election

Presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda accepted the victory of his opponent Abelardo de la Espriella.

Bogota, Colombia – Colombian presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda officially conceded defeat to hard-right populist Abelardo de la Espriella this morning following a tight run-off race.

While Cepeda had recognised the legitimacy of the preliminary results on Sunday, which gave de la Espriella a less than 1 percent lead, he said he would wait for the final, legally binding vote count, known as the scrutiny, before accepting defeat.

“I have decided to accept the result of this process, which indicates that Abelardo de la Espriella is the new president of the Republic,” said Cepeda in a livestreamed address on Wednesday.

While the voting verification process has not been fully completed, the National Registry, which oversees the elections, said yesterday that Sunday’s preliminary vote count was “99.997 percent” accurate after revision by judges at the municipal level. The vote must now be verified at the departmental and national levels.

There had been doubts among the Cepeda camp about the legitimacy of the vote process, with President Gustavo Petro – who was closely involved in the leftist candidate’s campaign – openly alleging fraud and foreign interference before and after the election.

“Electoral manipulation has been proven; I cannot say for certain that what has been uncovered guarantees an electoral victory [for Cepeda], but it is a fact,” wrote Petro on Monday.

For months, the president has warned about vulnerabilities in vote-counting software and clashed with the National Registry.

The president’s mistrust is largely based on the 2022 legislative election, in which his Historic Pact coalition recouped roughly half a million votes following the scrutinised vote count.

The recent memory of that vote led Petro and many Cepedistas (supporters of Cepeda) to believe that the roughly 250,000-vote margin between Cepeda and de la Espriella on Sunday could be overturned.

But the National Registry recorded high accuracy in both the preliminary count for March’s legislative election and the first round of the presidential race on May 31.

Petro also said that Washington’s interference in the election undermined the final result because President Donald Trump had endorsed Abelardo, breaking with tradition.

“President Donald Trump’s direct intervention nullifies the elections in Colombia,” wrote Petro in an X post yesterday.

But Cepeda’s concession appears to put distance between him and the president, who founded the Historic Pact movement.

“This suggests some sort of schism between Petro and Cepeda. While Petro’s term is sunsetting, Cepeda will likely become the leader of the opposition,” said Sergio Guzman, director of political risk consultancy Colombia Risk Analysis.

Cepeda, who is now expected to lead the Historic Pact party in the Senate, struck a conciliatory tone in his speech this morning: “I am doing this as an act of democratic responsibility, to contribute to harmony, peace and dialogue among Colombians.”

ATLANTA — Legislation to keep Georgia’s embattled vote-counting method in place for this year’s midterm elections faced strong opposition from state Democrats on Monday after Republicans in the Georgia Senate approved an amendment that would require a hand recount of ballots.

Georgia’s governor, Republican Brian Kemp, had called lawmakers into a special session in part to address a July 1 deadline that was set to ban the QR codes used for the official vote count. Legislators passed a law two years ago that set that deadline, but then failed to find a replacement for tabulating votes.

Some voting rights activists had warned that any changes so close to the midterm elections could create confusion at polling sites. Georgia is a political swing state where voters will decide high-profile races for U.S. Senate and governor in the fall.

State lawmakers last week appeared to have reached a deal on a bill to push the July 1 deadline back to 2028. But Republicans in the Senate approved an amendment over the weekend that would require a full hand recount of the two races at the top of ballot. In November, that would be the governor’s contest and a U.S. Senate election.

The amended bill passed the Senate on a party line vote, but the House did not immediately schedule it for a vote on Monday.

Georgia Democrats say a hand recount in November would create chaos that could sow doubt about the results. Research has shown that hand-counting is more prone to error, costlier and likely to delay results. It has gained traction, however, with Republican lawmakers in some states amid President Trump’s repeated false claims about a stolen 2020 election.

“What we are experiencing is a Republican Senate who’s acting extraordinarily irresponsibly with Georgia’s elections and people’s votes,” state Rep. Saira Draper, a Democrat, said Monday.

Republican state Sen. Max Burns defended the Senate bill, saying hand counts and machine counts can “coexist and confirm each other’s ultimate results.”

“This amendment to a good bill is to strengthen it so that the voters have confidence in election security,” he said.

Georgia’s current election system uses a QR code printed on ballots to tally the votes. It has drawn the ire of Trump, who claimed without evidence that voting machines in Georgia deleted or switched votes in the 2020 election. He narrowly lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden that year.

Georgia voting machines have been the subject of conspiracy theories, which manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems fought vigorously in court. But election integrity advocates also have raised concerns about the machines, arguing that they are vulnerable to hacking and that voters cannot be sure their selections are accurately reflected because people can’t read QR codes.

The Georgia Senate bill would extend the July 1 deadline to Jan. 1, 2028. It also would create a committee to recommend requirements for a new voting system. The committee would have until Jan. 31, 2027, to report its findings. State lawmakers would be responsible for funding, buying and implementing the new system for the 2028 election cycle.

The special session also was supposed to redraw Georgia’s congressional and legislative districts for the 2028 election, but state lawmakers postponed those plans.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

Colombia’s outgoing leftist president, Gustavo Petro, has alleged electoral fraud after preliminary results from a presidential run-off saw his handpicked candidate lose by a small margin.

In a barrage of posts on the social media site X on Monday, Petro alleged that the opposition bought votes and Israel and the United States interfered to help opposition far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella win.

Petro has refused to recognise the results and has called for an investigation by the judiciary.

The president, who was barred by the constitution from running for a second term, was Colombia’s first leftist president, putting him at odds with the US.

His administration is praised for reforms that boosted social spending, raised the minimum wage and redistributed land to poorer families. Petro also cut ties with Israel over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and distanced himself from US President Donald Trump’s administration.

However, critics said his refusal to accept the election results risks inflaming political tensions – and violence. Here’s what we know:

What are the election results?

The first round of the presidential election was held on May 31. Neither of the two leading candidates – Abelardo de la Espriella of the right-wing Defenders of the Homeland movement and Senator Ivan Cepeda of the ruling Historic Pact – secured at least 50 percent of the vote, leading to a run-off on Sunday.

De la Espriella narrowly won with 49.66 percent over Cepeda’s 48.7 percent, according to preliminary results released on Monday by the National Registry, which manages vote numbers.

The razor-thin difference amounts to less than 1 percent of the vote and represents one of Colombia’s closest elections.

Trump-backed de la Espriella, 47, is to take office on August 7. The criminal lawyer is a multimillionaire who campaigned on tougher security and anti-leftist policies. He also has US citizenship.

De la Espriella’s win is part of a recent trend of Latin American countries electing far-right, populist leaders who are pro-Trump. Argentina’s Javier Milei, Honduras’s Nasry “Tito” Asfura, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Costa Rica’s Laura Fernandez Delgado all have close ties to the Trump administration.

Why is Petro alleging fraud?

Petro took to X to denounce in a series of posts what he said was voter fraud committed with the help of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Petro said there was evidence of manipulation of Form E-14, the official, handwritten tally of sheets filled out by poll workers at each voting station.

The form is a physical record of the vote count and is meant to prevent electoral fraud. It is filled out by hand, and digital scans are also uploaded to the National Registry’s portal for public auditing. If found to have errors, parties may request a recount.

Petro alleged that foreign actors accessed the National Registry’s website and rewrote voting data on some E-14 forms.

“Today we have evidence of a change in IP addresses of several servers of the national registry,” he posted.

“This means that the software was compromised and others wrote data for polling stations and voting posts. The only entity in the world capable of doing that is the state of Israel,” Petro added without providing evidence of Israel’s alleged involvement.

Petro said his party had requested a “technical audit” of the voting software before the elections and asked authorities to retrieve the digital footprints of all digitally transmitted documents to avoid modification. He claimed those requests were ignored.

The outgoing president shared videos of what he alleged captured the “premeditated” modification of E-14 forms. He also claimed the manipulation was done “from the offices of the Bautista brothers”.

Who are the Bautista brothers?

Petro was referring to Thomas Greg & Sons, an influential private logistics and security printing firm that runs Colombia’s electoral infrastructure. Until recently, it also printed Colombian passports.

It is run by brothers Fernando and Camilo Bautista Palacio. The duo was convicted of bank fraud in the US in the 1980s.

Thomas Greg & Sons, which was founded by their father, Gregorio, has been contracted by the National Registry for more than a decade to manage election logistics, preliminary vote counting and vote-tallying software.

Petro in April accused the Bautista brothers of negotiating a deal with de la Espriella that would see them secure the presidency for the far-right candidate in return for clinching passport printing contracts once more.

At the time, de la Espriella refuted the claims, and his lawyers threatened Petro with a lawsuit.

What are authorities saying?

Attorney General Gregorio Eljach has dismissed the allegations and told reporters there is “no evidence of fraud” with more than 99 percent of the votes counted.

De la Espriella, meanwhile, has so far not responded directly to Petro.

Is de la Espriella linked with Israel?

Yes, de la Espriella has consistently voiced support for Israel and campaigned in Colombia’s Jewish community, making pro-Israel promises and saying his government would “defend Judeo-Christian principles”.

He pledged to reverse Petro’s 2024 decision to cut ties with Israel and has promised to relocate the Colombian embassy to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu congratulated de la Espriella on Monday, saying: “I look forward to working with you to strengthen the bond between Israel and Colombia.”

How has the US reacted?

In his posts, Petro also blamed Trump for interfering in the elections by publicly endorsing a candidate and thus swaying voters.

Trump endorsed de la Espriella on his Truth Social platform weeks before the run-off.

Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also congratulated de la Espriella on his preliminary win, and Trump took credit for the far-right candidate’s victory.

“He was in 10th place. I endorsed him, and he won the election. He called me last night and thanked me for the endorsement,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday.

Rubio wrote on X: “The Trump administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States, and strengthen our economic ties.”

Petro has invited Trump to make a statement on the electoral fraud allegations.

“I formally invite President Donald Trump to speak,” Petro wrote, adding that the US president bears responsibility for “having supported a candidate and not the freedom of the Colombian people”.

What is the US-Colombian relationship like?

Although both countries have close trade ties, diplomatic relations have often been strained over drug trafficking policies and relations with Israel, among other issues.

But relations essentially collapsed under the Trump and Petro administrations.

Petro in January last year refused to allow US migrant deportation planes to land in his country and said on X that the US “cannot treat Colombian migrants like criminals”.

In October, the US sanctioned Petro, his family and key officials in his government based on unproven allegations of involvement in the drug trade.

In January this year, the US military abducted leftist Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from his Caracas home after the Trump administration accused him of “narcoterrorism”.

As Colombia comes down from the ecstasy-filled high of its recent win in their 2026 World Cup opener, a sadder, and much darker reality is beginning to set. On June 21^st, 2026, Colombians will vote in a historic runoff election that will not only hurt Colombia but will have serious effects on the future of Venezuela. 

No matter the outcome, Colombia will be worse off, as both Iván Cepeda and Abelardo De la Espriella are a study on how a democracy can offer voters a choice between two particular brands of terrible.

The first-round of the election provides a clear insight into the current state of Colombian civil society. Like many presidential systems, Colombia structures its presidential elections in a two-round system.  If no candidate surpasses 50% of the vote in the first round, as happened on May 31st, a second runoff election is called between the first and second placed candidates. That runoff is this Sunday, June 21^st. Moderate and moderate right-wing candidates Sergio Fajardo and Paloma Valencia achieved historic electoral lows for centrists with 4% and 6% of the vote respectively, whilst the radical extremes of the political scale rejoiced in victory. 

The biggest surprise was undoubtedly Abelardo de la Espriella´s first round victory, with the self-anointed “Tiger” garnering 43.7% of the vote to first round favourite Iván Cepeda´s 40.9%. With a mere 600,000 votes separating the candidates and about 3 million votes being contested, both can win the election. 

Cepeda, who is President Gustavo Petro’s hand-picked heir, initially questioned the results alongside the controversial president, and only accepted them on June 7^th, a week after the election. With his institutional backing, that delay matters. All in all, Colombians ran to the extremes, which provided a clear data-backed picture of just how polarized Colombian civil society is.

Whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from Trump.

Regardless of the result in the June 21^st runoff, the Colombian elections will have a lasting effect on the future of Venezuela and could be the catalyst for very different answers to the question of the country´s political future. 

First and foremost, Colombia is the country that has received the largest number of Venezuelan migrants, with approximately 3 million Venezuelans calling the country home. Since January 2025, Colombia has been hosting the diaspora without US funding and support. Furthermore, part of the the 2,219 kilometre-long border between both countries is controlled by the Colombian Guerrilla ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), who lost key ally and facilitator Nicolás Maduro on January 3^rd and is currently massing on the Colombian side.

Bogotá’s diplomatic influence and posture is one of the few international players that can have significant effects on whether interim dictator Delcy Rodríguez will eventually push for elections in Venezuela. 

All in all, whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th 2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from the self-proclaimed most popular man in Venezuela, Donald Trump.

Now, it’s time to get down to brass tacks, the who is who. Inside trash can number one we find Iván Cepeda. Cepeda’s personal arc is worryingly similar to that of the Rodríguez siblings in Venezuela. His father was a radical Left politician murdered by far Right paramilitary groups. That fuelled Cepeda’s deep hatred towards the Colombian political system and institutions. A career senator and politician, Cepeda is probably the smartest mind in Colombia’s hard Left. He is also an admirer of Hugo Chávez, and strong critic of former president and kingmaker Álvaro Úribe. Cepeda’s followers will frame him as a left-wing moderate, but he is not. He is Petro without the cocaine, prostitutes and charisma, running on continuing the Total Peace framework that has seen record numbers of cocaine production in the country, and bolstered the rearming of the ELN. His commitment to governmental continuity will no doubt hurt Colombia, starting with the fact that current policies have driven down Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia by 30% from a 2023 peak.

De la Espriella is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Furthermore, his delay in recognizing the electoral results provides an interesting insight on how Cepeda could interact with institutions that he finds inconvenient. A man who questions clean elections certified by international observers has no business rewriting constitutions, a key pillar on his first-round electoral campaign, which he recently dropped in a pathetic attempt to attract centrists and moderates. Cepeda’s rhetoric and language is extremely divisive. He frames every political opponent as an oligarch, every private enterprise as an exploiter, every security operation as state violence whilst analysing the deep social gaps and concerns the country must navigate. Rather than seeking to solve them, Cepeda weaponizes them to further divide the Colombian population.

But Cepeda’s rottenness is not counterbalanced by a knight in shining armour, but by a different but equally foul-smelling individual. We find Abelardo “The Tiger” de la Espriella inside trash can number two. The part-time attorney, part-time rum maker, aspiring opera singer, fashionista with terrible taste is one of the most questionable figures in the Colombian public sphere. A criminal defence attorney, who became famous for being the lawyer and fixer for chavista allies like Alex Saab and paramilitary leaders, has found a new “passion project” in his expanding list of questionable side hustles: becoming the president of Colombia. De la Espriella comes in as a true outsider who has no congressional or political backing. He is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Abelardo’s rhetoric only serves to perpetrate a never-ending cycle of violence. The anti-democratic claims that he will literally “gut leftists,” his active endorsements of states of exception and support for arbitrary concentrations of power within the presidency, his promise to open ten CECOT-style mega prisons, and his constant disregard and attacks against human rights are problematic. 

His “security agenda” is not offering any coherent security policy. On the contrary, he’s seeking to create a permission structure for state-sponsored political violence, dressed as law and order. His policy against the ELN of all-out war has no institutional backing, and risks triggering considerable escalation. Events like the April 25^th bombing can serve as a prelude of what an empowered ELN can look like. 

De la Espriella’s polarization is of a different flavour to Cepeda’s, but equally problematic. Instead of using social and class divides, the Tiger weaponizes the us-versus-them mentality along the lines of patriots and enemies. In a country with such a tragic and saddening history of political violence, that rhetoric has a body count attached to it.

Cepeda’s attitude will likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

At the end of the day, either candidate will face serious problems to govern, and will bring a myriad of conundrums for Colombia, but how do their stances translate into the Venezuelan question? On one hand, Iván Cepeda has constantly framed the operation to extract Nicolás Maduro as violation of sovereignty, a position which lacks any diplomatic nuance, and at the same time provides strong insights into how Cepeda will behave towards Venezuela and how much pressure he´ll exert on Venezuela to call for elections. The Total Peace Framework will provide the ELN with the political umbrella to consolidate in the border region, stacking an unpredictable situation on top of an already volatile powder-keg in Venezuela. Calling Cepeda a “friend” of Maduro or Delcy is not accurate, but he is the regime’s useful neighbour. His attitude will most likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action like his predecessor Gustavo Petro such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

On the other hand, analysing Abelardo’s impact on Venezuela must begin with the fact that he was the leading defence attorney for Alex Saab between 2013 and 2018, the same years Saab ran Maduro’s sanction-busting operation. Although his divisive rhetoric claims forceful actions, his personal history and contacts in his rolodex prove that rather than full force, there is a clear entanglement with the chavista operation. De la Espriella also has no real plan for the domestic situation with refugees, and his ultra-nationalist stance could cause serious problems for foreign populations in Colombia. Furthermore, his full force campaign against the guerrillas can drive the ELN back over the Venezuelan border.

A small “silver lining” does exist. On one hand, Cepeda has stated that he will try to push for regularization mechanisms in Colombia. On the other, Abelardo’s ties to the International Right and Donald Trump can transform him into a key figure to push for a decisive presidential election and as a source of pressure on Delcy.

Colombia’s role as a key interlocutor with Venezuela is undeniably at risk regardless of who wins the presidency. Because the region and Venezuela needed a Colombian president that could be a genuine bridge between Washington and Caracas, between the Venezuelan diaspora and integration, between the ELN and disarmament, and for the ever-divided poles of the Colombian population. But rather, on June 21, the country was forced to choose between ideological blindness dressed in progressive language, and maximum pressure dressed over an obvious conflict of interest. Venezuela might again pay the price for someone else’s terrible choices.

June 19 (UPI) — Maine election officials announced the results of its ranked-choice primary runoffs Friday, confirming Democrat Hannah Pingree and Republican Bobby Charles as the candidates for the gubernatorial election in November.

Democrat Matt Dunlap, Maine’s state auditor and former secretary of state, advanced to the midterm elections, seeking the 2nd District seat held by Democrat Rep. Jared Golden. Republican and former Gov. Paul LePage will be his opponent.

The 2nd District congressional race has been targeted by the Republican Party as one it believes it could flip in November. President Donald Trump had a 10% edge in the district in the 2024 election.

Maine is one of two states in the United States to do ranked-choice voting for statewide elections. The other is Alaska. Ranked-choice voting is also used in municipalities across the country.

Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat who has reached her term limit in the office, endorsed Pingree, the Democratic nominee, to succeed her. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Maine by 7% in 2024.

Pingree is a former speaker of the House in Maine’s state legislature.

Pingree’s opponent, Charles, is a former naval intelligence officer and was the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs under President George W. Bush. He also served in the White House under the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1983.

The National Election Commission’s (NEC) fact-finding committee investigating ballot shortages during the recent local elections called for a criminal probe into the commission’s former chief Friday, citing systemic failures in the election management system.

Cho Hyun-wook, chairperson of the committee, made the announcement during a briefing at the NEC headquarters in Gwacheon, south of Seoul, as the panel wrapped up a weeklong investigation conducted to determine the cause of the ballot shortages.

The committee recommended that former NEC Chairman Roh Tae-ak, who stepped down from his post over the debacle, and other key officials be referred for criminal investigation.

Cho also stressed that the NEC requires a sweeping overhaul tantamount to dismantling the organization.

“Given the systemic failures in the election management system exposed by the ballot shortage incident, the NEC requires sweeping reforms akin to dismantlement,” she said.

According to the committee, 140 of the country’s 14,288 polling stations requested and received additional ballot papers after anticipating shortages on election day. Of those, 91 used the additional ballots they received, while voting was at least temporarily disrupted at 26 polling stations due to ballot shortages.

The committee, launched on June 10, consisted of six members recommended by civic organizations, media, legal and academic communities.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

WASHINGTON — Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ ”

Daschle’s account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.

Few candidates sparred over the war resolution itself. But Republicans in states including Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Georgia strafed Democratic senators seeking reelection who had supported military spending cutbacks in the 1990s, accepted money from a liberal arms-control group, opposed Bush’s preferred approach for organizing the new Department of Homeland Security, and voted in 1991 against the Persian Gulf War.

With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote’s timing enormously increased pressure on their party’s wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

“There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election,” Daschle said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that charge, saying the vote’s timing represented a desire to increase pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Democrats.

“The president, during the run-up to the war, went out of his way not to make it political,” Bartlett said.

Whatever the motivation for the vote’s timing, the effect was to produce a clear contrast between the Democratic senators who sought reelection that November and those who did not.

The Democrats not on the ballot split almost evenly, with 19 supporting the war resolution and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed it. And of those four, only one — Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash a few weeks after the resolution vote — was in a seriously competitive race.

“The political currents were extraordinarily strong for everybody involved,” said Jim Jordan, then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “I’m certainly not implying that Democrats had their finger to the wind and didn’t make votes of conscience, but it was a piece of the puzzle, clearly.”

It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, “given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration.”

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

“There was a stampede to vote on this,” Kennedy said. “A lot of our people got caught up in it.”

Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt “like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn’t speak very well of them, because the facts didn’t change in the course of one month.”

Democrats themselves were divided over the vote’s timing. Kennedy, Wellstone and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were among those who passionately urged Daschle to defer the vote until after the election, said several sources who requested anonymity when discussing the party’s internal debate.

The sources said that other Democratic senators supported Bush’s push, in part because the senators believed an early vote might help the party shift attention to domestic issues it wanted to spotlight before election day. Democrats also felt more pressure to act because they recognized that the GOP-controlled House would agree to Bush’s request on the vote’s timing.

Against this backdrop, Republicans across the country were escalating attacks on their Democratic opponents on defense issues.

Starting in mid-September, for instance, then-Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued statements and organized news conferences by veterans to criticize Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson for voting against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

On Oct. 4, one week before the Senate vote, Thune released an ad that used images of Hussein and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden to criticize Johnson for voting against missile defense systems.

In Minnesota beginning in mid-September, Republican Norm Coleman organized retired military officials to hold news conferences charging that Wellstone “didn’t just vote to devastate our defense; he voted to dismantle it.” In late September, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran ads attacking Wellstone over votes to reduce military spending.

The committee ran similar ads against Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) one week before the vote.

Although he did not criticize Democrats over Iraq, Bush stoked the overall security debate during a series of appearances between Sept. 23 and Oct. 4. He criticized Senate Democrats who were blocking the administration’s preferred version of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security because, they said, it gave the president too much freedom to suspend workers’ civil service protections.

“The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people,” Bush said in New Jersey.

Bush’s comments reverberated most powerfully in the Senate race in Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss, then a Republican House member, began criticizing incumbent Democrat Max Cleland over the Homeland Security issue.

Less than a day after the Senate authorized the use of force in Iraq, Chambliss aired what became the most talked-about ad of the 2002 election: a sharply worded jab that used pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden to accuse Cleland of voting “against the president’s vital Homeland Security efforts.”

Cleland, Johnson and Harkin were among the Democrats who voted for the war resolution; Wellstone voted no.

Less than a month later, Johnson and Harkin were reelected, Cleland was defeated and Coleman beat former Vice President Walter F. Mondale for Wellstone’s seat after the senator’s death. Overall, Republicans widened their majority in the House and swept back into control of the Senate.

ATLANTA — A federal judge who was disciplined after an investigation found she had sex with a police officer in her chambers and attended a partisan event, then lied when confronted with the allegations, has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Department of Justice raised questions about her ability to be impartial.

The Justice Department sought to remove U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross from the case, citing her reported attendance at an event for Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis, who prosecuted President Trump. Ross filed an order Tuesday recusing herself, writing that she was doing so “out of an abundance of caution for the potential perception of bias.”

The Justice Department had sued Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for seeking an unredacted statewide voter list, and Ross was presiding over that case.

“Both the Trump administration’s present and Willis’s past efforts have become heavily polarized,” Ross wrote, explaining that she “cannot discount” that an objective observer might interpret her attendance at an event sponsored by Willis’ campaign as support for the district attorney’s position, even if she only went to see former colleagues.

Ross received a “private reprimand” after a court investigation found that she had sex in the courthouse with a high-ranking uniformed police officer within earshot of staff, attended a partisan event and then initially lied to deny the allegations.

The investigation report says Ross went to an event hosted by a district attorney’s campaign. The judge said the district attorney had been a friend since 1999 and acknowledged having gone to the a private mixer held on the sidelines of the event to visit with former colleagues in the district attorney’s office.

Ross previously worked in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office and overlapped there with Willis there before Willis was district attorney.

Willis in August 2023 obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others, accusing them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. That case was ultimately dismissed in November.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — As Spencer Pratt fell behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, an unexpected group began claiming election fraud: people tracking the Republican’s success on prediction markets, the increasingly popular online exchanges on which people can make bets on almost anything.

“Crazy how much voter fraud can be done with mail in ballots,” one user following bets on the mayoral race wrote last week on Kalshi, one of the top trading platforms.

“Same old California fraud,” said another who had bet that Pratt would win.

Election fraud claims extended to social media, where a handful of influencers who post content for prediction market platforms questioned the ballot count. “It’s a dead heat on Kalshi,” one user wrote on social media. “Is CA cheating to get Spencer Pratt out?”

Kalshi told the influencers to delete the posts, which violated company guidelines. Polymarket, the other leading platform, directed them to remove the paid partnership label from those posts.

The amplification of election misinformation by users who had money staked on the mayoral race adds a new twist to evolving scrutiny of prediction markets, and scholars say the ability to bet on elections broadly raises questions about whether the exchanges could alter how Americans engage in democracy.

“Elections are not a game,” said Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “[If market] probabilities begin influencing donor decisions, media attention, the energy around [campaign] volunteers — at that point, markets aren’t just observing the election. They’re a part of it.”

Fans of the exchanges say they are powerful tools that can help decision makers, and company leaders have touted them as highly accurate predictors that can act as an antidote to misinformation and provide election insights.

“By shifting focus from ‘what people say’ to ‘where they put their money,’ and filtering out social media noise and pundit bias, we are providing a level of clarity and predictive power that cannot be matched,” said Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever .

But these markets’ rapid rise has also raised a host of questions among members of Congress, state lawmakers and others — about betting on elections, wars and other political events, about potential insider trading, and about whether the platforms should be left to self-regulate. Some states are also in legal battles with the federal government over whether the activity amounts to gambling, which they seek to regulate.

“It’s like we’re in the 1930s with financial markets — we have some things that we want to regulate and restrict [as a country], and we’re sort of in the early stages of trying to lay out what the rules are,” said Koleman Strumpf, an economist at Wake Forest University.

Concerns about insider trading

The discourse around the Los Angeles mayoral race was the latest to raise questions at the intersection of prediction markets and politics. Earlier this year, an Army soldier was indicted after allegedly using his knowledge of the planned U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to make bets on it, winning more than $400,000. He has pleaded not guilty.

Around the same time, several anonymous users reportedly earned $2.4 million combined by making remarkably prescient bets on the Iran war, prompting concern in Congress about insider trading. And during the primary elections, Kalshi fined a few politicians for betting on themselves, while the Justice Department began investigating a former congressman on similar charges.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara speaks at a conference in Santa Monica, Calif., in April.

(Anna Webber / Inc.)

The episodes set off a debate in Washington. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into potential insider trading, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to put up guardrails. It remains unclear whether any will pass this session.

The chatter in Congress appeared to lead the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, to propose a new framework last week to govern issues raised by lawmakers, such as potential betting on wars. Commission Chair Mike Selig said the proposal would allow for scrutiny of suspicious activity “while letting legitimate markets move forward pursuant to the public interest.”

The markets commission under former President Biden was viewed as somewhat skeptical of prediction markets; the agency under President Trump — whose eldest son holds advisory positions at both Polymarket and Kalshi — has been seen as more favorable to the industry. The federal government has sued several states over their attempts to regulate the markets under state laws banning sports gambling and other measures.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has introduced legislation on the topic, said the agency’s framework would benefit the industry at the expense of the public interest.

The agency lacks “the leadership, will and investigative staff needed to confront the dangers of election misinformation, insider trading, and more,” Schiff said, “and seems content to allow the industry to police itself.”

Making bets

As California’s primary neared, people staked their dollars on the state’s races in droves. On Kalshi, trading volume on one contract about who will win the L.A. mayoral race in November had reached more than $117 million as of Tuesday.

Prediction market users trade on the outcome of future events, making money if they’re correct and losing money if they’re wrong. Someone can purchase a contract on the prediction that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass will win in November, a yes contract, or on the prediction that she will lose, a no contract.

On Tuesday, Bass contracts on Kalshi were selling at 63 cents each for yes and 38 cents for no, meaning the market was forecasting a 63% chance of her winning. Users receive $1 per contract if their prediction is correct, creating a profit on their initial investment.

Prediction markets generally create more accurate forecasts than political polls, according to Strumpf, whose research has examined 30 years of prediction markets in various forms.

Many of the issues critics raise are theoretical and have not been seen in practice, Strumpf said. By his analysis, there is no evidence that the markets have ever influenced an election outcome. He said serious traders tend to do extensive research in order to make money, meaning their bets are educated.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), who has introduced legislation to prohibit event contracts involving terrorism, war, assassination and deaths, said the platforms may be useful in some cases but shouldn’t be left to police themselves. He said he’s concerned that the markets create “all the wrong incentives” for people, including political candidates and officials, to abuse inside knowledge.

“I don’t trust them to self-regulate at all,” Levin said of the companies. “The federal role should be guardrails that are reasonable and pragmatic.”

‘The sanctity of our elections’

Skeptics’ concerns regarding elections largely center around the markets’ introduction of a new way for money to potentially influence politics.

They say the desire to elevate a candidate’s market odds could create an incentive for market manipulation, and they worry that the votes of Americans using the market could be influenced by their desire to profit.

“This has real impacts for the sanctity of our elections,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who raised concerns about how prediction markets could impact the democratic process in a March letter to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. (California lawmakers are looking at the issue, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said, though none of the bills introduced this year have yet moved forward.)

The platforms create a potential new channel “for dark money to flow into our elections,” Krell said. “Specifically, someone who’s opposing or supporting a candidate could potentially use sites like Kalshi to elevate that candidate and impact the entire pool.”

The industry has endeavored to “get out in front” of concerns by creating their own policies aimed at preventing insider trading, market manipulation and other issues, said attorney Ronak D. Desai, partner and head of the congressional practice at the Washington law firm Paul Hastings.

Kalshi has a ban on those practices and has banned markets tied directly to death and war, Lever said. It also screens all new users and, in the first quarter of this year, blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and referred more than 20 cases to law enforcement.

In the case of the military member who bet on the United States’ operation in Venezuela, for instance, Polymarket caught the activity and referred the case to the Justice Department, a spokesperson said. The company has referred nearly 100 cases of suspicious activity to law enforcement, he said.

Election markets are not offered on Polymarket’s U.S. exchange — though users in the U.S. and other countries that ban the company’s international exchange are widely reported to access it using online tools.

“Polymarket prohibits trading based on stolen information, illegal tips, or information obtained in breach of a duty of trust, confidentiality, or other legal obligation,” the Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement.

Aaron Klein, senior fellow in the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution, predicted that pressure for further regulation would continue to mount.

“The top goal of a society is to have free and fair elections,” Klein said. “At a time in our nation’s history where people are doubting the integrity of elections and foreign governments are stoking those flames, we ought to be pretty careful.”

The rival parties agreed Tuesday to conduct a 45-day parliamentary investigation into the National Election Commission (NEC) over ballot shortages reported during the recent local elections, party officials said.

In a meeting of their deputy floor leaders at the National Assembly, the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) agreed to put the plan to a vote at a parliamentary plenary session on Thursday.

“We agreed to launch the parliamentary probe to swiftly uncover the truth behind the alleged infringement of voting rights of the citizens caused by the ballot shortages and to lay the groundwork for sweeping reforms of the NEC,” Rep. Cheon Jun-ho of the DP told reporters after the meeting.

According to officials from both parties, the special parliamentary committee will be chaired by the PPP and comprise 18 members — nine from the ruling party, seven from the PPP and two from non-negotiating parties.

Rep. Kim Seung-soo of the main opposition PPP said the rival parties agreed to set the investigation period at 45 days in an effort to conduct the probe as swiftly as possible, while leaving open the possibility of an extension if further investigation becomes necessary.

Ballot shortages were reported at more than a dozen polling stations in Seoul during the June 3 local elections, temporarily disrupting voting and prompting protests.

Last week, the DP and the PPP separately submitted requests for a parliamentary probe, though they differed over the scope of the investigation and the number of seats to be allotted to each party on the committee.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

June 12 (Asia Today) — A joint prosecution-police investigation team searched National Election Commission servers for a second consecutive day Friday as part of an inquiry into ballot shortages during South Korea’s June 3 local elections.

The team was conducting a search and seizure operation involving the commission’s servers, officials said.

Investigators on Thursday raided seven locations, including the National Election Commission headquarters in Gwacheon, south of Seoul, the Seoul election commission and district election offices in Songpa, Seocho, Gangnam, Gwangjin and Dongjak.

The raids were conducted as part of an investigation into suspected violations of the Public Official Election Act and alleged dereliction of duty.

The warrant reportedly listed more than 10 people as suspects, including former National Election Commission Chairman Noh Tae-ak, former Secretary-General Huh Chul-hoon and heads of regional election commissions.

The team has also begun sorting materials seized in the raids, including ballot printing plans, budget documents, voting records and electronic files. The seized materials are believed to include meeting minutes related to the commission’s decision to reduce the number of ballots printed.

Investigators plan to question election commission officials after reviewing the seized materials to determine how the ballot shortage occurred.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency’s major crimes investigation unit notified election commission officials Monday to appear for questioning and is coordinating interview schedules.

The investigation follows widespread criticism over ballot shortages at some polling stations during the June 3 local elections. The incident led to public complaints, calls for accountability and the resignations of senior election officials.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260612010004362

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — President Trump’s loyalist federal prosecutor in Los Angeles — has not been shy in recent days about his intention to ferret out voter fraud in California’s primary election and criminally charge those responsible.

He has announced that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway” in coordination with the FBI, urged Californians on social media to submit evidence of “potential election fraud” directly to his office, and said flatly he “will be charging some people” with election fraud — just as soon as California certifies its vote count and his office “can prove some of the allegations.”

Essayli’s public callouts and promises are highly unusual and in direct conflict with Justice Department guidance on ballot fraud investigations at the federal level, which states federal prosecutors should not publicly pursue such claims amid of vote counting.

The Justice Manual — which regulates the actions of federal prosecutors nationwide — says the department “should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded,” in part because doing so “runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, said neither Essayli nor the office had any comment.

Essayli has repeatedly acknowledged in other interviews that he has no evidence of widespread fraud that could sway the results of races, and he even shot down one prominent online conspiracy that falsely alleged Democratic cheating in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

But he has also pointed to more isolated instances of fraud as potentially indicative of bigger problems. He added that there’s no proof such rampant fraud isn’t occurring, partly because of resistance from California to a federal audit of its voter rolls.

Essayli’s remarks are part of a much wider battle to frame fraud in California as pivotal or not, in which Republicans cite individual instances of alleged fraud as evidence of some grand scheme by Democrats to steal the election from them, and Democrats — along with many elections experts — say there is no evidence that isolated crimes reflect fraud on a scale large enough to impact election outcomes.

His remarks have added fuel to baseless claims from Trump and other influential conservative voices that California’s elections have been poorly compromised by coordinated Democratic “cheating.” They have made Essayli one of the most prominent Trump administration figures in the nationwide debate around election integrity — which election experts expect to intensify ahead of November’s midterms.

A public campaign

Essayli has made his case in recent days on various alternative and right-wing news programs and podcasts, arguing that California’s slow process for counting votes had undermined public trust and needs to be audited.

On One America News Network, Essayli said his office has been “sounding the alarm on California’s election system” because it’s ripe for fraud.

“We believe that it has major vulnerabilities. We believe California does not have sufficient safeguards to make sure only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in elections in California, and that is why we’ve been demanding an audit of the California voter rolls,” he said.

On NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Essayli said he doesn’t “care what the outcome of the election is,” but wants voters “to have confidence in the systems, and that the laws are being followed.”

“I guarantee you, when we do bring cases, we will have plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law — that is how we work,” he said.

On the podcast of conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Essayli said he was “prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations,” but that “election fraud is not a theory” but “a real thing” — noting his office recently secured a guilty plea from a woman who paid homeless people to register to vote.

He said California is “a fraudster’s paradise,” accused the state Legislature of “going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for people to commit fraud,” and repeated oft-cited complaints about California’s voter ID policies being lax, its universal mail ballot policies sending ballots to the wrong places, its ballot collection policies allowing “harvesting” and its voter rolls being “dirty,” or filled with ineligible voters.

Essayli said all of that makes his job “incredibly difficult,” because “California has removed the paper trail, they’ve removed the chain of custody, they’ve removed any meaningful way for us to basically have a forensic audit of where a ballot came from,” but that he will nonetheless be bringing election fraud charges in the next “one to two months.”

State and local elections officials in California have defended the state’s policies as facilitating voting by as many eligible voters as possible, which they say is more important than a quick count. They’ve said there are robust procedures in place to ensure ballots are cast fairly and counted accurately, and to identify any problems and audit the results.

Elections experts say instances of fraud do exist, both in California and everywhere else in the country, but that robust efforts in past years to investigate and identify widespread fraud that could sway an election — including by Trump and his lawyers but also outside organizations — have always failed.

Essayli’s efforts have drawn sharp criticism from elections experts, leading Democrats and former prosecutors in the office.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy adviser on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said what Essayli is doing — throwing out unspecified claims of fraud amid an ongoing election and before he has built a case — is “absolutely nuts” and “not a thing that real prosecutors do.”

Before the current administration, the “mantra” of federal prosecutors, he said, was that “you only hold a press conference about a not-yet-concluded investigation when the public is already aware of a large crime,” such as a mass shooting. “Absent that, you wait for the facts to come in, and you see whether there has been a legal violation, and then and only then do you issue a press release — usually hand in hand with an indictment or a conviction.”

In an election, Levitt said the standard is even higher, and “the ethos of a federal prosecutor should be to never become the story, and to never make the prosecutorial job itself an impact in the election you are investigating.”

In an MS NOW interview, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor in the L.A. office, blasted Essayli as wildly searching for fraud to please Trump — despite it and other efforts to please Trump, including on immigration, causing an exodus of experienced career prosecutors from the office.

Schiff said Essayli was “basically making a plea to the public: ‘Please send me evidence. I’m asserting there’s fraud. We don’t have evidence of it, but please send me something. I need to make the boss happy.’”

Another former prosecutor in the office, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, said Essayli is pursuing alleged election fraud cases as hard as he is only because “Trump told him to,” and he’s “constantly auditioning for a bigger D.C. job in case he gets kicked out of his current one.”

Essayli is not the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles — only the “first assistant” — because he has been unable to win confirmation from the U.S. Senate and has only remained in charge through a legal loophole.

Investigations in the works

It’s unclear what specific issues or incidents Essayli’s office is investigating.

Essayli has said his investigations so far lean toward individuals rather than networks, and he told the California Post that he would be investigating a report that thousands of people were registered to vote at homeless shelters with far fewer beds.

His office also looked into false claims that an election night ballot update in Los Angeles County include no votes for Spencer Pratt, the Republican candidate. He said his office “reviewed official county records” and determined the claim was false.

“My office will continue monitoring the election counting process and will follow the evidence wherever it leads,” he said.

One person involved in investigating the latter case was Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner, who joined the office in March after previously serving as deputy general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit Washington, D.C., law firm where he worked on lawsuits focused on conservative free-speech issues, according to his LinkedIn page.

A worker carries ballots at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Renner, who referred questions to the office spokesperson, visited an L.A. County ballot processing center as part of the investigation, where he questioned election officials about the ballot update, according to a law enforcement source with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Election officials have said their numbers were always correct and that the discrepancy was based on a one-minute lag in vote updates for Pratt by The Associated Press, which also confirmed the lag.

Renner also grilled election officials about whether or not post office officials had backdated postmarks on mail ballots sent after election day so they could still be counted, the source said.

Essayli’s elevation to the top prosecutor position in L.A. was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to fill key Justice Department roles with people loyal to the president and open to his election skepticism. Earlier this year, a Times investigation detailed how disgraced ex-L.A. County prosecutor Eric Neff was named “acting chief” of the Justice Department’s voting section.

Neff led a bungled election integrity case at the L.A. County district attorney’s office that was thrown out after an internal review revealed it hinged on the word of “Stop The Steal” activists who had pushed Trump’s discredited theory that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.”

It was one of two election integrity cases Neff tried in his entire career before being elevated to the voting chief post by Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, another proud Trump loyalist from California.

Michael Sanchez, a spokesperson for Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the office has not received any formal document requests or investigation notices from Essayli’s office, only “routine questions about operations.”

What will come of Essayli’s investigations is also unclear. He will have to prove whatever allegations he makes in court — which he has repeatedly appeared to begrudge in recent interviews.

“Instead of putting the burden on the system to reassure the people [that] only legal citizens are voting, one person one vote is the law of the land, and the burden on the system to assure us that there’s integrity and we can believe in it,” he complained to Beck, “they’ve flipped it and now it’s on us to prove every allegation of fraud.”

SACRAMENTO — Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a major advantage over Republican Steve Hilton as the race for California governor heads toward the November election, a new poll shows.

The two candidates topped a crowded field of gubernatorial hopefuls in the June 2 primary, earning them the opportunity to face-off in the general election.

Among registered voters in the state, 52% supported Becerra in a head-to-head matchup against Hilton, who was backed by 31%, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll which was co-sponsored by The Los Angeles Times. The remainder were undecided.

“It looks very much like a traditional, partisan-based general election, with most of the Democrats, over 80%, behind Becerra as the campaign starts,” said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “Even though Hilton has over 80% of the Republicans, the Democrats outnumber Republicans by 20 points in the state, and that gives the Democratic candidates a huge advantage, which Becerra is clearly taking advantage of in this election.”

The survey of California voters was conducted before the primary, from May 19-24.

The poll found that Democratic and Republican voters were extremely loyal to their party’s candidate. Among Democrats, 82% said they would support Becerra in the general election, while 84% of Republicans said the same about Hilton.

Becerra also had an edge among voters registered as no party preference or registered with other parties — who make up almost a third of the state electorate. Among those voters, 43% backed Becerra, 28% supported Hilton and 29% were undecided, the poll showed.

Along age, gender, racial and geographic lines, voters preferred Becerra to Hilton nearly across the board. The only geographic region where voters preferred Hilton to Becerra are those in the North Coast/Sierra region, which makes up about 2% of the electorate, DiCamillo said.

Hilton, who served as an advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron before immigrating to the United States, in April secured the endorsement of President Trump, which helped him gain enough support among Republican voters to outpace his GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

More than a third of Republicans, 37%, said Trump’s endorsement made them more likely to support Hilton. But while it helped Hilton consolidate the Republican vote in the primary, helping him finish in second place, it will likely hurt him in the general election, DiCamillo said. Trump remains deeply unpopular in California; the poll released Thursday showed 69% of voters disapprove of the president’s performance while 29% approve.

“A majority of Californians have a very strong negative view of the president, so Hilton’s backing by the president will not be nearly as beneficial to him in the general as it was in the primary,” he said.

A former Biden Cabinet secretary, state attorney general and longtime congressman from Los Angeles, Becerra had been wallowing in the low single-digits in public opinion polls less than three months ago. His fortunes changed when former Rep. Eric Swalwell, one of the Democratic front-runners, dropped out of the governor’s race after he was accused of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies.

Democratic voters and interest groups quickly coalesced behind Becerra, who was seen as a steady candidate with a long resume in California politics and a record of fighting the Trump administration. In two months, he went from polling at 5% in a March IGS poll to 25% in a late May poll and finishing first in the unofficial primary vote count.

With 91% of ballots tallied as of Wednesday afternoon, Becerra led with 27.9% of the vote compared to 25% for Hilton, according to the Associated Press, which declared Becerra and Hilton the two winners. Billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmentalist Tom Steyer was in third place with 22.5% — knocking the Democrat out of contention for the November election.

DiCamillo said Swalwell’s dropping out of the race “really gave Becerra an opening and he capitalized on it.”

The poll also showed that in the end, “Becerra was the only one of the major candidates who ended the primary race with a favorable image among the overall electorate, even in the face of all the negative ads that Steyer was running” against him, DiCamillo said.

Just before the primary election, 44% of likely primary voters surveyed had a favorable view of Becerra compared to 38% who viewed him unfavorably.

Hilton and Steyer were upside down — 31% had a favorable opinion of Hilton compared to 38% unfavorable, and 39% had a favorable view of Steyer while 43% saw him unfavorably.

Though Steyer had aggressively courted progressive voters and secured the backing of left-wing individuals and groups like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-San Jose) and Our Revolution, a group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the final IGS poll before the election showed more progressive voters ended up backing Becerra.

Among those who self-identified as progressive, 39% said they would support Becerra while 29% preferred Steyer, according to the late May survey.

“It’s really one of the factors that was responsible for Steyer’s campaign not being successful,” DiCamillo said. Progressive voters were “a target audience for Steyer, but Becerra was able to have an advantage there.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish among 8,578 registered California voters. The survey has a margin of error of 2% in either direction.

The National Assembly on Thursday launched formal procedures for a potential parliamentary investigation into ballot shortages reported during last week’s local elections, with requests for the probe submitted by both the ruling and opposition parties being reported to a plenary session.

The head of the Proceedings Division of the National Assembly Secretariat said that the requests for a parliamentary probe were submitted separately by the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and the main opposition People Power Party (PPP), with all lawmakers from each party sponsoring their respective requests.

The move marks the first step toward establishing a special parliamentary committee to examine allegations of mismanagement by the National Election Commission during the voting process.

The establishment of the committee is expected to undergo negotiations, as proposals from the DP and the PPP differed over the scope of the probe and the number of seats to be allotted to each party on the committee.

The PPP has argued that a separate special counsel probe should be launched alongside the parliamentary investigation, while the DP has maintained that such a move should be considered after the parliamentary probe.

In a meeting chaired by National Assembly Speaker Cho Jeong-sik, the rival parties shared a consensus on holding a plenary session as early as next week to adopt a plan for the parliamentary probe, according to officials.

Separately, the PPP’s new floor leader Jeong Jeom-sig met with Hong Ik-pyo, presidential secretary for political affairs, and stressed the need for a special counsel probe into the incident.

Hong said the presidential office would be open to the idea of a special counsel investigation if the rival parties reach an agreement, according to PPP spokesperson Choi Soo-jin.

Ballot shortages were reported at more than a dozen polling stations in Seoul during last Wednesday’s local elections, temporarily disrupting voting and prompting protests by people alleging election fraud.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

LAS VEGAS — Retired Air Force Lt. Col. David Flippo has won the Republican primary in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District after securing President Trump’s endorsement in the closing weeks of the campaign.

The race, which was called Wednesday, put Trump opposite Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo and retiring Rep. Mark Amodei, who both backed former state Sen. James Settelmeyer. Amodei announced he was retiring after 15 years, opening up a competitive primary for Nevada’s only Republican-held House seat.

Flippo said he will fight “relentlessly” for secure borders, American energy, tax cuts, national defense and “the America First agenda our country needs.”

“Nevada deserves a fighter, and that’s exactly what I will deliver,” he said in a statement.

Democrats had hoped for a Flippo victory, thinking it would make it easier for them to win over less partisan voters in November in the conservative-leaning district. They nominated the chief of staff to state Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, former majority floor leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson.

“I will ensure that Nevada families have an authentic Nevadan voice fighting for their needs in Washington DC,” Benitez-Thompson said in a Wednesday morning statement.

The 2nd District race is one of several Nevada contests that will be watched closely this year. In southern Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Susie Lee will face Marty O’Donnell, a composer known for writing the soundtrack to the video game “Halo.”

Trump won the 3rd district in 2024 and backed O’Donnell, who thanked Trump in his victory statement.

Tuesday’s primary also set the general election contest for governor, with Ford defeating a progressive candidate in the Democratic primary and moving on to face Gov. Lombardo. The incumbent, a former Clark County sheriff, is running on his record of public safety and job creation while pledging to work on housing affordability in a second term.

Ford is tying Lombardo to Trump in placing blame for soaring prices across the state and has pledged to lower costs for families. He would be the state’s first Black governor if elected in November.

In other races for statewide offices, Republican primaries for attorney general and secretary of state included several candidates who had pushed election conspiracy theories or been skeptical of election operations. Adriana Guzmán Fralick, who has expressed concerns about voting security, won the GOP nomination for attorney general and will face Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro.

The Republican primary for secretary of state, the office that oversees elections, included Jim Marchant, a former state lawmaker who has said the 2020 election “ was probably stolen,” and Sharron Angle, a former state lawmaker who was part of an effort to block the certification of Nevada’s 2020 election results. Another candidate who was competitive in the race, Shirley Folkins-Roberts, is an attorney who has denied that there is widespread voting fraud in Nevada.

In the 2nd District race, Flippo said he understands issues important to the region, including mining, water rights and fuel prices. He sought to turn Settelmeyer’s long political record into a liability, pointing to votes he said did not match conservative values.

He moved to the district this election cycle after losing a race in southern Nevada in 2024. The 2nd District covers all northern Nevada. It mostly rural but includes the major battleground county of Washoe, home to Reno.

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon has vowed to prioritize elevating Seoul into a “global top three city” during his new term following his victory in the June 3 local elections.

Oh made the pledge in an interview with Yonhap News Agency on Tuesday after winning last week’s local election against ruling Democratic Party rival Chong Won-o, his third consecutive and fifth non-consecutive election as Seoul mayor.

“A global top three city is not merely a slogan to raise the ranking but a goal to increase quality of life,” Oh said at his office. “(I) will concentrate the new city government’s capabilities to create a warmer and healthier Seoul.”

Seoul ranked sixth in the Japan-based Mori Memorial Foundation’s Global Power City Index 2025. London topped the list followed by Tokyo, New York, Paris and Singapore.

The index evaluates cities based on six major indicators — economy, research and development, cultural interaction, livability, environment and accessibility.

Oh said he plans to establish a committee to achieve the “global top three city” goal, noting that it will serve to set the direction of the city government for the next four years.

“If (we) continuously work on areas that the city can be good at and can handle, Seoul can rise to a global top three city rivaling London, New York, Tokyo, Paris and Singapore,” he said.

Meanwhile, Oh said he has no plans set up for the presidency, even after his victory cemented his place as a political heavyweight with his party suffering a rout in last week’s elections, winning only four out of 16 key mayoral and gubernatorial seats up for grabs.

“There is no plan for the presidency,” he said, pledging to focus on elevating the city’s status. “(I) don’t think politics works out just by making plans.”

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, clinched one of the top spots in California’s gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, earning him the right to challenge veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra in the November election to determine the state’s next governor.

The contest offers voters two starkly different politicians. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump and has wooed his MAGA supporters, blaming Democratic policies for California’s homelessness crisis, high cost of living and other entrenched ills. Becerra campaigned as a battle-tested warrior against the Republican president and a champion of affordable healthcare. He could make history as the state’s first elected Latino governor.

Hilton’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Tuesday, days after Becerra secured one of the top spots and a week after the June 2 election. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation. According to the latest vote count, which is ongoing, Becerra has a slight edge over Hilton.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, center, flanked by lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, left, and California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin, right, hold a press conference to discuss election and voting reforms at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters on Tuesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Democrat Tom Steyer finished in third place. The hedge fund founder and environmental activist spent $216 million of his own money on his campaign, and now joins the legion of other high-profile, self-funding candidates rejected by California voters.

Becerra heads into the Nov. 3 election with a distinct advantage — Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

The contrast between Becerra and Hilton, both on policy and political personas, couldn’t be more pronounced.

A British immigrant and former political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Hilton, 56, embraces traditional conservative ideals that have echoed across the country since the days of President Reagan — cutting taxes, weeding out government fraud and waste and promising to unbridle entrepreneurs and homebuilders from stifling state regulation.

But he’s also ventured into MAGA territory, declining to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and promising to extradite California doctors who provide abortion pills to other states for prosecution.

Becerra, 68, came up in Los Angeles politics in the 1980s and has long supported policies to expand protections and resources for immigrants with or without legal status. Married to Harvard-educated OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, Becerra has also staunchly opposed abortion restrictions throughout his career.

In Congress and other positions, Becerra earned a reputation as a cerebral, analytical politician who would fully commit to his positions after taking time to mull them through.

A straight-laced family man with a Catholic upbringing, Becerra was more reserved during the debates — a quiet confidence that drew some voters to support him. He also faced criticism from his rivals for failing to offer detailed housing and healthcare policies.

Hilton, who cuts an unmistakable image with his bald crown and clipped English accent, proved himself as a polished communicator during the debates, skills honed by his years as a Fox News analyst.

Television hosts must translate complex issues into easily digestible sound bites, said Republican strategist Matt Klink. “Most voters want a CliffsNotes version of the issues,” Klink said.

Republican strategist Kevin Spillane credits Hilton’s TV show, “The Next Revolution,” which ran for six years, with boosting his profile, calling Fox News the most important media vehicle within the conservative and Republican framework.

Hilton “understands how politics and how communications work,” Spillane said.

He often appeared relaxed during the gubernatorial debates, at points even complimenting or joking with his rivals as they parried on stage.

At a CBS debate earlier this year, Becerra referred to President Trump, who endorsed Hilton, as the Republican candidate’s “daddy.” Hilton responded with a quip that quickly deflated the attack.

“It would be rather amazing,” said Hilton, at the possibility of being Trump’s son. “My daddy was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team.”

In an interview last week, before the election, Hilton said he enjoyed the debates. “In a weird way, I was sad when we had the last one,” he said. “I’m looking forward to debating whoever it is.”

As a former political advisor to Britain’s Conservative Party, Hilton helped usher in a green, socially liberal strain of conservatism.

He also infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of unconventional ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton, who founded a nonprofit on California policies, was known for his frequent visits in the last couple of years to the state Capitol for discussions with legislators.

Rival Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who was trailing Steyer in fourth place in the latest vote count, ultimately didn’t seek to appeal to those beyond his rural, MAGA base, Klink said.

By contrast, Hilton presented himself as the “more cosmopolitan” candidate who “can talk to the hedge fund manager or the small-business owner or the Sacramento lobbyist,” said Klink said.

“Hilton was more energized at the end, when it mattered,” said Spillane, contrasting the two Republicans.

Past Republican candidates, including businessman John Cox in 2018 and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in 2010, have self-financed their campaigns with their vast fortunes.

By contrast, Hilton spent just a few million dollars on media advertising, he said in an interview last week.

He said he ignored advice from consultants who told him to do a launch announcement and then unleash a wave of ads in the last month of the campaign.

“I just said, ‘I want to do it the old-fashioned way,’ and that’s what we’ve been doing,” said Hilton in the interview before the election. “We’ve been to nearly every single county…. stepped it up with our town halls.”

Nina Royal, 83, who lives in Los Angeles and is a community advocate for her Tujunga neighborhood, voted for Hilton, saying that he understands California’s problems.

“He’s a realist,” said Royal. “He has a clear view of what needs to be done.”

Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Even before President Trump’s latest wave of unfounded claims of election fraud in California, a significant share of voters in the state expressed concerns about federal interference in the electoral process, according to a new poll.

Trump on Monday claimed on his social media site that the race for Los Angeles mayor was a “Rigged Election,” an allegation that came after Democrat Nithya Raman overtook Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the ongoing primary election vote count.

Raman’s lead had prompted Rep. Abe Hamadeh, an Arizona Republican, to call for the election to be federalized, or run by the federal government rather than the state, a message Trump reposted.

Earlier Sunday, Trump had alleged during an interview with NBC News that California elections officials “were cheating.” That came after a debunked social media conspiracy theory claiming that a lag in an update of electronic voting data by the Associated Press showed Pratt was being cheated. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the elections process in the L.A. mayoral race “stinks to high heaven.”

The ongoing attacks by Trump and his supporters continue to erode confidence in the nation’s elections, especially among Republicans, threatening a pillar of American democracy, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

“The president … wants to use those claims to make changes in the election process that could make it harder for people to vote, and that certainly is a threat to our democratic institutions,” Schickler said.

“One thing we’ve learned in recent years is that we just cannot take the voting process for granted, cannot take for granted that both sides will accept as legitimate the outcome, and can’t take for granted the idea that there won’t be efforts to essentially manipulate the vote counting process,” he added.

A new poll released Friday by the institute found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be not meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, Schickler said.

More telling was the partisan divide among voters when asked whether they have confidence that local officials would conduct fair and secure elections and that the vote count would be accurate. Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur.

California voters who don’t belong to either party said by a 2-1 margin that they had confidence in the vote count, the poll showed.

“The positive is that local officials are still widely trusted by Democrats, no-party-preference voters, and at least a share of Republicans, though a lot fewer than I think in the past, and a lot fewer than you know we would want for a really healthy democracy,” Schickler said.

That growing mistrust among certain parts of the electorate comes after years of baseless claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. In April, the court sharply limited a part of those protections that had forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress, as well as state and local boards.

Trump and his allies have used California’s slow vote-counting process to allege cheating. The day after the June 2 primary, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats were trying to “steal” the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral primaries. The next day, he alleged that California Democrats had “found” mail-in ballots and were “rigging the election” with them.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber and other officials have said California’s voting system prioritizes voter accessibility and security over speedy results. The state has more than 23 million registered voters, and ballots go through numerous verification steps, including verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.

“Over 97% of our folks actually vote by mail. They want to keep that system. That system demands more contact, more touching of the ballot, more verification of the individuals who are voting. All of those things take time,” Weber said during a recent interview with ABC10 in Sacramento.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s claims during the recent “Meet the Press” interview the “most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”

Newsom is considering a 2028 run for president and has consistently warned that Trump may try to interfere in both the 2026 and 2028 elections.

The Berkeley poll found that California voters overall — 74% — want candidates running for president in 2028 to prioritize defending democracy and making voting more accessible. Among Democratic voters, 95% said that was important; among Republicans, 41%.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted between May 19 and 25 online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.

Times staff writers Alene Tchekmedyian and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

June 7 (Asia Today) — President Lee Jae-myung sharply criticized the National Election Commission on Sunday over allegations that voting rights were violated during South Korea’s June 3 local elections.

Lee called on the National Assembly to conduct a parliamentary inquiry and ordered the administration to create a joint investigation team involving prosecutors and police.

“The National Election Commission caused serious disruption to the people’s exercise of voting rights during the June 3 local elections,” Lee wrote on Facebook. “The incident itself is difficult to understand, but its response afterward and explanation to the public were also insufficient.”

Lee said the right to vote is a constitutional right that must not be restricted or infringed upon for any reason.

“This is a grave matter that damaged the foundation of popular sovereignty,” he said. “As one citizen and as the president responsible for the government, I express deep regret.”

Lee asked lawmakers to quickly pursue a parliamentary inquiry to determine the facts and prepare measures to prevent a recurrence.

He also called for discussions on fundamental institutional reforms of the election commission.

“The government will also consider every possible measure at the administrative level, given the seriousness of the matter,” Lee said. “I have instructed the creation of a joint investigation team involving prosecutors and police to clarify responsibility and thoroughly determine the full circumstances of the case.”

Lee noted that the commission is an independent institution and said its independence comes with major responsibilities.

“The chairperson of the National Election Commission is regarded as one of the five highest constitutional officeholders because the commission is an independent institution with corresponding authority, duties and responsibility, just like the executive, legislative and judicial branches,” Lee said.

“The more independent an institution is, the more important public trust becomes,” he said. “An independent institution that has lost public trust has no reason to exist.”

Lee urged the commission to conduct a fundamental review of its organization and election management system. He said the commission should take the incident seriously and show a strong commitment to reform at a level the public can trust.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260607010002243

The votes are still being tallied but the result of Tuesday’s top-two primary election in California seems pretty clear.

Despite an uptick in his performance, hopes for third-place finisher Tom Steyer are fading along with the number of uncounted ballots, suggesting Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton will face off in November.

Given the overwhelming Democratic advantage — both attitudinally and in registration — the outcome of the governor’s race might seem preordained. But it’s voters who decide elections, not know-it-all columnists.

Two of that breed, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria, can’t see into the future. But they can try to make sense of what just passed, starting with a primary season that was a strange mix of ennui and white knuckles.

Barabak: So Anita, now that the election is over how are you feeling? Relieved? Giddy? Depressed?

Chabria: Tired, with five months to go. And while it’s true neither of us can see into the future, it’s not too much of a long shot to predict that in a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the next governor will likely be blue.

So while the primary was bruising and confusing, the general election will be much more predictable — it’s Becerra’s to lose, and he’d have to try really hard to do that.

But here’s what I’ll be looking for in the lead up to November: How far will Hilton go to capitalize on this moment for personal gain? There are plenty of real issues to be discussed where the Republican-Democrat divide could offer worthy debate. What should we do about gas prices? What is the right balance between environmental regulation and building housing?

But my fear is, with little chance of winning, Hilton will instead focus on boosting his MAGA credentials.

In the past week, we’ve seen him dive headfirst into voter-fraud conspiracies, following the lead of President Trump. Hilton’s campaign is providing Trump with the biggest platform for this false propaganda of rigged elections that California has ever endured.

That is bad for our state and bad for democracy, and it’s troubling that we will likely be subjected to these lies — and that California could be used to further erode voting rights nationally — for the entire summer leading up to the midterms.

What will you be keeping an eye on?

Barabak: How Becerra spends the next five months.

One presumes he’s smart enough not to take anything for granted. Meaning he won’t spend the time between now and Nov. 3 at some swank beach resort, sipping one of those colorful cocktails with a little paper parasol while musing over his inaugural address.

So it will be interesting to see how Becerra campaigns and whether he uses the next several months to build a mandate and also to prepare California voters for the rough road ahead.

Becerra is smart enough, one would think, not to run as Mr. Sky Is Falling and tell voters, “Boy, oh, boy things are really gonna suck going forward.” But the next governor is going to face some really tough challenges, including a structural budget deficit that’s probably going to require both painful cuts and unpopular tax hikes.

On top of that, there are the inevitable disasters, be they earthquake, fire or flood, the latter quite possibly exacerbated this winter by what may be an epic El Niño. There’s also the continued challenge of dealing with a president who treats California the way a dog regards a fire hydrant.

Finally, there’s the unknowable but certain catastrophes the next governor will face.

All of it makes you wonder why anyone would want the job — though Steyer panted after it enough to burn through more than $215 million of his fortune in a bonfire of vanity.

Chabria: Steyer was bashed for being a self-funded billionaire, but what his support showed is that there is a significant contingent of voters who are tired of the status quo and want a governor with bold ideas.

California definitely faces many problems, but we are also historically a state that pushes forward on hard issues.

Universal healthcare and standing our climate ground in the face of federal rollbacks were two of Steyer’s big talking points, along with standing up to corporate influence. Becerra now inherits those thorny problems if he wants to form a more cohesive Democratic base.

Becerra hasn’t yet offered up his vision of the Golden State, as you point out. As much as it may benefit Hilton to focus on Trump in coming months, the same could be true for Becerra.

Why get into messy policy when you can run on opposing MAGA in a very blue state? I fear the next few months will be more about Trump than California.

Barabak: That’s a charitable way to look at $teyer’s campaign.

Sure, he had plenty of ideas, though I think the promise of delivering universal healthcare — a political nonstarter — was cheap pandering, not visionary leadership.

There’s no shortage of people with good ideas. The only reason anyone paid attention to Steyer, who’s never served in any elected office, was the obscene amount of money he spent on his luxury-class ego trip. So it pleases me voters didn’t reward his arrogance or buy his billionaire-turned-populist, “Amazing Grace” spiel. (“I once was blind, but now I see.”)

And I’m be gladder still that voters showed — once again — the governor’s office is not for sale.

I do agree, however, that Becerra should to more than just cry MAGA! MAGA! MAGA! for the next five months, as if that incantation is magic and will solve all our problems. That applies, by the way, to Democratic candidates everywhere.

All of that said, we should note the governor’s race has yet to be officially decided and Steyer still has at least a theoretical possibility of slipping into the top two.

What do you think about California’s prolonged, much-derided long ballot count? Is the criticism warranted?

Chabria: First, we’ll have to agree to disagree. California is on a healthcare cliff and even middle-class Americans (not just Californians) can’t afford either insurance or care.

Single-payer may be a dream, but it’s my dream — for my kids, for my community and for my state, because healthcare shouldn’t be just for the rich and that is increasingly the direction we are going. So any politician, Steyer included, who fights for inclusion rather than accepting exclusion will get my consideration.

And let’s be real — self-funded or corporate-funded — our elections are, to their detriment, too much about money. My outrage is for the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed the current no-limits mess and created a system in which it requires hundreds of millions from somewhere, anywhere to run for our highest offices.

But back to ballots: Slow is not fraud. Slow is not bad if it’s accurate. Slow allows for greater voter participation by allowing mail-in ballots, and carefully checking all ballots for problems. Slow takes into account the federal mangling of the post office that has, yes, slowed down our mail.

And, slow happens because most of our county elections offices are understaffed and budget-starved. If you want fast, you’ve got to pay for it.

So keep your britches on people and don’t buy Trump’s (or Hilton’s) manufactured hype. Every system can be improved, but there’s far worse problems than slow.

What’s your take on the ballot controversy?

Barabak: Here’s one where we agree.

California goes out of its way to make it easy to vote, which, I believe, is a very good thing. Kim Alexander of the non-partisan California Voter Foundation, who’s spent decades on the matter, has suggested ways we can have both wide access and a faster count, starting with better funding of the state’s over-extended county election offices.

This prolonged count is something Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature could have anticipated. Shame on them for not doing more to address it.

Chabria: Any final thoughts?

Barabak: Just this. I’ve read the many plaintive pieces written about this boring, wholly-unworthy-of-the-Great-Golden-State field of gubernatorial candidates.

I, too, yearn for that perfect candidate who is firm but flexible, old but youthful in his or her thinking, masculine but also feminine, brilliant but not too smart and larger than life but also totally relatable.

Maybe in 2030.

When Nithya Raman stepped up to a podium on the night of L.A.’s mayoral primary election, she thanked her supporters for standing up to the “powerful interests” who spent millions of dollars trying to “preserve this city’s broken and unjust status quo.”

“At a time when so many people have written Los Angeles off or have lost hope in the future of this incredible city,” the democratic socialist L.A. mayoral hopeful said, “you are proof that Angelenos are hungry for change.”

But as election results rolled in, the movement for change was underwhelming, or at least divided. Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass was in the lead, advancing to the November runoff. That left Raman locked in a battle for a second spot with Republican former reality TV star Spencer Pratt.

Bass is one of several high-profile establishment Democrats to emerge on top. In California’s gubernatorial race, centrist Xavier Becerra, a veteran of the Biden Cabinet, advanced to the runoff after being challenged from the left by billionaire green activist Tom Steyer and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter. Steyer is now behind Steve Hilton, a Republican, and battling to make the runoff.

Still reeling from the rise of Donald Trump, Democrats in California and beyond are struggling to figure out the future direction of the party.

Some progressives, inspired by Zohran Mamdani’s New York mayoral victory, saw 2026 as an opportunity to move the city further left. But the results have been mixed in key races, with veteran Democrats like Bass and Becerra eking out leads even as polls show dissatisfaction with status quo politics in California.

“This was supposed to be a change revolution, but voters clearly said no to the revolution,” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. “Voters want change,” she noted, “but it doesn’t appear right now that there has been an appetite for a major shift in the ideology of the city or the state.”

Xavier Becerra speaks during an election night event in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Becerra emerged as the Democratic favorite late in the election and won support from many establishment party leaders. Pundits said after a wild primary that included the implosion of Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign amid sex assault allegations, Becerra emerged as a “safe” choice.

Some opponents attacked his moderate views and his willingness to accept campaign donations from big oil companies like Chevron. But that did not stop his rise.

Bass was also beset with challenges, being an incumbent in a city beset with problems.

For her, election night marked a “victory with an asterisk,” Sadhwani said, noting that Bass is first incumbent L.A. mayor in more than two decades to face a runoff. “It would be wrong for Karen Bass to think that this victory … is a ringing endorsement of the work she is currently doing.”

The results underscore Bass’ unpopularity as an incumbent, garnering just 35% of the vote so far. If Raman can catch up and eventually surpass Pratt in the vote count, she could pose a considerable challenge to Bass as more young voters come to the polls in November.

Mike Bonin, a former L.A. City Council member who leads the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., said if Bass exceeded expectations it was because they were very low.

“Coming in first in a runoff isn’t a huge victory for an incumbent mayor,” he said. “Two-thirds of the city did not vote for her. That’s not a position of strength.”

James Adams, a political science professor at UC Davis, said that Becerra and Bass coming through indicates the centrist Democratic candidates were in a stronger short-term position than their rivals. But problems loom ahead, he said, as the longtime Democratic establishment that’s been governing California for the last 15 years failed to make notable progress in solving problems with affordable housing, homelessness, public transportation and education.

“I think the Democrats’ prospects are very bright in 2026 given the California Republicans’ dysfunctionality and a complete backlash against Donald Trump,” Adams said. “But I have much bigger concerns about the California Democrats long term, because it seems to me they’re setting a record for most consecutive years of failing to fix the state’s problems while getting reelected anyway.”

Democrats in California, he said, were suffering from being in power too long.

“Whenever one party gets into a long-term, dominant position, usually because the other party is just in the midst of self-destructing … the whole thing ends in tears, because the party that is in a dominant position, they don’t have to be that good.”

As the vote count continues in the mayor’s race, democratic socialists in Los Angeles already have some wins down-ballot.

“We are gaining momentum,” said Leslie Chang, a co-chair of the 5,000-member L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, a decentralized anti-capitalist group that advocates for rental protections and defunding the police. Over the last six years, Angelenos have elected four DSA-backed City Council members and a DSA-recommended city controller.

The DSA did not officially endorse Raman, because she entered the race after the group had issued endorsements and another DSA candidate was also running for mayor. However, three of the six DSA-backed candidates for citywide office were projected to win outright.

DSA Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez were reelected by such large margins they avoided runoffs. In the city attorney’s race, DSA-endorsed Marissa Roy was in the lead and the mainstream Democratic incumbent became the first city attorney ousted in a primary in nearly a century. City Controller Kenneth Mejia, a progressive anti-establishment candidate who is not a DSA member but an ally of the group, led by nearly 20 percentage points.

When Chang knocked on doors, she said, some voters asked: “Well, what’s the difference between Nithya and Karen Bass?”

A few voters told her that after reviewing Bass’ and Raman’s websites, they found their platforms similar. Chang was surprised. She thought Raman articulated a clear and novel strategy for how to get L.A. out of the housing crisis, but she said some on the left took issue with her working with housing developers to reduce red tape.

Neel Sannappa, chair of the California Democratic Party’s progressive caucus, said Raman was stymied by getting into the race late and having only a few months to campaign. It also didn’t help that a more left-wing challenger, Rae Huang, already had some momentum — not enough to win, but enough to split the left.

“Nithya does represent something real and growing in Los Angeles,” Sannappa said. “There is a hunger for more progressive, left-leaning candidates that want to make sure that we’re investing in people and not so much investing in just police … and being able to build things that are new and innovative.”

Supporters watch election results come in on their phones during Nithya Raman’s election night party at Boomtown Brewery on Tuesday.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Some have criticized Raman’s coalition-building, noting she was not endorsed by her fellow DSA-backed City Council members. Others said the MIT and Harvard graduate, who has been a councilmember for six years, performed tepidly in a May televised debate and suffered from Pratt’s attempts to tie her to the establishment.

“If you’re a part of the institution, which she is,” Sadhwani said, “then you can’t exactly claim that you’re going to bring massive change.”

Sadhwani said that California’s left, in contrast to New York’s, appears to have a charisma deficit. While Pratt and Hilton had an advantage with their television backgrounds, they also spoke “in plain terms about the real problems that the state faces.”

Part of Bass’ success can also be attributed to assembling a coalition that included the L.A. County Federation of Labor, the L.A. police officers union, the L.A. County Democratic Party and immigrant rights groups.

In the mayoral race, Sadhwani said, “the dominant political coalition still has power, money, the organization.”

“If you can garner the support of the unions, then having a broader message, maybe it’s less important,” she said. “You don’t have to work quite so hard, because the unions have the base machine.”

People attend Mayor Bass’ election party for the California 2026 primaries at the LINE Hotel on Tuesday.

(Carlin Stiehl/For The Times)

Yusef Robb, a longtime Democratic strategist who is an advisor to Bass, attributed the mayor’s lead to her campaign’s success in building a broad coalition and communicating across the political spectrum. Most voters, he said, tend to think less about ideology — and whether a Democrat was mainstream or DSA-supported — than candidates’ positions on bread and butter issues.

“Mayor’s races are first and foremost about what people see outside of their front doors, when they walk their kids to school, when they drive to work,” he said. “At the end of the day, the voters look at the field and say, ‘OK, who do I trust to keep my kids from having to skip around a tent on the way to school?’ ‘Who can I trust to hire more officers?’ … and ‘Who can I trust to fight back against ICE in court through executive action and even in the streets?’ And that’s Karen Bass.”

For Democrats in this robustly blue state, part of the challenge in figuring a path forward is that every candidate — even those already in power — pitches themselves as a bona fide progressive against the status quo.

“We have led a grassroots campaign because we want to bring change to our city,” Bass said on election night. “And that’s what we’ve been doing, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”

Raman also tried to tout herself as a change candidate. Articulating her platform in broad strokes rather than bread-and-butter detail, Raman said she wanted L.A. to be a place “where government actually functions and delivers every day on this city’s beautiful bighearted values, where we stand up against ICE, where we show up for our gay and trans siblings.”

But as she talked of neighborhoods “full of trees and shade … and people and good food,” she seemed low-key and equivocal. Her message was a far cry from the pressing one U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put forward in his presidential campaigns, highlighting the millions of Americans working for “starvation wages” and a young single mother in Nevada struggling on $10.45 an hour.

Ultimately, the fight between Bass and Raman, as a struggle between mainstream and progressive Democrats, is complicated by the fact that Bass came up through the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, founding the grassroots Community Coalition in South L.A. in the 1990s.

Campaign worker Khai Dombroe prepares balloons before Nithya Raman’s election night party.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

And even though Raman is a DSA member, she has tacked to the center during the campaign, distancing herself from past calls to defund the police by saying she did not want the LAPD to lose more officers.

While Raman and Bass have much in common, the most significant difference between them is on homelessness, Sannappa said. Even though Bass comes from a political tradition of not wanting to criminalize the unhoused, he said, she understood her voters include people wanting to move homeless people off the streets.

“Brass tacks is that we need people that are going to be willing to fight for mental health services,” Sannappa said.

“I think Nithya more so represents the direction where the Democratic Party is going to have to go.”

As L.A. becomes less affordable and homeownership becomes out of reach for many Angelenos, young renters have become a rising political constituency — a shift that many say will likely propel the city leftward.

Bonin said he expected the next new rising Democratic coalition in L.A. to be a labor-renter coalition. He cited Councilmember Soto-Martinez, a renter and union organizer, as probably the best avatar of that.

But as the middle-class splinters along generational lines, other political experts warn that many ordinary Angelenos feel increasingly shut out of L.A. politics.

“Once upon a time the Democratic Party was the party of the working class, and today it has become the party of the educated elites,” Sadhwani said. “Perhaps one of the gifts that Donald Trump has given to Democrats is to force them to contend with the everyday issues of voters, which they seem to have distanced themselves from.”

As many Angelenos feel worse off now than four years ago, Chang said Bass was not directly responsible for every problem. Still, she said, she could have done more to move the city in the right direction.

Delaying the wage boost tied to the 2028 Olympics, she said, was a move that failed working people at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet.

“My fear, of course, is people pivot away from corporate Democrats and they choose the MAGA Republican, because that is the most visible fight,” Chang said. “Or because they think, ‘Oh, well, a democratic socialist running on the Democratic Party line, this is just more of the same status quo.’ ”