gustavo Petro.

Petro blamed the bombing on Ivan Mordisco, the South American country’s most-wanted criminal, whom the president has compared to late cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.

The violence came after a bomb attack on Friday on a military base in Cali, Colombia’s third-largest city, injured two people and set off a string of attacks in the Valle del Cauca and Cauca departments.

According to Lopez, 26 attacks have been recorded in the two departments over the past two days.

Authorities have boosted military and police presence in the areas, Defence Minister Pedro Sanchez said.

Security is one of the central issues of the May 31 presidential election. Political violence was brought into sharp focus last June, when young conservative presidential frontrunner Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot in broad daylight while campaigning in the capital Bogota and later died from his wounds.

Leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda, an architect of Petro’s controversial policy of negotiating with armed groups, is ahead in polls.

He is trailed by right-wing candidates Abelardo de la Espriella and Paloma Valencia, both of whom have pledged to take a hard line against rebel groups.

All three have reported receiving death threats and are campaigning under heavy security.

April 25 (UPI) — Palestinians in Gaza held an election for the first time in 20 years as municipal elections were held there and in the West Bank on Saturday.

People in Deir al-Balah, a city in central Gaza, voted for the first time since 2006 because it was the least destroyed area after two years of airstrikes by Israel after the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, CNN reported.

The elections, which also were held in many parts of the West Bank, were run by the Palestinian Authority and required candidates to agree with Palestinian Liberation Organization to recognize the state of Israel and support a two-state solution.

Elections were last held in the West Bank in 2022, The BBC reported, and had not been held in Gaza since Hamas took the enclave over two decades ago. Hamas was not permitted to participate in the elections.

Election results will be reported either late Saturday or on Sunday.

Salama Badwan, who voted with his wife and daughter, told Al Jazeera that the first election “is a truly Palestinian democratic celebration.”

“We must change everything through the ballot box,” Badwan said. “Whoever wins, it is their right, but not through inheritance … change must be through the hands of the people.”

Roughly 70,000 Palestinians — or 5% of the entire Gazan population — in Deir al-Balah were eligible to vote because many of the places that would have been used for voting were destroyed, as were supplies like ballot boxes.

The Palestinian Authority’s Fatah party dominated ballots as votes were held for 90 municipal councils and 93 village councils — leaving 42 other municipal councils and 155 village councils to be decided without votes.

Hamas praised the vote in Gaza and expressed hope for the rest of the territory to also choose its own leaders, although after its election in 2006 it forced Fatah out of Gaza in often violent battles and had not held an election since.

Palestinians in central Gaza and the occupied West Bank have begun voting in municipal elections, the first local vote held since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Polling stations opened at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Saturday for 70,000 eligible voters in Gaza’s Deir el-Balah area – the first electoral exercise in the besieged enclave in 20 years.

The vote in a single city in Gaza is largely symbolic, with officials calling it a “pilot”. Deir el-Balah was selected because it is one of the few areas in Gaza not destroyed by Israeli forces.

Nearly 1.5 million registered voters in the occupied West Bank are also voting to determine the makeup of the local councils overseeing water, roads and electricity.

The elections come amid a tightly restricted political landscape and deep public disillusionment, as the Palestinian Authority (PA) seeks to project reform and legitimacy amid growing public frustration over corruption, political stagnation and the absence of national elections since 2006.

Most electoral lists are backed by President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement or independent candidates, with no official participation from Hamas, which controls parts of Gaza.

Linking the occupied West Bank and Gaza

With much of Gaza decimated by more than two years of war, the Ramallah-based Central Elections Commission chose to hold its first vote in Deir el-Balah. It had to improvise because it was unable to conduct traditional voter registration.

“The main idea is to link the West Bank and Gaza politically as one system,” its spokesperson, Fareed Taamallah, said.

The commission has not coordinated directly with either Israel or Hamas ahead of the Deir el-Balah vote and has been unable to send materials like ballot papers, ballot boxes or ink into Gaza, he added.

Though Palestinian voter turnout has gradually decreased, it has been relatively high in past local elections by regional standards, according to commission figures, averaging between 50 and 60 percent.

Gaza’s first election in 20 years

Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006 and seized control of Gaza from the Fatah-led PA a year later.

It did not put forth candidates for Saturday, but polling from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicates it remains the most popular Palestinian faction in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Ramiz Alakbarov, the United Nations deputy special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, called the elections “an important opportunity for Palestinians to exercise their democratic rights during an exceptionally challenging period”.

Hamas controls half of Gaza, which Israeli forces partially withdrew from last year, including Deir el-Balah, but the coastal enclave is preparing to transition to a new governance structure under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.

The plan established a Board of Peace composed of international envoys and a committee of unelected Palestinians, intended to operate under it.

Progress towards further phases, including disarming Hamas, reconstruction and a transfer of power, has stalled.

Electoral reform

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, 90, signed a decree last year to overhaul the electoral system in line with some demands from Western donors.

The reforms allow voting for individuals rather than party lists (slates), lowering the eligibility age to run and raising quotas for female candidates.

In January, another Abbas decree required candidates to accept the programme of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the group that leads the PA. The programme calls for the recognition of Israel and renouncing armed struggle, in effect, sidelining Hamas and other factions.

The slates in major West Bank cities are dominated by Fatah, the faction that leads the PA, and independents, some with ties to other factions. It marks the first time in six local elections that no other faction has officially put forward its own slates.

In the occupied West Bank, the PA exercises limited autonomy, and local councils oversee services from rubbish collection to building permits.

Votes are being held in villages in Area C, which covers about 60 percent of the West Bank and remains under direct Israeli control. Full administrative control would have been handed to the PA according to the 1995 Oslo Accords.

Votes will also be held in municipalities that Israel’s military has occupied since it launched a ground invasion in the northern West Bank last year.

Campaign posters have been plastered across cities, though many – including Ramallah and Nablus – will not hold elections because too few candidates or slates registered.

The PA’s power has withered amid years without peace negotiations with Israel and the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Anticorruption police gathered material from the homes of election officials including former office leader Piero Corvetto.

Police in the Peruvian capital of Lima have raided a home belonging to the former head of its national election agency, amid growing frustration in the aftermath of the country’s presidential election.

As of Friday, results still had not been finalised for the presidential race, which took place on April 12.

Delays in ballot deliveries forced the voting in some areas to be extended by an extra day, and the slow vote count has led to accusations of wrongdoing. But the European Union’s election mission to Peru found no indication of fraud.

Law enforcement was seen entering the home of Piero Corvetto, the former head of Peru’s National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), on Friday as part of a judicial warrant.

The officers with the local anticorruption police unit were tasked with removing mobile phones, laptops and documents, according to local broadcaster RPP.

The homes of five other officials were also targeted by police raids, as were offices belonging to Galaga, a private company that transports election ballots.

Corvetto resigned on Tuesday, though he denied any wrongdoing or irregularities in the election process. In a statement, he said he hoped his departure would boost public confidence.

On Friday, his lawyer, Ricardo Sanchez Carranza, told the news agency Reuters that a judge authorised the raid but denied prosecutors’ request to put Corvetto in preliminary detention.

But one of the leading presidential candidates, Lima’s former far-right mayor, Rafael Lopez Aliaga, has accused Corvetto of being a “criminal” and pledging to pursue him “until he dies”.

Lopez Aliaga is currently in a narrow race for second place in the presidential election.

With 95 percent of the ballots tallied, right-wing candidate and former First Lady Keiko Fujimori is in first place with 17 percent of the vote. She is all but assured of proceeding to the run-off on June 7.

Lopez Aliaga, meanwhile, is in third place with 11.9 percent, behind left-wing Congress member Roberto Sanchez at 12.03 percent.

Roughly 20,000 votes separate Sanchez from Lopez Aliaga, who has increasingly denounced the election as illegitimate, though he has yet to provide evidence to support that claim. Still, he has called the vote tally an “electoral fraud unique in the world”.

The final results are expected on May 15.

Workers from two regional parties in India have been fighting on election day for West Bengal’s state assembly. Local media reported the fighting broke out as opposition party leaders accused the state ruling party of voter intimidation.

Tamil Nadu, India – Standing on top of a customised van on a hot and humid afternoon in Tirunelveli, about 600km (373 miles) south of Tamil Nadu’s capital Chennai in southern India, C Joseph Vijay tells his supporters his opponents have joined hands to stop him from becoming the state chief minister.

“My rivals might appear different from outside, but they have only one aim: that Vijay should not become the chief minister,” says the 51-year-old actor-turned-politician to a mammoth crowd that begins to chant his name, which means “victory” in Tamil, in unison.

Tamil Nadu, one of India’s most developed states with impressive human development indices, also has a long history of electing film stars as leaders, some of whom are still revered by people as demigods years after their deaths.

As Tamil Nadu votes on Thursday to elect its 234-member state legislative assembly, Vijay’s bid for power is the latest addition to the state’s trend of film star-politicians, turning a traditionally bipolar battle into a triangular contest.

‘A blessing and a curse’

Vijay entered politics with much fanfare when he launched the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party in 2024, promising to end the decades-old dominance of the governing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the main opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).

Incumbent Chief Minister MK Stalin leads the DMK and its 14-party Secular Progressive Alliance, in which the Indian National Congress is a junior partner. On the other hand, opposition leader Edappadi K Palaniswami of the AIADMK heads the 10-party National Democratic Alliance, which also includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The DMK and the AIADMK identify themselves as Dravidian parties, which derive their names from a powerful political and social justice movement in Tamil Nadu that opposed caste inequalities, championed social reforms, and rejected perceived attempts by India’s more dominant north Indian parties to impose Hindi – and upper-caste Hindu values – on the non-Hindi speaking southern states.

Dravidian parties have held power in Tamil Nadu continuously since 1967, with national parties like the Congress and the BJP playing secondary roles. While the BJP is contesting 27 seats in alliance with the AIADMK, the Congress is fighting for 28 seats as part of the DMK-led coalition.

More than 87 percent of Tamil Nadu’s 72 million people are Hindu, followed by Christians at 6.1 percent and Muslims at 5.8 percent, according to the last census conducted in 2011.

Among Hindus, the so-called “backward” or less-privileged castes constitute 45.5 percent, “extremely backward” castes 23.6 percent, while Dalits are at 20.6 percent. Dalits, formerly referred to as “untouchables”, fall at the bottom of India’s complex caste hierarchy and have faced marginalisation and violence for centuries.

Vijay, son of a Christian filmmaker father and a Hindu mother who is a background singer in films, belongs to the Vellalar community, an affluent agrarian group in Tamil Nadu with both Hindu and Christian members.

Vijay started his film career as a child actor in movies directed by his father. His 1992 debut as a hero, however, in Naalaiya Theerpu (Tomorrow’s Verdict), flopped. Following the setback, his father cast him alongside popular star Vijayakanth — who later founded his own political outfit, Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) — in Senthoorapandi (1993), which gave his career a new lease of life.

It was the 2004 film Ghilli (Gutsy), which carried a subtle political undertone, that catapulted Vijay to superstar status. He dropped hints about his political ambitions in the 2013 hit Thalaivaa (Leader), which was launched with the tagline “Time to Lead”.

Soon, political messaging became central to many of Vijay’s subsequent films. Even the title of his yet-to-be-released Jana Nayagan (People’s Leader) — which he claims will be his final film — alludes to his political aspirations.

Riding on personal charisma, Vijay has attracted millions of supporters to his rallies, despite allegations of poor crowd management, which caused a stampede at one such gathering in September last year, killing 42 people.

He is expected to draw a share of Dalit and minority Christian votes that would have otherwise flowed to the DMK-led coalition. He is also banking on anti-incumbency votes that could have benefitted the AIADMK alliance.

Yet analysts say Vijay’s ambition of becoming the next chief minister will not be as easy as the scripted blockbusters he has built his career on, since he faces two opponents with decades of experience in real politics.

That leads political commentator R Kannan to describe Vijay as “both a blessing and a curse” for the two Dravidian coalitions.

“When the AIADMK joined the BJP-led NDA, many predicted the Dravidian party would lose heavily, with minorities and Dalits flocking to the DMK. Vijay’s entry, however, has offered the AIADMK a ray of hope — he is expected to draw a decent share of votes that would otherwise have gone to the DMK,” he said.

“At the same time, he works in the DMK’s favour by siphoning off anti-incumbency votes that might not entirely have gone to the AIADMK. For both Dravidian parties, he is at once a blessing and a curse.”

Tamil Nadu’s tryst with stars

Vijay is aiming to follow the path of illustrious predecessors: Maruthur Gopalan Ramachandran, popularly known as MGR, and his protege, Jayaram Jayalalithaa – Tamil Nadu’s most beloved on-screen pair.

Born into poverty, MGR’s rise to stardom was nothing short of phenomenal. He captured the imagination of Tamil Nadu’s working class, who idolised him in return. From his first superhit, Rajakumari (Princess) in 1947, his films cast him as a champion of the masses, battling oppression and corrupt authority.

MGR launched the AIADMK in 1972 after breaking away from the DMK and served as Tamil Nadu’s chief minister from 1977 to 1987. He introduced several welfare programmes, the most significant being the Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Nutritious Meal Scheme, which provided free meals to schoolchildren to eliminate malnutrition and boost school enrolment.

His political heir, Jayalalithaa, was a six-time chief minister between 1991 and 2016, when she became India’s first female state leader to die in office. She is remembered for launching several women-centric programmes, including all-women police stations and subsidised two-wheelers for working women, apart from her work in curbing female infanticide.

The DMK also has a history of film personalities, including the party’s founder, CN Annadurai, who rose to fame as a pathbreaking scriptwriter with films like Velaikkari (1949), and MGR as the party’s star campaigner and leader before he founded the AIADMK.

Soon, Muthuvel Karunanidhi emerged as another prominent writer, poet and screenwriter with films like Parasakthi (1952), meaning Supreme Power, often cited as a turning point in Tamil cinema. Directed by Krishnan-Panju and written by Karunanidhi, then 28 years old, the film fiercely attacked casteism and social inequality, while propelling the spread of the Dravidian ideology.

Karunanidhi, popularly known as Kalaignar (artist), wrote scripts for more than 75 films that resonated with the struggles of the working class, championing rationalism and social equality.

He won the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election for a record 13 terms and served as the state’s chief minister for five terms between 1969 and 2011. He died at the age of 94 in 2018, when his son, Stalin, took over as chief minister and DMK chief.

Film star-politicians who embraced Tamil identity politics flourished, while those who did not fell by the wayside.

“Successful leaders such as MGR, popularly known as Puratchi Thaalaivar [Revolutionary Leader], Jayalalithaa, who earned the monikers Puratchi Thalaivi [Revolutionary Female Leader] and Amma [Mother], embraced identity politics. Another popular film actor, Sivaji Ganesan, by contrast, could not make the same mark in politics even after he tried,” said Kannan, who has written biographies of MGR and Annadurai.

In 2005, popular actor Vijayakanth added to the starry mix by launching his DMDK party, another Dravidian political outfit. He made every attempt to position his party as an alternative to the DMK and the AIADMK, but failed. The party won just one seat in 2006 — Vijayakanth’s own — and drew a blank in 2009. Though he went on to become the leader of the opposition in the assembly in 2011, the election reverses forced him to seek alliances. The DMDK, now led by his wife Premalatha, is contesting 10 seats in alliance with the DMK.

Which is where, say analysts, Vijay’s pitch for power is unlikely to make an impact in this election. They say his TVK party does not fall in the long line of Dravidian parties that have a distinct political ideology and programme that appeals to their voters.

“Tamil Nadu is an ideologically and politically evolved state. Issues such as social justice, centre-state relations, and linguistic and cultural identity are paramount here. People will not back a politician without a clear ideology,” Ramu Manivannan, former professor of political science at the University of Madras, told Al Jazeera.

Manivannan said large crowds at Vijay’s rallies should not be mistaken for potential votes. “Film stars always attract crowds. To assume all of them will translate into votes is unfair.”

Vijay’s TVK is rooted in his fan clubs, which thrive on masculine aggression, said S Anandhi, retired professor at the Madras Institute of Development Studies.

“Vijay’s populist rhetoric — defying all authority — appeals strongly to the youth. But he never clarifies what he will actually do in power. He frames it as all established forces being arrayed against young men, and youngsters see this as an opportunity for a new kind of collectivisation. I would call it a dangerous class,” she told Al Jazeera.

Appeal to young, female voters

Vijay appears to be banking heavily on two voter blocs: younger voters between 18 and 39 years, who number 23 million of the state’s 57 million voters, and women, who account for more than half of them.

At his rallies packed with young people and women, Vijay has alleged that Stalin’s true allies are “bribery and corruption”, framing the contest as a personal battle between himself and the chief minister.

Stalin, for his part, has largely brushed off Vijay’s attacks. “Newly-formed parties have a wrong notion that they can survive by criticising DMK,” he said in a recent interview.

Instead, Stalin has focused his attacks on the Modi government, accusing it of depriving Tamil Nadu of its share of federal funds, and framing the election as a contest between Tamil Nadu and New Delhi – a ploy that simultaneously targets the AIADMK for allying with an “adversary”, the BJP.

The AIADMK’s Palaniswami has countered by saying Stalin raises the centre-state issue only because he has “no achievements of his own to show”.

Despite their ideological differences, all parties are competing heavily on welfare promises in a state known for freebies during elections.

The DMK has pledged to double the monthly women’s allowance to 2,000 rupees ($21), offer 8,000 rupees ($85) in home appliance coupons, and build one million homes for the poor over five years. The AIADMK, also promising a monthly allowance of 2,000 rupees for women, has additionally offered free refrigerators to the poor and a one-time family grant of 10,000 rupees ($106).

Vijay’s TVK, hoping to cash in on the ongoing global fuel crisis, has promised six free LPG cylinders annually, 2,500 rupees ($26.5) monthly support for the female heads of a household, 8gm gold and a silk saree for poor women getting married, 4,000 rupees ($42.5) stipend for unemployed college graduates, and interest-free education loans of up to 2 million rupees ($21,257).

Still, Kannan feels Vijay can at best be a disruptor in the three-cornered contest.

“Vijay’s campaign gained momentum in the final lap. He turned what was a bipolar contest into a three-cornered one. But apart from his personal charisma, he lacks proper organisational machinery. Many of his party’s candidates are unknown faces,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shawna Thomas, who exited CBS News earlier this year, has joined MS NOW as political director.

The cable network formerly known as MSNBC announced Wednesday that Thomas will lead the organization’s political unit and direct coverage of campaigns and elections. She will also appear as an on-air analyst.

Thomas lands at the progressive-leaning MS NOW after five years as executive producer for “CBS Mornings.” She announced her departure from the program last month, just as co-host Gayle King was signed to a new deal.

Thomas is among a number of executives and on-air talent who have left CBS News since the arrival of editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, although she told colleagues her decision was about getting away from the grind of early morning television.

MS NOW is owned by Versant, a company created out of the cable assets spun off by Comcast. The new company chose not to rely on the news-gathering resources of NBC News, which oversaw MSNBC, and is building its own editorial operation.

Last month, MS NOW poached long time NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander, who will have a daily program on MS NOW and handle extended breaking news coverage starting later this year.

Thomas is a veteran of political coverage. She is a former Washington bureau chief for the news division at Vice Media, overseeing politics and policy stories for the HBO series “Vice News Tonight.”

Thomas spent a decade working for NBC News in various production roles, including planning its election coverage. She also had a stint as an executive at Quibi, the short-form streaming video platform.

Former Fox News host and ex-Trump advocate Tucker Carlson is feeling remorse for the role he and others played in publicly promoting Donald Trump as a candidate and as the president.

“In very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now,” Carlson said Monday on his podcast, “The Tucker Carlson Show.” He was chatting with Buckley Carlson, his brother and a former Trump speechwriter, about the erosion of conservative values within the Republican Party under Trump.

“I do think it’s a moment to wrestle with our own consciences,” Carlson said. “You know, we’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be, and I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional, and that’s all I’ll say.”

After nearly 10 years of yammering nightly about the greatness of Trump, Carlson picks now to cut the conversation short?

There’s a lot more to say, but this time, it’s about Carlson’s too-little, too-late mea culpa. His claim that he did not intentionally mislead the public is in itself misleading. While Carlson promoted Trump and the Big Lie ad nauseam on his prime-time Fox News show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” he was privately disparaging the president and discrediting Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

His off-camera thoughts were revealed when internal communications between Fox staffers went public in 2023 due to Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News for knowingly broadcasting false claims that its machines rigged the 2020 election. Texts and emails from Carlson and other high-profile hosts suggested they knew Trump’s election fraud claims were unfounded, yet they still pushed the “rigged” narrative on air.

In one such example, Carlson texted that Trump needed to concede, and agreed that “there wasn’t enough fraud to change the outcome” of the election, according to the filing. Yet three nights later, he was on air claiming that there were “legitimate concerns” about election integrity. There were several more communications from Carlson where he expressed doubt about Trump’s claims. But in the public eye, he continued to assail the election results and the legitimacy of Biden’s win.

The Fox News host also privately scorned the first Trump presidency as a “disaster,” then turned around and stumped for Trump in 2024, praising him as a “national leader” at the Republican National Convention and campaigning with him in Arizona just days before the election.

If that’s not intentionally misleading the public, then what is?

Perhaps Carlson should have heeded his initial instincts about Trump. Before gaining notoriety with his Fox show, he posted on the website Slate about Trump in 1999, referring to him as “the single most repulsive person on the planet.”

Today the podcaster is among a growing number of right-wing influencers who have turned on their former leader. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones want to push Trump out of office by invoking the 25th Amendment. Carrie Prejean Boller, who was a Trump-appointed member of the Religious Liberty Commission up until February, simply called him an “evil psychopath”.

Carlson has criticized the Trump administration’s decision to go to war in Iran, calling it “absolutely disgusting and evil” in March, and later said it was the “single biggest mistake” of Trump’s presidency. And when Trump demanded on Truth Social that Iran “open the F—– Strait, you crazy bastards,” Carlson said the post was “vile on every level” and “the most revealing thing the president has ever done. … Who do you think you are? You’re tweeting out the F word on Easter morning?” Carlson said in his podcast.

The president has responded to criticism from Carlson by telling the New York Post that his detractor is a “a low-IQ person” who has “absolutely no idea what’s going on.”

But Carlson is hardly the only American with buyer’s remorse. A recent NBC poll found that Trump is facing the lowest job approval rating of his second term, largely due to strong disapproval of how the president has handled inflation and the cost of living. Carlson, unlike the rest of the country, rode the MAGA wave to prosperity. His show kicked off in 2016, within weeks of the election, and he rose to prominence on the fervor of Trumpism. Supporting Trump was a family business. From his brother, a Republican operative who previously wrote speeches for Trump, to his son, who worked until recently in Vice President JD Vance’s press office.

Now Carlson is making his way back into the conversation by opposing the man he once claimed to revere.

He is asking for forgiveness for backing a faulty product, while also claiming to be a victim of its beguiling charms. “You and I and everyone else who supported him … you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him. We’re implicated in this for sure,” Carlson told his brother on the podcast. “It’s not enough to say, ‘Well, I changed my mind,’ or ‘Oh, this is bad. I’m out.’”

True, that’s not enough. Carlson should apologize for misleading the public, intentionally.

Virginia voters have narrowly approved a referendum to redraw the state’s congressional map, with about 51.5 percent voting yes and 48.6 percent voting no, and 97 percent of ballots counted, according to The Associated Press news agency.

The map redraws the boundaries of Virginia’s congressional districts, changes that can directly shape which party wins seats in the United States House of Representatives.

With most votes counted, the result remained close, but Democratic-leaning areas helped push it through.

The vote is part of a broader national fight over district lines – a battle that could decide who controls Congress.

Republicans in Florida, for instance, are planning a special session of the state legislature next Tuesday where they are expected to seek to redraw their state’s political map – a move that could help them gain as many as five seats, potentially wiping out any Democratic gain in Virginia.

Here are five key takeaways:

Democrats gain a major advantage in the House race

Currently, Virginia sends 11 members to the US House. At the moment, they comprise six Democrats and five Republicans.

The new map changes how those seats are drawn. By reshaping district boundaries, it makes most areas more favourable to Democrats by clumping together voters who lean towards the party strategically, while splintering communities that typically vote Republican.

• Eight districts would be safely Democratic
• Two would be competitive but lean Democratic
• Only one would be safely Republican.

Because of this, Democrats could realistically win at least eight and possibly up to 10 of the 11 seats in the US house, instead of just six.

This shift follows a high-stakes political battle, with total spending estimated at $100m.

Democratic leaders, including Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, framed the new map as a direct response to efforts by US President Donald Trump and Republicans to redraw districts in their favour in other states.

However, even with this win, “there’s no guarantee they’ll send a delegation dominated by Democrats to Washington,” Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said, reporting from Virginia.

There are still six months until the midterm elections, and voter behaviour can shift. Even favourable maps can produce unexpected outcomes.

Virginia is one part of a bigger battle

Virginia is just one part of a bigger fight over who controls the US House.

After the 2024 election, Trump pushed Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps before the usual timeline to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms.

Republicans moved first in states like Texas, where new maps could give them up to five more seats.

Democrats responded with their own moves. In California, voters approved a plan backed by Governor Gavin Newsom that allowed lawmakers to draw a new, more partisan map. This is expected to give Democrats up to five extra seats.

The Virginia result fits into this bigger picture. If Democrats gain up to four seats there, it could help cancel out Republican gains in other states.

But the fight is not over. More changes could still happen, including in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis is looking at redrawing the map.

“Virginia just changed the trajectory of the 2026 midterms,” Democratic state House Speaker Don Scott said in a celebratory statement.

“At a moment when Trump and his allies are trying to lock in power before voters have a say, Virginians stepped up and levelled the playing field for the entire country.”

Legal challenges could still overturn the result

The measure has been approved by voters, but its future is still uncertain.

The Supreme Court of Virginia is expected to review ongoing legal challenges that could affect whether the new map takes effect. While the court allowed the vote to go ahead, it said it would examine the case in full if the measure passed.

The challenges focus on two key issues: Whether Democratic lawmakers followed the correct legal process when putting the proposal forward, and whether the wording on the ballot may have been misleading to voters.

A narrow win

Both parties were watching the vote closely.

Democrats were happy to win, even if it was close. Republicans, meanwhile, were relieved it wasn’t a big loss.

“Virginia Democrats can’t redraw reality,” said Republican Congressman Richard Hudson. “This close margin reinforces that Virginia is a purple state that shouldn’t be represented by a severe partisan gerrymander.”

Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing electoral maps in ways that can benefit one party over another.

Democrats said the tight result was partly down to voter confusion, which they blamed on Republican messaging. Democrats framed the effort as a response to Trump, promoting the plan with advertisements featuring former US President Barack Obama.

Opponents pushed back by pointing to past comments from Obama and Spanberger, both of whom have previously criticised gerrymandering, using that to question the Democrats’ position.

Gerrymandering is at the centre of the fight

The vote highlights the growing importance of partisan map-drawing in US politics.

Democrats say this balances Republican advantages elsewhere. Republicans call it a power grab in a competitive state.

Either way, redistricting is now a key tool shaping election outcomes, not just reflecting them.

Ballot delivery delays and other missteps on election day have contributed to frustration with electoral authorities.

The head of Peru’s election authority has resigned from his role amid widespread anger over the country’s chaotic general election earlier this month, with vote counting still under way.

Piero Corvetto said in a social media post on Tuesday that he was stepping down as head of the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), a government body tasked with organising elections in Peru.

In a letter to the National Board of Justice (JNJ), Corvetto denied that irregularities had taken place, as some politicians have alleged.

But he explained that he was leaving in a bid to increase public confidence, ahead of an anticipated second round of voting in the presidential race on June 7.

The first round of the election, held on April 12, was marred by logistical issues that led to the extension of voting hours around the capital Lima and elsewhere.

Election observers have acknowledged missteps with the electoral process but cautioned that there is no firm evidence of fraud.

Peru’s National Jury of Elections (JNE) said the voting results will be finalised no later than May 15, with the top two presidential candidates advancing to the final round.

Right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori leads with about 17 percent of the vote and is likely to advance to the run-off.

But who will face her remains a mystery. Left-wing Congressman Roberto Sanchez and Lima’s former far-right mayor Rafael Lopez Aliaga remain virtually tied, with 12 percent and 11.9 percent respectively.

The hectic first round of voting could deepen dissatisfaction with the country’s political system at a time of protracted instability and sloping trust in government institutions.

Even before the April election, about 68 percent of Peruvians said that they had little to no trust in the country’s election authorities, according to a poll conducted by the Institute for Peruvian Studies (IEP) and the Institute Bartolome de las Casas (IBC).

Some presidential candidates, including Lopez Aliaga, have pushed unconfirmed claims of fraud and have called for the first round of voting to be nullified.

Election authorities have begun to review thousands of contested ballots that were challenged due to inconsistencies, missing details or tally sheet errors.

Virginia voters on Tuesday are deciding whether to ratify an unusual mid-decade redrawing of U.S. House districts that could boost Democrats’ chances of flipping control of the closely divided chamber, as the state becomes the latest front in a national redistricting battle.

A proposed constitutional amendment backed by Democratic officials would bypass the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission to allow use of new congressional districts approved by state lawmakers in this year’s midterm elections.

The referendum, which needs a simple majority to pass, tests Democrats’ ability to push back against President Trump, who started the gerrymandering competition between states after successfully urging Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in their favor last year. Virginia is the second state, after California last fall, to put the question to voters.

It also tests voters’ willingness to accept districts gerrymandered for political advantage — coming just six years after Virginia voters approved an amendment meant to diminish such partisan gamesmanship by shifting redistricting away from the legislature.

Even if Democrats are successful Tuesday, the public vote may not be the final word. The state Supreme Court is considering whether the redistricting plan is illegal in a case that could make the referendum results meaningless.

Virginia Democrats are following California’s lead

Congressional redistricting typically is done once a decade after each U.S. census. But Trump urged Texas Republicans to redistrict ahead of the November elections in hopes of winning several additional seats and maintaining the GOP’s narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party that is out of power during midterms.

The Texas gambit led to a burst of redistricting nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win up to nine more House seats in newly redrawn districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio.

Democrats think they can win up to five more seats in California, where voters approved a mid-decade redistricting effort last November, and one more seat under new court-imposed districts in Utah. Democrats hope to offset the rest of that gap in Virginia, where they decisively flipped 13 seats in the state House and won back the governor’s office last year.

Voters focus on fairness, with different perspectives

The stream of voters was steady Tuesday at a recreation center in the Old Town area of Alexandria, Virginia.

Matt Wallace, 31, said he votes regularly but this election has additional emphasis.

“I think the redistricting issue across the country is unfortunate, that we’ve had to resort to temporary redistricting in order to sort of alter our elections across the country,” Wallace said. He said he voted for the Democratic redistricting amendment “to help balance the scales a bit until things get back to normal.”

Joanna Miller, 29, said she voted against the redistricting measure, “because I want my vote to count in a fair way.” Miller said she was more concerned about representation in Virginia than trying to offset actions in other states.

“I want my vote and my representation to matter this fall,” she said.

Political parties made a big push in Virginia

Leaders of both major parties see Tuesday’s vote as crucial to their chances to win a House majority in the fall. Trump weighed in via social media Tuesday morning, telling Virginians to “vote ‘no’ to save your country!”

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, rallied with opponents of the measure Monday night, calling the redistricting plan “dishonest” and “brazenly deceptive.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at the Capitol earlier in the day that a vote to approve the redraw “will serve as a check and balance on this out-of-control Trump administration.”

A committee supporting the Democratic redistricting effort had raised more than $64 million — three times as much as the roughly $20 million raised by opponents, according to finance reports filed less than two weeks before the election.

The back-and-forth battle over congressional districts is expected to continue in Florida, where the Republican-led legislature is scheduled to convene April 28 for a special session that could result in a more favorable map for Republicans.

A lobster-like district could aid Democratic efforts

In Virginia, Democrats currently hold six of the 11 U.S. House seats under districts that were imposed by the state Supreme Court in 2021 after a bipartisan commission failed to agree on a map based on the latest census data.

The new plan could help Democrats win as many as 10 seats. Five are anchored in Democratic-heavy northern Virginia, including one shaped like a lobster that stretches into Republican-leaning rural areas.

Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads dilute the voting power of conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia lumps together three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.

The Virginia redistricting plan is “pushing back against what other states have done in trying to stack the deck for Donald Trump in those congressional elections,” Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger said during an online rally last week.

Ads for the “yes to redistricting” campaign featuring former President Barack Obama have flooded the airwaves.

Opponents have distributed campaign materials citing past statements from Obama and Spanberger criticizing gerrymandering, but those were before Trump pushed Republican states to redraw their congressional maps in advance of this year’s midterms.

Democrats “were all against gerrymandering before they were for it,” Virginia Republican Party Chairman Jeff Ryer said.

Virginia court weighs whether lawmakers acted illegally

Virginia lawmakers endorsed a constitutional amendment allowing their mid-decade redistricting last fall, then passed it again in January as part of a two-step process that requires an intervening election for an amendment to be placed on the ballot. The measure allows lawmakers to redistrict until returning the task to a bipartisan commission after the 2030 census.

In February, they passed a new U.S. House map to take effect pending the outcome of the redistricting referendum. Republicans have filed multiple legal challenges against the effort.

A Tazewell County judge ruled that the redistricting push was illegal for several reasons. Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. said lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session.

He ruled that their initial vote failed to occur before the public began casting ballots in last year’s general election and thus didn’t count toward the two-step process. He also ruled that the state failed to publish the amendment three months before that election, as required by law.

If the state Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, the results from Tuesday’s vote could be rendered moot.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Gary Fields in Virginia and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.

Bulgaria’s eighth parliamentary election in five years has concluded with former president Rumen Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria party emerging as the clear winner. Radev will be the next prime minister.

While pollsters predicted a win for Radev ahead of the election, they did not necessarily expect it to be such a large one.

With 98.3 percent of ballots tallied on Monday, official figures show Radev’s party taking 44.7 percent of the vote, and likely to secure roughly 130 of the 240 seats in parliament. The centre-left party has come in far ahead of rivals, raising hopes among voters for a more stable government after years of fragile coalitions and repeated votes.

However, questions remain over what Radev’s foreign policy will entail and what his election means for Bulgaria’s position within the European Union and NATO.

Here is what you need to know:

Who is Rumen Radev?

The 62-year-old served as Bulgaria’s president for nearly a decade before stepping down in January this year to launch his bid to become prime minister.

The former air force commander has positioned himself as an outsider, saying he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, amid widespread frustration with corruption and political turmoil that has gripped the country of 6.6 million people.

In 2025, Radev supported anti-corruption protests that brought down the conservative-backed government of former Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov. He urged voters to turn out in large numbers to counter vote-buying.

At a pre-election rally on Wednesday last week, he pledged to “remove the corrupt, oligarchic model of governance from political power”.

Radev’s stance on foreign policy has drawn attention in Europe, however.

Although he publicly condemned Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he has also opposed providing military support to Ukraine and called, instead, for renewed, “practical relations with Russia based on mutual respect and equal treatment”.

Radev objected to a 10-year defence pact concluded between Bulgaria and Ukraine in March.

He has also called for the resumption of Russian imports to Europe, despite EU sanctions on Russian oil and a decision at the end of last year to cease all energy imports from Russia by 2027.

All this has led to critics labelling him “pro-Russian”. Radev, however, says he is merely taking a pragmatic approach.

“We are the only member state of the European Union that is both Slavic and Eastern Orthodox,” he said in an interview with Bulgarian journalist Martin Karbovski.

“We can be ‌a very important ⁠link in this whole mechanism … to restore relations with Russia,” he added.

Following the election, Russia congratulated Radev, welcoming his victory.

“Of course, we are impressed by the statements made by Mr Radev, who won the election, and by some other European leaders regarding their willingness to resolve problems through pragmatic dialogue,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday.

On Europe, some label Radev a eurosceptic, as he has criticised aspects of EU policy, including reliance on renewable energy and Bulgaria’s adoption of the euro.

At his campaign rally on Wednesday last week, he said: “The coalition-makers introduced the euro in Bulgaria without asking you. And now, when you pay your bills, always remember which politicians promised you that you would be in the ‘club of the rich’.”

Following his victory, he told reporters: “A strong Bulgaria and a strong Europe need critical thinking and pragmatism. Europe has fallen victim to its own ambition to be a moral leader in a world with new rules.”

Nevertheless, Radev has signalled his willingness to cooperate with pro-European parties on issues like judicial reform and has stated that Bulgaria will “continue on its European path”.

Following his win, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “Bulgaria is a proud member of the European family and plays an important role in tackling our common challenges.”

How significant is this result?

Since 2021, Bulgaria has been through multiple governments, many brought down by protests or parliamentary disagreements.

The election result places Radev’s party, with 44 percent of the vote, well ahead of the centre-right GERB party of former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, which secured 13.4 percent of the vote, and the reformist PP-DB coalition, with 12.7 percent.

The margin between the parties is wider than pollsters predicted. On Friday last week, according to Bulgaria’s Alpha Research, Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria was projected to win, but with only 34.2 percent of the vote, followed by Borissov’s GERB-UDF with 19.5 percent. This led observers to predict that a coalition government would be necessary.

Despite securing a clear majority, however, Radev has yet to rule out creating a coalition with a smaller party to form a government.

“We are ready to consider different options so that Bulgaria can have a regular and stable government,” he told reporters on Sunday.

This latest election was called after former PM Zhelyazkov announced in December that his cabinet would resign, amid a looming no-confidence vote.

The election campaign centred heavily on cost-of-living pressures, corruption, and other economic concerns, with many voters expressing frustration at the lack of credible political alternatives.

What will Radev’s role as prime minister be?

Although Radev is best known for holding the title of president, that is a largely ceremonial role in Bulgaria’s political system.

The president serves as head of state, representing national unity and playing a role in foreign policy; executive power lies primarily with the prime minister and his cabinet.

The prime minister appoints his cabinet ministers, sets the government agenda, and is the key representative of Bulgaria in international affairs, including within organisations like the European Union and NATO.

The prime minister remains in office unless he chooses to resign or is removed in a no-confidence motion.

The EU’s election observer said the vote met democratic standards despite fraud allegations.

Peru’s presidential election result will not be finalised until mid-May, with challenged ballots from last Sunday’s vote still being reviewed, says the electoral authority.

With 93 percent of ballots counted, right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori leads with 17 percent, according to officials.

Under Peru’s electoral system, the top two candidates advance to a second-round runoff. A close contest has emerged for second spot between left-wing candidate, Roberto Sanchez on 12 percent, and ultra-conservative Rafael Lopez Aliaga close behind on 11.9 percent.

The margin between the two widened slightly on Saturday to about 13,600 votes.

Yessica Clavijo, secretary general of the National Jury of Elections (JNE), said the delay was due to the review of more than 15,000 challenged ballots. About 30 percent concern the presidential race, the rest relate to legislative elections.

Lopez Aliaga, a former mayor of the capital Lima, has been the most vocal critic of the delay. He has alleged fraud without presenting evidence and called for the election to be annulled. He urged supporters of his Popular Renewal Party to protest on Sunday.

Sanchez also criticised the election process, telling reporters: “These serious organisational issues must be investigated and there must be appropriate sanctions”.

A record 35 candidates ran for president in Peru, a country that has faced years of political instability. Four of its last eight presidents have been impeached by Congress.

Voting was disrupted by delays in the delivery of election materials, forcing authorities to extend polling into Monday in parts of Lima.

Despite the setbacks, the European Union’s election observer mission said the vote met democratic standards. On Friday, prosecutors raided a warehouse belonging to the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), the body responsible for organising the election. Four officials have been reported to the JNE over alleged offences linked to voting rights.

PHOENIX — The top election official in Arizona’s most populous county will get more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote.

The decision could have broad implications in one of the nation’s most prominent battleground states, which will have several high-profile races this fall. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has been roiled by election conspiracy theorists ever since President Trump lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden during his bid for reelection in 2020.

Justin Heap, the Republican recorder in Maricopa County, sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling, which was filed Thursday but appeared on the public docket Friday. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote.

Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers.

“The Board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said the board will consider an appeal.

“I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” McGee, a Republican, said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the ruling as a “clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County.”

“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” Heap said. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”

Heap, a former Republican state lawmaker, was elected in 2024 after unseating incumbent Stephen Richer in the GOP primary and defeating a Democratic candidate in the general election. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen but has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it’s poorly run.

False claims of fraud since the 2020 presidential election led to threats of violence against Richer and others in the Maricopa County elections office. Richer blamed Heap for contributing to an atmosphere of distrust and vitriol directed toward the office.

“He catered to the really ugly stuff that the people in that office had to live through,” Richer said of Heap, in an interview last month. “And he allied with people who were very much in the eye of the storm in terms of creating it.”

Once he took office, Heap terminated a previous agreement that was reached between Richer and the board that had revised how election operations were divided between the two offices. Heap filed his lawsuit with the backing of America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff in the White House.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Sacramento — — Two days after he was finally sworn in as California’s lieutenant governor after a grueling partisan battle, Republican Abel Maldonado appeared on national TV with political comedian Stephen Colbert to discuss his signature issue, a primary election designed to reduce the influence of party hardliners in the Legislature.

“Why on Earth would you want to destroy the two-party system?” demanded Colbert, who parodies a right-wing cable news host.

Leaders from both major parties in California, who vehemently oppose the open-primary measure, are asking essentially the same question, only they don’t see it as a laughing matter.

Proposition 14, which appears on the June 8 ballot, would put all candidates for statewide, congressional and legislative offices on the same primary ballot and allow voters to choose from the full list. The top two vote-getters for each office — regardless of party — would face each other in a runoff.

A poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed 60% of respondents in favor of the measure, 27% opposed and 13% undecided.

Backers, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say the system would free candidates from the need to court the radical wings of their parties to win nomination to the November ballot. That, in turn, would lead to the election of more moderate lawmakers and more cooperation on tough issues like fixing California’s $19.1–billion budget deficit.

Under the current system, Republicans vote on one ballot in a primary election and Democrats on another. Independents, who now represent a record 20% of the California electorate, are allowed to choose either ballot. But few do, so their influence in a primary is minimal, and candidates for November are generally chosen by hard-core party loyalists.

About a third of California congressional and legislative districts are dominated by a single party, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. Almost all are Democratic strongholds. In some, Democrats have such an advantage that the two top primary vote-getters might both be Democrats.

In those cases, Proposition 14 supporters said, they hope the more moderate candidate could win by appealing to Republicans and independents.

As of Friday, Schwarzenegger and the California Chamber of Commerce had helped raise more than $4.7 million for a Yes on 14 campaign, which has started airing a radio ad that claims the measure would reduce “the influence of the major parties which are now under the control of the special interests.”

In a display of harmony that would seem unthinkable on other issues, leading state Democrats and Republicans announced a joint campaign to defeat the measure. They had raised $200,000 as of Friday.

“Both political parties in California hate this measure,” said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which tracks state political races. “They like having these little private clubs. But the voters don’t.”

Party leaders say passage of Proposition 14 would invite a slew of unintended consequences, including higher campaign costs and political skullduggery.

“It allows for mischief where Democrats could go and choose the Republican nominee,” said John Burton, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

He said there are Democrats in safe districts who might try to help their party by casting their primary votes for hard-line Republicans who are “so far out” that they could not win a general election.

Under the current system, primary campaigns are less expensive than general elections because candidates have to woo only voters registered in their own party. With an open system, candidates would need to appeal to all voters, sending out a lot more mail and potentially buying expensive air time on radio and TV. The increased costs could drive them deeper into the arms of well-heeled special interests, party leaders say.

Those leaders also take issue with the underlying notion that they are a source of unhealthy division.

“Broad-based political parties are an essential part of our democracy,” said California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring. “The alternative is to have voters divided by … region, or ethnicity or religion.”

Burton, whose Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature, scoffed at the notion that he can call the shots for lawmakers.

“If I had power, this wouldn’t even be on the ballot, because I urged the [Senate president] pro tem and the Assembly speaker not to do it,” he said.

In fact, it was the Legislature that put the measure on the ballot after one lone moderate broke last year’s budget stalemate. Maldonado, then a state senator, agreed to vote for tax increases after legislative leaders agreed to put the open-primary measure before voters.

But the Legislature’s leaders don’t want the measure to pass and are now opposing it. The move won Maldonado a friend in Schwarzenegger, however, and the governor nominated him for the vacant lieutenant governor post.

The confirmation process quickly descended into a partisan fight.

“They came at me from all sides, and it was all driven by the party bosses,” Maldonado said of the roughly 150 days he spent in limbo, waiting for confirmation. “But with the open primary initiative, you would only be accountable to the people.”

While politicians debate the measure’s possible effect, many academics wonder if it would have any noticeable effect. Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley, said he expected the major parties and big donors would adapt quickly and make sure they have only one credible candidate in each primary.

“As a social scientist, I’m glad that California wants to do another experiment; it generates more papers and more studies,” Cain said. “But I share the prevailing skepticism of my profession that any significant change will come about.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com

The vote count continues to determine who will join conservative Keiko Fujimori in Peru’s presidential run-off in June.

Calls to remove the head of Peru’s electoral authority have intensified as delays and alleged irregularities clouded the presidential vote count.

As of Friday, no clear challenger has emerged to face conservative frontrunner Keiko Fujimori in the June 7 run-off.

The general election was held on Sunday, but an extension was granted to accommodate for the difficulties in ballot distribution.

Pressure has mounted against the head of Peru’s National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), Piero Corvetto. Complaints over errors and logistical problems during Sunday’s election have been compounded by a slow tally that has rattled investor confidence and heightened uncertainty.

According to the ONPE, leftist Roberto Sanchez and ultraconservative former Lima Mayor Rafael Lopez Aliaga remain locked in a close battle for second place, separated by about 13,000 votes as of Friday.

With 93.3 percent of the ballots counted, Sanchez held 12.0 percent of the vote and Lopez Aliaga 11.9 percent.

Fujimori, meanwhile, remained firmly in first place with 17 percent, positioning her for the run-off. Final results could take up to two weeks, according to local election-monitoring group Transparencia.

The vote counting has been further delayed by the roughly 5 percent of ballots that were identified for review due to missing information or errors in polling station records, according to ONPE data. Those ballots will be reviewed by a special electoral jury before being included in the final count, officials said.

Business leaders and lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called on Corvetto to step down, arguing that a replacement should oversee the second round.

“Errors this serious have consequences,” Jorge Zapata, head of business chamber CONFIEP, told local radio station RPP.

Earlier this week, Corvetto acknowledged that there had been some logistical delays that forced voting to be extended by a day, mainly in Lima. Those delays triggered fraud allegations, notably from Lopez Aliaga, who has called for counting to be suspended. Corvetto has denied that any irregularities took place.

Even so, Peru’s top electoral court, the National Jury of Elections, filed a criminal complaint with prosecutors against Corvetto, citing alleged offences, including violations of voting rights. Representatives for Corvetto did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

An investigation is also under way after materials from four polling stations were found on a public road in Lima on Thursday, the police said. ONPE said on the social media platform X that the votes from those stations had already been recorded for counting.

European Union election observers said this week that they found no evidence of fraud.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.

The rise of Péter Magyar marks one of the most significant political shifts in Hungary’s modern history. His victory over Viktor Orbán ends a 16 year era defined by centralized power and strained relations with the European Union.

What makes Magyar’s ascent particularly striking is that he did not emerge from outside the system, but from within it.

From insider to challenger

Magyar was once closely associated with Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party and initially echoed many of its political themes, including nationalism and scepticism toward liberal European norms.

His turning point came in 2024, when he publicly broke with the government and sharply criticised corruption and the concentration of power. This positioned him as a credible reformist with insider knowledge of how the system operated.

Dismantling an illiberal model

Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” was built on gradually consolidating control over key state institutions, including the judiciary and media. Over time, checks and balances weakened, allowing the ruling party to dominate political life.

Magyar’s understanding of this structure allowed him to directly challenge its foundations, particularly by focusing on corruption and institutional accountability, issues that resonated with voters.

Building a broad coalition

Over two years of campaigning, Magyar evolved politically. He travelled extensively, engaging with voters across the country and broadening his appeal beyond a narrow ideological base.

According to Zsolt Enyedi, Magyar became a unifying figure for pro democracy forces, offering a platform that different groups could rally around. This ability to bridge divides proved crucial in defeating a deeply entrenched political machine.

A more pragmatic approach to Europe

Magyar is not an uncritical supporter of the European Union, but he is expected to take a more constructive approach than his predecessor. Economic realities, particularly the need to unlock suspended EU funds, will push his government toward cooperation with Brussels.

This creates a pragmatic dynamic where reform is driven not only by political vision but also by financial necessity.

A difficult transition ahead

The transition of power is likely to be complex. Magyar has already expressed concern about actions taken by elements of the outgoing administration, suggesting resistance within the system he now seeks to reform.

Rebuilding institutions, restoring trust, and dismantling entrenched networks will take time and political capital.

Analysis

Péter Magyar’s victory highlights a key dynamic in political change within entrenched systems: transformation often comes from insiders who understand the machinery of power.

However, electoral success is only the first step. The deeper challenge lies in restructuring institutions that have been shaped over more than a decade. This process is inherently slow and politically sensitive.

Magyar must navigate competing pressures. Domestically, he faces a conservative and somewhat eurosceptic electorate. Internationally, he is expected to repair relations with the European Union and align more closely with its standards.

This balancing act will define his leadership. While his victory opens the door to democratic renewal, the outcome will depend on whether he can convert political momentum into lasting institutional change.

With information from Reuters.

The California Supreme Court ordered attorney and former law school dean John Eastman disbarred on Wednesday for his role aiding the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

The court ordered Eastman’s name be “stricken from the roll of attorneys” and that he pay $5,000 to the State Bar of California.

Eastman’s attorney, Randall A. Miller, told the Associated Press that the court’s decision “departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context.” Miller did not immediately return an after-hours phone call seeking comment from The Times.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement that the ruling “underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney.”

“Today’s California Supreme Court order disbarring John Charles Eastman from the practice of law in California affirms the fundamental principle that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law, regardless of the client they represent or the context in which that representation occurs,” said Cardona said.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms a 2024 ruling from State Bar Judge Yvette Roland that Eastman be prohibited from practicing law.

In a marathon trial that lasted off and on from June to November 2024, the State Bar, which regulates lawyers in California, argued that Eastman was unfit to practice law for peddling bogus claims that fraud cost Trump the election and for promoting a fake-elector scheme to block the electoral count.

“It is true that an attorney has a duty to engage in zealous advocacy on behalf of a client,” Roland wrote in 2024 in a 128-page ruling. “However, Eastman’s inaccurate assertions were lies that cannot be justified as zealous advocacy.”

Roland found Eastman culpable of 10 of 11 counts of misconduct.

Eastman fomented “predictable and destructive chaos” when he stood beside fellow Trump adviser Rudolph W. Giuliani on Jan. 6, 2021, and told an enormous crowd at the Ellipse that the election had been fraudulent, the bar argued.

Eastman claimed he was acting in good faith, and as a vigorous champion of his client. But State Bar attorneys argued that “the evidence, including his often not-credible trial testimony, shows that he held — and still holds — truth and democracy in contempt.”

Despite Eastman’s repeated assertions that Joe Biden’s victory was illegal, Roland ruled, Eastman’s own words showed he knew that proof was lacking.

The judge cited an email that Eastman sent to a friend, Cleta Mitchell, on Nov. 29, 2020, acknowledging that fraud serious enough to sway the results could not be proved.

“It would be nice to have actually hard documented evidence of the fraud in the areas to which the analyses pointed,” Eastman wrote.

After the 2024 ruling Eastman responded on his Substack writing that he hoped the California Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court would “step in to put a stop to this lawfare that has become a serious threat to the First Amendment, the right of controversial clients and causes to legal representation, and more broadly to our adversarial system of justice.”

Eastman has a long history in California’s conservative legal circles. He was hired by Chapman’s law school in 1999 and was dean from June 2007 to January 2010, then continued to teach courses in constitutional law, property law, legal history and the 1st Amendment.

He retired in early 2021 after more than 100 Chapman faculty and others affiliated with the university signed a letter calling on the school to take action against him for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Wednesday’s decision is a bookend in a lengthy investigation into Eastman’s actions that began in 2021. In October of that year, the nonpartisan legal group States United Democracy Center filed an ethics complaint calling on the State Bar to investigate Eastman’s Jan. 6 actions.

Christine P. Sun, senior vice president of legal at the States United Democracy Center, said on Wednesday that the court’s decision is “part of a broader reckoning for those who seek to undermine the rule of law.”

“Eastman played a central role in the plot to overturn the 2020 election—pressuring state officials, advancing baseless claims in court, and promoting a fringe theory that the vice president could reject certified electoral votes,” Sun said in a statement. “His unethical actions have had real, lasting consequences for our democracy, and we applaud the California Supreme Court’s decision to disbar him.”

Staff writer Christopher Goffard contributed to this report

WASHINGTON — The big election over the weekend was in a small European country nearly half a world away from Washington, but the defeat of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has significant reverberations in the United States.

That’s because President Trump and many U.S. conservatives have long embraced Orbán, who has become an icon among the global right for his anti-immigrant stance. The American president’s agenda has striking parallels with the way the Hungarian leader used the levers of government to tilt the media, judiciary and electoral system to keep his party in power for 16 years.

Trump supported Orbán’s reelection bid and even dispatched Vice President JD Vance to Budapest last week — in the midst of the Iran war — to stump for the incumbent.

Orbán’s loss was a reminder of how the war has diminished Trump’s ability to help allied politicians overseas, as well as of the limited ability of leaders to use their power to tilt voting in their direction in an age of worldwide discontent over incumbents of all ideological stripes.

“Oppositions can win despite a tilted playing field,” said Steven Levitsky, a politics professor at Harvard and coauthor of the book “How Democracies Die.” “Democracies are facing many challenges in many parts of the world, but so are autocracies.”

Orbán’s defeat has immediate global implications because he was the European leader closest to Russian President Vladimir Putin and had blocked European Union aid to Ukraine, which is defending itself after Russian’s 2022 invasion.

His fall was celebrated on Sunday by both Democrats and Republicans, some of whom criticized their own administration for such overt support for the Hungarian leader.

“Don’t fiddle-paddle in other democracies’ elections,” Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said on the social media site X.

“The freedom-loving people of Hungary have voted decisively in favor of democracy and the rule of law,” posted Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is part of the wing of the American right that embraced Orbán. The Conservative Political Action Conference, which Schlapp’s group hosts, held its first European session in Budapest and has made Hungary a regular destination.

Orbán was a featured speaker at the group’s conference in Dallas in 2022.

Schlapp said there’s an easy explanation for Orbán’s loss.

“Eventually, democracies just want change,” he said. “In democracies, you don’t have kings, and the people in the end speak.”

“The people of Hungary were saying, ‘We’re having a difficult time with inflation, the economy and the war. Let’s try the new guy,’” Schlapp said, noting that he backs Trump’s Iran war but the turmoil it’s created, especially in European energy markets, hurt Orbán.

Diana Sosoaca, a far-right member of the European Parliament from Romania, on Sunday called Vance’s Hungarian visit “a big mistake” given widespread revulsion at the Iran war on the continent.

“You invite a representative of the United States of America, who created the big disorder in this world?” Sosoaca said in an interview posted by the Kremlin-controlled network RT, formerly known as Russia Today. “It was the biggest mistake he could do before the elections.”

How Orbán consolidated power

An anti-communist activist in his youth, Orbán was initially elected prime minister in 1998 but took a turn to the right after being voted out in 2002. Upon returning to office in 2010, Orbán and his Fidesz party implemented a legal framework to consolidate authority that he and his allies developed while he was out of power.

Orbán embraced what he dubbed “illiberal democracy,” building a barrier on Hungary’s southern border to block migrants from Africa and Asia who were moving northward through Europe. He and his party stifled LGBTQ+ rights, cracked down on freedom of the press and undermined judicial independence.

Orbán cemented his power when his Fidesz party won enough seats in Parliament during the 2010 global recession to rewrite the country’s constitution. They restructured the judiciary to funnel appointments to the bench through party loyalists, redrew legislative districts to make it much harder for Fidesz members to lose elections and helped push Hungary’s media companies to be sold to tycoons allied with Orban.

The European Union has declared Hungary an “electoral autocracy.”

Orbán backers have scoffed at suggestions that the Hungarian leader is an enemy of democracy, and on Sunday he quickly conceded his loss. Democrats have worried that Trump will try to use his own executive power to tilt November’s midterm elections or the 2028 presidential vote to his party, much as Trump tried to use his official powers to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election.

“Most importantly for American voters, even a guy who rigs the system can be defeated when the people unite and turn out against him,” said Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that says it combats authoritarianism.

Democrats weigh in

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California took the opportunity to jab at Vance: “Your ally Orban conceded. In 2028, will you @JDVance follow suit if you lose?” he posted on X.

Levitsky said defenders of democracy shouldn’t take too much comfort from Orbán’s loss, noting that in some ways Trump has been more oppressive. He cited Trump’s use of the Justice Department to investigate political opponents and the shooting deaths of protesters by immigration officers — steps that Orban’s government never took, Levitsky said.

But Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said he sees parallels between Trump’s and Orban’s political projects, as well as the potential fate of their parties at the polls.

“He was essentially doing what Donald Trump is trying to do here in the United States,” Van Hollen said of Orban. “My read of the election is that the people of Hungary rejected that, just like people in the United States are rejecting that here at home.”

Trump made no public comments Sunday about the election results in Hungary.

Riccardi and Brown write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.