election

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has tasked Gadi Eisenkot with forming the country’s next government, passing over the former army chief’s rival, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Herzog told Eisenkot of his decision on Saturday evening and will formally hand him the mandate at a ceremony on Sunday, the president’s spokesperson said.

Herzog held consultations with political parties this week to decide who he would appoint to form a government after neither side secured a majority in the October 27 general election.

Some 67 lawmakers, including from Arab-led parties, endorsed Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, to form the next government, while only 46 backed Netanyahu, the current prime minister.

Eisenkot will have 28 days – with a possible 14-day extension – to build a coalition of at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats, the minimum threshold for a government.

In the October election, Eisenkot’s four-party alliance won 48 seats, while Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc secured 53, leaving both short of the 61 needed for a parliamentary majority. Arab-led parties, representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, won a record 19 seats.

Eisenkot has ruled out forming a government with the Arab-led parties, which would give him a 67-seat bloc. Winning over the two ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, would give him exactly 61 seats.

He could also form a government with fewer than 61 seats if he wins a parliamentary confidence vote.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank on Herzog’s decision, said the president “took the predictable route” in selecting Eisenkot, as he had the highest number of recommendations.

“The hard work will begin now for Eisenkot to put together a government that can pass a vote of confidence at the Knesset that: one, will not break too many of the promises he made on the campaign trail; and two, that can survive the opposition of the right-wing bloc led by Netanyahu,” Odeh said.

If Eisenkot fails to form a government within the allotted time, Herzog will nominate another candidate. If the second nominee fails, a parliament majority can back a third candidate, who will be granted a final 14 days.

If, once again, no government is formed, a new election will be called within 90 days, with Netanyahu staying on as a caretaker prime minister.

United against Netanyahu government

Eisenkot led Israel’s military from 2015 to 2019 and sat as an observer in Netanyahu’s war cabinet for the first eight months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which began in October 2023.

Ahmad Tibi, a senior member of the Joint List – a coalition of Arab-led parties that holds 11 seats – told Al Jazeera on Saturday that Herzog’s decision was “expected”.

“We were concerned that the president would move towards a national unity government,” he said, referring to a proposed power-sharing agreement between Eisenkot and Netanyahu.

Instead, Arab-led parties endorsed Eisenkot for the mandate, granting him a “considerable margin”.

Tibi said he believes Eisenkot is headed for a minority government “with external support from the Arab parties”.

While this would not be a “dream government” for Arab-led parties, Tibi prioritised bringing down “the government of Netanyahu, [Itamar] Ben-Gvir and [Bezalel] Smotrich”.

Hours before Herzog’s decision, Netanyahu had warned that a government formed by the opposition bloc with support from Arab-led parties would lead to Israel’s collapse.

“Such a government, dependent on Islamists, will dismantle the state of Israel from within, as is happening in European countries, and far worse than that,” Netanyahu said in a prerecorded video speech, echoing the language of far-right politicians who falsely claim parts of Europe have come under Islamic law.

Netanyahu “described us as supporters of terrorists and terrorism”, Tibi said. “My response to him is this: Netanyahu is the biggest terrorist in Israel and the region, and the foremost supporter of terrorism, particularly Jewish terrorism in the West Bank and the Palestinian territories.”

Al Jazeera’s Odeh noted that although Eisenkot has expressly said he does not wish to form a government with Arab-led parties, “they both share quite compelling reasons to get rid of Netanyahu”.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel – On election day, Lama Yassin, 31, drove to polling stations in her hometown of Arrabeh, where Palestinian citizens of Israel make up an overwhelming majority, inspired by what she was witnessing.

“You would see families coming to the polls together, grandparents and grandchildren,” she said. “It was the first time in a really long time that I felt there is hope – hope of a change.”

The overwhelming Arab turnout in the October 27 Israeli election won the Arab parties a record 19 seats in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

Thabet Abu Rass, an expert on Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, had predicted the Arab parties would be impossible for Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc to ignore: Their seats push it past the 61-seat threshold for a ruling coalition.

Instead, Yassin and others saw Israeli channels invite “Jews to talk about Arabs and Arab voter turnout”, she recalled, with almost no Arab guests.

“The whole conversation was about how dangerous these Arab voters are.” The “most disgusting term” she saw online, however, was the repeated refrain of “election terrorism” on Channel 14, the hard-right, pro-Netanyahu station.

Within a day of the vote, Likud and figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir accused the Arab parties of stealing the election through “bribery, threats, violence, forgeries”. The accusations have continued even after the Central Elections Committee and the Israeli police said they found no sign of organised tampering.

Distraught, Yassin posted an Instagram video that went viral among Palestinians, capturing the doublespeak of Israelis they so often hear:

“Eating hummus with us? ‘Brothers and friends’.

Seeking political power? ‘Terror supporters’.

Helping someone in distress? ‘Brothers and friends’.

Voting in large numbers? ‘Terror at the ballot box’.”

“When it suits you, we are brothers and friends. When it suits you, we are a symbol of coexistence. When it suits you, you go around the world boasting about our integration into Israeli society.

“But the moment we demand to have influence, to shape policy, and to take part in decision-making – suddenly, our very presence becomes a threat.”

When voting becomes ‘a danger to the state’

More than a week after the election, Jaffa’s Ajami neighbourhood offers both the history leading up to – and the fraught circumstances of – this moment that Abu Rass calls Israel’s “political crossroads”.

Faded Arabic signs on abandoned buildings hint at the Palestinian community that thrived in Ajami before 1948. On Ajami’s streets, posters of children killed during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza hang metres away from campaign posters for Ra’am and the Joint List.

From the back office of his cluttered hardware shop, Omar Siksik, once a Tel Aviv-Jaffa city councilman who now co-chairs Kulna Yaffa, a grassroots, Arab-Jewish civic initiative in the city, weighs this moment of unprecedented representation – met by renewed delegitimisation efforts – against Ajami’s own history. It is a struggle, he says, for basic existence.

Before 1948, Jaffa had about 100,000 Palestinians. After the Nakba, fewer than 4,000 remained – with those left fenced inside Ajami under military rule. “We called it the Ajami ghetto,” explained Siksik. Born there in 1957, he grew up sharing a toilet and kitchen with newly arrived Jewish immigrants who took the homes of expelled Palestinian neighbours.

Over time, the fence surrounding Ajami was torn down, martial law ended, and the Palestinians who remained there were granted Israeli citizenship. But later, when Siksik became the head of the Rabita Association, a nonprofit for the Palestinian residents of Jaffa, he remembered “sleeping under the bulldozers” that were razing the houses of Palestinians in the area, a practice that Rabita had fought in court.

For Siksik and others, election day is the only occasion that’s different for Palestinian citizens of Israel. “This is a democratic election,” he said. “It’s the only thing where we’re equal with the Jews. The only thing.

“When we came and expressed our dissatisfaction with this government, the Arab vote became a danger to the state,” said Siksik. “It’s not normal.”

Many Palestinian citizens of Israel believe they’ve been allowed to remain out of necessity, not equality. “The bus drivers are Arabs, the doctors in the hospitals are Arabs, the construction workers are Arabs,” Siksik notes.

But even those “essential worker” roles are being stripped away. After October 7, Israel revoked tens of thousands of work permits for Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank to enter Israel, and the essential jobs they filled are being replaced by short-term labourers brought from abroad. Yassin notes fabricated stories over the summer on Israeli social media that Arab doctors were poisoning Jewish patients at Rambam Hospital in Haifa.

“If they could give up on anything Arab, they would,” says Yassin. “It’s not because they like us [that they let us remain]… It’s not because they want to; it’s because they have to.”

Facing ‘the whole Israeli system’

Yassin herself went through that struggle for acceptance in Israeli society. After growing up in Arrabeh, she learned Hebrew so well at Ben-Gurion University that “no one knew I was an Arab any more.” She took a job at a regional council near Jerusalem, in an entirely Jewish workplace, to prove she was “fully Israeli”.

“I did not speak Arabic in public. I even voted for [left-wing Zionist party] Meretz and favoured them over Arab parties,” said Yassin. “I wanted to be ‘the good Israeli’.”

But she could never escape that sense of otherness. At the council, colleagues asked if they could call Yassin – whose first name, Lama, means “why” in Hebrew – “Yasmine” instead, because she reminded them of Jasmine from the movie Aladdin. She was Yasmine for a year and a half. “It was another demand of giving up on another part of my identity – one that defines me literally.”

And then, the Sunday after the October 7 attacks, her colleagues would not say hello back to her.

She came to realise that “shared society cannot be built over inequality.”

After becoming director of public policy at the Abraham Initiatives, which advances the rights of Palestinian citizens in Israel, Yassin testified at Knesset committee meetings regarding unchecked crime and violence affecting their communities. She describes being dismissed or silenced outright, despite prior approval to speak. “If you say one more word,” she recalled the National Security committee chairman saying, “I will ask you to leave.”

Yassin sees that derision of a Palestinian political voice carrying over into the rhetoric – and investigations – surrounding the post-election talks. In Jaffa, that wider climate was felt on November 3, when, about midnight, about 15 security officers, a few of them masked, raided the Jaffa home of Abed Abou Shehadeh, a journalist and activist, arresting him in front of his two children. Accused of having “contacts with a foreign agent”, a court has ordered him held until November 8.

The ‘loyalty test’

In the south, meanwhile, police arrested seven Bedouin men on suspicion of planning to pay people to vote for Ra’am, which calls them party activists and denies the allegations. Arab political leader Ayman Odeh now faces investigations as well by the Shin Bet intelligence service, which is run by the Netanyahu-aligned David Zini, over allegations that he received money from foreign sources to influence voter turnout. Odeh denies the allegations, calling them “political persecution”.

“We are now facing the whole Israeli system,” says Abu Rass. “I think we are facing the deep state also.”

Before the election, Abu Rass had predicted to Al Jazeera that 15 to 17 seats would have Israeli party leaders knocking on the Arab parties’ doors. But despite the Arab parties exceeding even those high expectations, that success has not yet borne such fruit.

With 67 members of the Knesset, including those from the Arab parties, recommending Eisenkot to the president to form a government, the anti-Netanyahu bloc has signalled agreement to remove Knesset speaker Amir Ohana and halt the judicial overhaul legislation. The Arab parties also plan to back a state inquiry into the October 7 security failures. But Abu Rass does not mistake this for a lasting partnership.

“[Eisenkot is] counting on us only for the coming months,” he says, “to help him stabilise his government, to pass this stage of removing the government and Netanyahu.”

And while Eisenkot campaigned on two pillars – removing Netanyahu, and mandating military service for ultra-Orthodox Haredim who largely do not serve – even Avigdor Liberman, long a fierce opponent of Haredi draft-dodging, now signals he would work with the Haredi parties to form an anti-Netanyahu government without the Arabs, who have repeatedly offered to support Eisenkot from outside the coalition to unseat Netanyahu.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, tasked with choosing a leader to try to form a government, this week condemned “the coarseness and racist expressions that we have heard recently”. But according to Israeli media, during meetings with party leaders, he asked Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas whether he considers Hamas a terrorist organisation. “You cannot constantly put us to this test,” said Abbas, who has repeatedly condemned the October 7 attacks, according to Israeli media.

Yassin has felt and seen these loyalty tests play out before in Israel. “Even if the two million Arabs who live here … say ‘we condemn Hamas,’ the day after, we will have another loyalty test,” she says. “It’s never-ending, and whoever wants to deny our rights in this country does not really need a reason to.”

A Jewish-only coalition, she says, would mean “we went a few stairs down in the whole democracy approach, the so-called democracy in Israel.”

‘We don’t have the privilege of giving up’

Most people in working-class Ajami have swiftly come down from their election-night highs. “I am not optimistic,” said Nadia, a middle-aged woman sitting behind the counter of a clothing store. “If we raise our voice in the streets, we are arrested. If we raise our voice in the ballot, we are dismissed.”

Siksik fears: “I see catastrophic things coming here.”

But Nadia noted she would vote again if it means keeping Ben-Gvir and Smotrich out of government.

As Yassin puts it: “We don’t have the privilege of giving up. If we don’t do this work, no one will.”

After the sense of power the 19 seats gave people, she says, “it’s going to be hard to give it away.”

Sitting in a liberal Tel Aviv cafe, Yassin overheard a conversation at the adjacent table turn to Gaza and “how they killed the children” – apparently in reaction to what she had been saying.

As the opposition bloc appears to be pursuing every avenue to avoid including Arab parties in any position of power, she finds herself looking at even “liberal” Israelis differently.

“I was looking at every one of them and wondering if they would support an Arab or Arab parties being part of the coalition,” she said.

“Because if they don’t want my representatives, it also means that they don’t want me.”

Israeli President Isaac Herzog must decide who gets the first attempt at forming a government, after an inconclusive election left both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main rival, former army chief Gadi Eisenkot, short of a parliamentary majority.

Herzog has said he will task a candidate with forming a government on Sunday. Eisenkot has received the endorsement of a majority of lawmakers – but only thanks to parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, which won a record 19 seats in October’s election, but whom Eisenkot has ruled out bringing into government.

Here is what we know:

Who is Herzog likely to ask to form a government?

During consultations between party heads and Herzog, which ended on Thursday, 67 out of 120 Knesset members endorsed Eisenkot, while only 46 endorsed Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s endorsements fell seven short of his bloc’s 53 seats after United Torah Judaism, one of his longtime allies, withheld endorsements over his coalition’s failure to exempt ultra-Orthodox Israelis from military service.

Herzog has not publicly committed to either side, saying that while the numbers may look clear, “mutual vetoes between the blocs and within the blocs themselves” made it hard to tell who could build a coalition.

Prior to the October 27 elections, reports emerged that the president wanted to push for a national unity government between Netanyahu and Eisenkot’s rival parties to avoid another election.

How difficult will it be to form a government?

No bloc has secured the 61 seats needed to form a majority government. Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious alliance has 53, four Jewish-led parties backing Eisenkot hold 48, and the Arab-led parties hold 19.

Eisenkot has ruled out forming a government with the Arab-led parties, which would give him a 67-seat bloc. Winning over the two ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, would give him exactly 61 seats.

United Torah Judaism has signalled that its support was available for the right price, but Shas endorsed Netanyahu on Wednesday.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, would need to lure an opposition party to his side. A unity government with the two men rotating as prime minister – and excluding Arab-led parties from government – is another option, but many Netanyahu rivals have ruled out serving under him.

Will Arab-led parties be part of the next government?

So far, it seems unlikely that they will.

The Arab-led parties are the Joint List, an alliance of three parties, and the United Arab List (Ra’am). They hold 11 and eight seats, respectively.

Ra’am says it is willing to join an Eisenkot-led government, while the Joint List has ruled out joining but offered to help put him in office from the outside.

Both endorsed Eisenkot during consultations with President Herzog, but he has refused to bring either into government unless they meet certain conditions, including recognising Hamas as a “terrorist organisation”.

Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas, whose party joined an anti-Netanyahu coalition in 2021 and became the first party representing Palestinians to enter government in Israel, has expressed support for disarming Hamas, but declined to label it as a “terror” group.

However, Israeli law allows Eisenkot to become prime minister with fewer than 61 seats if his proposed government wins a parliamentary confidence vote – which the two could help him secure.

Eisenkot could form a minority government in the meantime and later secure a majority by luring the two ultra-Orthodox parties by making concessions on the conscription issue.

In positions that many observers see as highlighting the second-class nature of Palestinian citizens in Israel, some of Eisenkot’s allies have opposed any reliance on Palestinian lawmakers, while Netanyahu’s Likud has threatened that cooperating with the Arab-led parties would be “dangerous to Israel”.

Senior Joint List member Ahmad Tibi told The Associated Press that rejecting a partnership would prove Israel is “an ethnocracy, not an absolute democracy for all citizens”.

What do Palestinian-led parties want from the next government?

First, an end to Netanyahu’s rule.

The Joint List said its unanimous backing for Eisenkot answered a “public demand” to stop Netanyahu and his government returning to power.

By widening Eisenkot’s lead, it said, it hoped to narrow the path to a unity government that keeps Netanyahu in office. Its support, it added, did not mean dropping its reservations about an opposition that had not shown readiness to confront Netanyahu’s approach or incitement against Palestinian citizens of Israel.

In return for outside support, Arab-led parties are seeking guarantees for Palestinian citizens, including an end to house demolitions and incitement, action against crime, and a political horizon for Palestinians.

Tibi told The AP he had no illusions that this would end Israel’s wars or bring a Palestinian state, but said a “repair government” would improve Palestinian citizens’ lives, including, potentially, by tackling violent crime in their communities.

Ra’am leader Abbas has also said ending the government of Netanyahu, and far-right figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, is a priority.

What happens if no government can be formed?

The nominee chosen by Herzog will have 28 days to form a coalition, extendable by 14 more. If they fail, another nominee will be chosen and granted 28 days.

If the second nominee fails, a parliament majority can back a third candidate, and be granted a final 14 days.

If once again no government is formed, the Knesset will be dissolved and an entirely new election called within 90 days. This would mean Netanyahu staying on as caretaker prime minister.

Nehru Jamhour, an analyst of Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera that this drawn-out impasse was the likeliest outcome, and Netanyahu’s preferred one. He said that Netanyahu was hoping that a repeat election could weaken his rivals and depress turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The U.S. Justice Department moved Friday to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit challenging the counting of 20,000 ballots in California, arguing the relief it sought is now impossible given Tuesday’s midterm election has concluded.

The Justice Department had sought a court order requiring state and Los Angeles County election officials to set aside the ballots, which it alleged could be from noncitizen voters. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had both rejected that request, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Trump administration appeal to those lower court rulings — with no noted dissents.

Carter had ruled that the government’s request was probably unconstitutional, given the Constitution gives states and Congress power over elections, not the executive, and probably ran afoul of federal law barring sweeping vetting of voter rolls in the immediate run-up to an election.

However, he had set a schedule moving forward for additional fact-finding in the case — including by appointing a special master to dig into the data the federal government was relying on to assert the 20,000 voters were potentially noncitizens.

In a filing before Carter on Friday, Assistant U.S. Atty. Julie Hamill in Los Angeles wrote that that court process was no longer necessary, as it would not provide the relief that the federal government was seeking by filing its lawsuit.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s denial, the United States is evaluating how to best ensure that American votes are protected, including by preventing vote dilution by noncitizens. In addition, by the time of this Court’s hearing on Nov. 13 in this matter, California will have already commingled the challenged ballots with lawful ones,” Hamill wrote. “There is then no way to get the challenged ballots segregated. As a result, the relief the United States sought and needed is no longer available — rendering voluntary dismissal necessary.”

Hamill wrote that the Trump administration had sought to “protect American voters and to prevent the irreparable harm of state and local election officials including illegally cast votes in the final vote tabulation,” but had “exhausted its appeals to obtain timely relief” by going to — and being denied by — the Supreme Court.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli’s office in Los Angeles — where Hamill works — referred questions about the filing to the Justice Department.

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the litigation at issue was “moot” but that the Trump administration “is not backing down” in its targeting of alleged noncitizen voters, including in a separate case in which it is still demanding that California “conduct proper list maintenance, including removing noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls — which will be crucial to ensure fair elections in the future.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a defendant in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, another defendant, said he was “pleased that the administration has accepted the clarity of the court findings” against it and ended its lawsuit.

“At each stage of this election, and in response to the Department of Justice, we have been clear that state and federal law sets well-defined standards for verifying and challenging voter eligibility,” Logan said. “Our commitment and focus remain on the fair, secure, accurate, and legal processes we are engaged in to complete and certify the election.”

California Atty. Gen Rob Bonta, in a statement, said that after losing in every court it tried, including the Supreme Court, “the Trump Administration has given up its latest unlawful effort to interfere with California’s elections and disenfranchise eligible voters.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured: California has and always will defend your fundamental right to vote.”

Tricia Webber, president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials, said state election officials “are very pleased” with the voluntary dismissal of the case — which she said “affirms that our elections are administered with the utmost integrity and care.”

“At the same time, we are under no illusions. We recognize that this issue is unlikely to go away permanently, and we remain fully prepared to continue defending California’s election administration against future challenges,” she said. “We will always stand ready to protect every eligible voter’s right to participate in a fair and secure election process.”

The administration’s filing — three days after President Trump’s party took a drubbing in the midterms — marks a sudden and unremarkable conclusion to an unprecedented court battle in the days leading up to the election, when the federal government sought permission from the courts to force state and local elections officials to set aside votes during an ongoing election.

Carter had rejected the administration’s request for immediate intervention in a blistering Oct. 28 ruling, calling its allegations about the ineligible voters “not credible” and warning that the proposed action could disenfranchise eligible voters and sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election.

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

While Justice Department officials characterized the relief it had requested from the court as “targeted and modest,” Carter had reached a sharply different conclusion — writing that the administration’s demands would “wreak havoc” on an ongoing election and “create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”

The reliability of the government’s list became a central issue in the litigation. Logan’s office said its review of about 200 flagged voters found that a substantial portion appeared to have been born in the United States, a finding Homeland Security officials disputed.

Election officials elsewhere in California also reported problems with the lists, including names of people who did not appear to live in their counties or to be registered voters. Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials across the state, demanding that they sequester flagged ballots and warning of potential criminal penalties if they failed to comply.

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that heard the federal government’s appeal to Carter’s ruling — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — came to some of the same conclusions Carter did in a 2-1 ruling. One of the Trump appointees dissented, writing that he would have ruled for the administration.

Carter ordered an expedited hearing on the state’s and county’s motions to dismiss the case and the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ordered all parties by Nov. 6 to submit witness lists, including experts, regarding the reliability of the list of voters and the methodology behind it. He ordered both sides to appear at the Nov. 13 hearing, with submitted witnesses prepared to take the stand.

Ending the litigation now will forestall that process to detail the origins of the administration’s list — which is still being used by federal prosecutors in California to target individual voters for criminal prosecution.

Days after the midterm elections, Proposition 40 has yet to be decided. The ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires to help fund healthcare, is failing by more than 8 percentage points.

Statewide, more than 4 million votes remain to be counted in this race, according to the Associated Press, which calculates the expected vote using returns and other data. That includes more than half a million from Los Angeles County, where the “yes” vote leads by more than 7 percentage points.

The proposition has so far found support in nine counties: Alameda, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Yolo. In Southern California, Los Angeles is the only county leaning toward “yes.”

Propositions 41 and 42

While Proposition 40 focuses narrowly on taxing billionaires, competing Propositions 41 and 42 would have broader impacts on the state’s ability to enact new taxes. And the measures could undercut Proposition 40 if it passes.

As of Friday, the latest vote tallies showed “yes” on Proposition 41 trailing by more than 7 points, while “yes” on Proposition 42 was ahead by more than 6 points.

Proposition 41 would would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. If Proposition 40 passes and either of these measures passes with more “yes” votes than Proposition 40, it would prevent the billionaire tax from becoming law.

A late October poll showed voter opposition to Propositions 41 and 42 had grown even as support for the billionaire tax declined.

The money behind the measures

Support for Proposition 40 has totaled to nearly $35 million, mostly from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the healthcare workers union that proposed the tax.

Backers of Propositions 41 and 42 also opposed Proposition 40. Combined, they raised more than $300 million. Most of that money came from the billionaires who would be subject to the tax.

PHOENIX — Democrats in Arizona won control of both legislative chambers and retained the governor’s office, giving the party its first trifecta in the state since 1966 as Democrats made major gains nationwide in this week’s elections and took control of both chambers of Congress.

In her first term, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs had vetoed more than 540 measures passed by the Republican-led Legislature on policies including taxes, immigration and voting laws. Hobbs has said she’s looking to address water issues and affordability, and take on fraud and abuse in the state’s school voucher program.

The Associated Press called enough legislative races to confirm that both chambers flipped on Friday. The news organization calls races individually and it can take several days after voting, depending on when election officials tally the votes and how close the elections are. There have not been major disputes or disruptions this year.

In Arizona, Republicans have held the House for 60 years and the Senate since the early 1990s.

Attendees during the Arizona Democratic Party election night event in Phoenix on Tuesday.

(Cassidy Araiza / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Overall, Democrats took full control — both statehouse chambers and governors’ offices — in at least six states where they previously shared power with Republicans. Besides Arizona, those wins were in the battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin.

The flips weren’t just in states that are normally competitive. Democrats won control of the Texas House, which Republicans have held since 2003, and elected Gina Hinojosa as the state’s first Democratic governor since Ann Richards in the 1990s. Republicans held on to the state Senate.

Democrats also flipped the lower chambers of the legislatures in Maine and North Carolina and both chambers in New Hampshire, where Republican Kelly Ayotte was reelected. The count could grow as results are tallied in additional states.

The National Council of State Legislatures says it’s likely to end up as the election with the most legislative seats and chambers changing parties since the 2010 election, when Republicans took over governments across the country amid the Great Recession.

Democrats will also hold the governor’s office in at least 28 states. Results are still pending in Alaska and Kansas.

Public transit is expected to be a top priority for Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman, an advocate for expanding bus lanes and making the city friendlier for bicycles — and who campaigned on getting the Los Angeles International Airport people mover back on track after years of squabbles, delays and cost overruns.

As mayor, Raman will oversee the city’s transportation department and will have the power to appoint new members to the city’s Airport Commission. What’s more, she will have regional clout through L.A. Metro, the transportation agency that runs the county’s light-rail and subway lines.

Raman will take over as chair of Metro’s board of 13 voting members, a job now held by Mayor Karen Bass, whom Raman defeated for reelection this week. She will also get three appointees on the board, and can replace the current mayoral appointees — Councilmembers Katy Yaraslovsky and Imelda Padilla and community advocate Jaqueline Dupont-Walker — who all backed Bass in this week’s election.

Metro is currently in need of millions of dollars to fund a massive bus network for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Raman said that she would push Los Angeles’ congressional delegation to make this a key priority. In a statement to The Times ahead of the election, she said she will also prioritize Metro projects that “give the most benefits to the most riders and help make our network more useful” and plans to reinstate a project team in the mayor’s office to eliminate city delays on major capital projects.

Transportation analysts believe Raman, who has a graduate degree in urban planning from MIT, will be more aggressive in addressing transit issues than Bass, whose background was in healthcare and community organizing.

“I do think we’ll see a considerable amount of action on transit and multimodal transportation in the short run on a timeline that puts this work in the context of preparation for the summer of 2028,” said Juan Matute, deputy director of UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies.

Los Angeles voters also approved a charter amendment that will allow the City Council to disband the Public Works Board, a move that Matute believes will allow the city to streamline infrastructure projects. The charter change, combined with Raman’s election, will lead to “a shift in the foundation of transportation decision-making,” Matute said.

Among the transportation plans Raman has cited as priorities are the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, which was approved earlier this year to connect the Westside to the San Fernando Valley; the East San Fernando Transit Corridor project to extend service along the E Line from East Los Angeles to Whittier; expansions of the K Line, to connect multiple communities from South Bay, Inglewood, Mid-City and Hollywood, and the D Line beneath Wilshire Boulevard; a new light rail connection in southeast L.A. County; and the Vermont Transit Corridor project.

That last project to add dedicated bike lanes along Vermont Avenue between 120th Street and Sunset Boulevard recently broke ground. It is also the subject of a lawsuit under Measure HLA that claims it requires a designated bike lane. Raman said she supports compliance with the measure, while supporting shared bike and bus lanes along narrower portions of the route.

Ahead of the election, Raman told The Times via written statements that her transit priorities as mayor would focus on safety, affordability and reliability so that people did not have to be as reliant on cars. She advocated for protected bike lanes and expansion of bus lanes during her campaign.

Raman also criticized Bass and the Los Angeles World Airports board of commissioners for not staying on top of the $3.3-billion Skylink people mover at LAX, a 2.25-mile train that is supposed to whisk passengers between the terminal and ground transportation. The project is years behind schedule and more than $1 billion over budget.

The contractor, LAX Integrated Express Solutions, or LINXS, has blamed the repeated delays on unsigned agreements between the city’s Los Angeles World Airports and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power as one cause, along with nagging technical issues.

At a news conference near the airport last week, Raman told reporters that if elected, her first-week priority in office would be to convene airport and DWP officials and the contractor to determine who is responsible for each unresolved issue in an effort to break the logjam.

“Taxpayers deserve an advocate at the negotiating table, not another bill for someone else’s failure,” Raman said.

Michael Schneider of Streets for All, an advocacy nonprofit, said he expects Raman to convene a task force to address issues around the people mover project during her first 100 days in office.

He also foresees her consolidating some departments, such as the Street Services repaving division under the city’s transportation department, and directing city departments to implement Measure HLA. It’s also likely, he said, that she will initiate a bond or a tax hike to raise money for sidewalks repairs, curb updates and other street improvements.

“I think it’s the first election where safe streets has become a campaign issue, and real money has gone behind it to try to change the status quo,” Schneider said.

Streets for All’s political action committee took out ads to elect Raman and defeat Bass, powered largely by contributions from hedge fund manager and bike lane advocate Aaron Sosnick.

Over the summer, Raman slammed Bass for pausing a bike lane and street safety improvement project near two cemeteries along Forest Lawn Drive that had come under fire by some in Raman’s district. The debate became so heated that the state Legislature ultimately intervened and set a law that would require a public hearing and approval from the City Council and the mayor’s office before moving forward.

Raman has told The Times that she supported multiple bike lane and multimodal projects including the 710 North Mobility Improvement Program along Valley Boulevard, Huntington Drive and Eastern Avenue, plans to set priority bike lanes during peak hours along Sunset Boulevard and add bike lanes and reconfigure the intersection of Virgil Avenue and Sunset and Hollywood boulevards.

It’s unclear how she will balance the push toward these types of endeavors when faced with community pushback.

Nadine Levyfield has advocated for more transparency and answers from Metro over a bus lane project through the center of Eagle Rock. The agency recently agreed to more community meetings to address ongoing concerns over how a reduction in lanes on a bottlenecked portion of Colorado Boulevard will affect traffic and parking through the area’s business district and surrounding neighborhoods. Levyfield believes the community’s asks align with Raman’s campaign.

“Running on a platform of accountability, transparency, improving efficiency, and making sure government agencies are accountable, we really hope she can help us ensure that Metro is prioritizing public safety,” Levyfield said.

Raman has said she is also committed to the city’s goal to eliminate traffic deaths and said she will treat an initiative that began under Mayor Eric Garcetti’s administration and faced significant scrutiny under Bass as a mandate.

“Angelenos look around and see faded crosswalks, busted pavement and darkened streetlights and wonder why the City can’t even take care of our basic transportation infrastructure,” Raman said in a statement to The Times before her election. “Traffic deaths are preventable and I’ll make sure we’re enforcing laws against dangerous driving, providing actual protection for people who walk and bike, and get our street lights back on and our streets fixed.”

“My priority is to make transit safe, affordable, fast, and reliable, so more Angelenos can avoid the high cost of car payments, insurance, and gas,” she said in the statement.

The Times is tracking race results across California, Congress and Los Angeles County from the moment polls close until the secretary of state certifies results in early December.

Twenty-three million registered voters in the state received a ballot by mail this fall. The vote count starts once the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. However, winners may not be known on election night because of the state’s mail-in and conditional ballot process.

The vote counts on these pages update periodically as results are reported by the Associated Press and the county registrars. On election day, those results include in-person voting as well as any mail-in ballots already received. In the days and weeks following, votes will be reported approximately once a day, as they are processed by county registrars. Voters can track their own cast ballot here.

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials. The AP projects the winner for all statewide and federal races using vote returns and other data. A race may be called before all expected votes are in. Results can change as more ballots are counted.

DEARBORN, Mich. — Campaigning relentlessly across Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed didn’t highlight the possibility that he could become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate. But with victory in hand, he savored his triumph over the vitriol aimed at him and his fellow Muslim Americans.

“They tried to demonize people because of how they pray,” he told the Associated Press on Wednesday. “And Michigan — the whole Michigan — clapped back. People don’t want that. They’re sick of it.”

He showed his pride in his victory speech, declaring: “My name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.”

Twenty-five years after the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath yanked anti-Muslim sentiment into the forefront of American life, those emotions are shared by many Muslim Americans in Michigan and across the country.

They saw a surge of anti-Muslim rhetoric after Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York City mayor a year ago, and they saw the attacks intensify as El-Sayed became the new prime target. President Trump called him a “jihadist” who was “on the side of the terrorists.” Dozens of Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress formed a Sharia-Free America Caucus, depicting Islam’s religious code as a threat to the U.S. Constitution.

But now, after El-Sayed’s defeat of GOP rival Mike Rogers was confirmed early Wednesday, there is a pervasive sense that a broader victory is at hand.

The outcome “represents a historic turning point for American Muslim political engagement and a historic defeat for the politics of hate,” said Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“Anti-Muslim extremists, Israel lobby groups and even the president of the United States used every smear in the book to paint Dr. El-Sayed as a Muslim bogeyman,” he said. “None of it was true, and none of it worked. Anti-Muslim hate was on the ballot, and it failed.”

In Dearborn, talk of ‘a beautifully American story’

Excitement over El-Sayed’s victory was palpable in Dearborn, a city near Detroit with a sizable Arab American population. The mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, said residents showed up at the ballot box in huge numbers.

“What a beautifully American story,” Hammoud said. “One of our brightest and best earned the support of the majority of Michiganders who participated in yesterday’s election. And regardless of the direction in which he prays, they’re sending him to the U.S. Senate.”

Hammoud, who has known El-Sayed for more than a decade, said although his win was important for many Arab Americans, people voted for him because of his platform, not his identity. He cited support in Dearborn for independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Sanders, who is Jewish and caucuses with Democrats, ran on a progressive platform.

In El-Sayed, residents of Dearborn “finally saw themselves and a candidate who appealed to them, but it had to do with far more than just his ethnicity or his religion,” Hammoud said. “It was honestly because of the policies and building a coalition with this community in an honest way.”

When Zaynah Jadallah, 26, canvassed for El-Sayed in Dearborn, she said most people told her they already planned on voting for him before inviting her in for water or food. She credited the name recognition to El-Sayed’s grassroots campaigning and his pride in his Egyptian heritage.

“He’s always been proud of his identity. He never shied away from it or from saying his name,” Jadallah said.

Yasmin El-Sayed, no relation to the senator-elect, took her two daughters to the Detroit watch party from New York. She teared up after the victory speech.

“Having grown up in a post-9/11 world, being Muslim, being Arab myself, never in a million years did I think we would see what we saw today,” she said.

In a time of suspicion of government, a message of representation

El-Sayed depicted his election as a victory for all those “who don’t see themselves reflected in our government or who’ve been told that they don’t belong for some reason or another — not just how they pray but who they love, how they identify, the color of their skin, where they grew up.″

“I didn’t run to be the first Muslim senator. I ran to be the next senator of the state of Michigan who happens to be Muslim,” he said. ″But I also know that democracy is constantly about the conversation about who we are, who we want to be.”

“Michigan proved just how big we are. Rejected a hateful, spiteful campaign that had nothing to say about the issues and only wanted to point to my name and my face,” he added. ″I want all of those folks out there who have been told that America’s not big enough for them to reflect on that. America really is big enough for all of us.”

Mohamed Gula, CEO of the Muslim American advocacy group Emgage Action, said he was elated by El-Sayed’s triumph after a year of “extremely Islamophobic and disgusting rhetoric being used as a campaign strategy.”

“For Abdul to come out last night and use his full name meant the world to someone who grew up in post-9/11 America, where the Muslim American community was seen through a national security lens,” Gula said.

“Our children, years from now, will be able to run for office,” he said, “to be seen as who they are.”

A debate over the place of sharia law — and its very definition

Among the most frequent targets of anti-Muslim rhetoric was sharia, the religious code that provides Muslims with guidance on how to lead righteous lives. At the Republicans’ midterm convention in Dallas, some of the loudest cheers came after GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas declared: “Sharia law has no place in America.”

Muslim American civic leaders and scholars — in Texas and other states — responded forcefully to the anti-sharia rhetoric that dates back more than 15 years.

They passionately defended sharia — the way it’s practiced in the United States — as positive guidance that shares elements with the codes of other faiths, such as the Ten Commandments and the collective body of Jewish law derived from the Torah. They rebutted the claims of GOP critics that sharia is a coercive code that threatens the Constitution and the judicial system.

Gula noted that Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton were among the leaders of the anti-sharia campaign. Abbott lost his bid for reelection in Tuesday’s voting, and Paxton was trounced by Democrat James Talarico in the race for a U.S. Senate seat.

“I saw this as not just Muslims standing against Islamophobia as never before,” Gula said. “I saw Americans saying hate will not be used as a campaign issue … we are not going to accept hate.”

Asma Uddin, a professor at Michigan State University’s College of Law, has argued that many American politicians are depicting ordinary Muslim religious practices — such as prayer, choice of apparel, family counseling and mosque attendance — as evidence of political danger.

“What I find especially exciting is that El-Sayed won in a political climate where being visibly Muslim can still be a liability,” she said. His victory “gives us real reason for optimism. It suggests that anti-Muslim attacks don’t necessarily carry the political weight that those deploying them assume they do.”

GaNun, Cappelletti and Crary write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington and Crary from New York.

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has said he will name a candidate to form the country’s next government by Sunday, after a majority of lawmakers backed opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Herzog made the announcement on Thursday after holding marathon talks with parties elected to the 120-seat parliament, known as the Knesset.

Some 67 lawmakers endorsed Eisenkot, a former military chief, while 46 backed Netanyahu.

In televised remarks at the end of the talks, Herzog said that although the “results of the consultations may appear clear”, there were “mutual vetoes between the blocs and within the blocs themselves” that make it difficult to say who has the best chance of assembling a governing coalition.

He said he would hold “personal talks with some of the party leaders” over the Israeli weekend, which runs Friday-Saturday, and make a pick on Sunday.

Israel’s October 27 election left neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot with a clear path to a parliamentary majority, handing Herzog the difficult task of choosing a candidate in a deeply divided country.

Netanyahu’s Likud won the most seats of any single party with 27 in the 120-seat Knesset, ⁠but his wider religious-nationalist coalition garnered only 53 in total.

Eisenkot’s alliance of four Jewish-led parties, which spans the political spectrum from centre-left to right, won 48 seats despite polls that had predicted a close race.

Two parties representing Israel’s Palestinian minority won an unprecedented 19 seats.

Eisenkot, like Netanyahu, has ruled out forming a government with the Arab-led parties. Both of those parties nonetheless recommended him, giving him the support of a comfortable majority of lawmakers.

“We want to do things that we did not do in the past in order to remove this criminal government,” Ahmad Tibi, a senior member of the Joint List, which represents an alliance of Arab parties, told The Associated Press news agency.

Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, said his 67 recommendations were the most any candidate had received since 2015, and urged Herzog to give him the mandate “as soon as possible” so he could form a national emergency government.

Separately, Netanyahu suffered a setback on Thursday when United Torah Judaism, one of the two main ultra-Orthodox parties and a longtime ally, declined to recommend any candidate.

The party broke with Netanyahu over his coalition’s failure to pass legislation exempting ultra-Orthodox men from military service, The Times of Israel reported.

Yariv Oppenheimer, a member of the Democrats, a party in Eisenkot’s alliance, told Al Jazeera that he saw “no reason” Herzog would not choose Eisenkot on Sunday.

He said United Torah Judaism had signalled that its support was available for the right price, meaning that a good enough offer from Eisenkot could give him the numbers he needed.

“It’s very clear that Netanyahu doesn’t have a chance to establish a government at all,” he added.

Once nominated by Herzog, the candidate will have 28 days to try to forge a government, with a possible 14-day extension.

Netanyahu will remain prime minister in a caretaker government until a new coalition is formed, or through another election that must be held if no ⁠candidate succeeds.

Netanyahu, at risk of losing power, has seized on an investigation by election officials into possible vote tampering to cast doubt on the results, accusing Arab-led parties of stealing the vote.

Critics accuse Netanyahu and his partners of trying to undermine the results, which he denies.

Israel’s Central Election Committee said on ‌Wednesday that the election’s integrity had not been compromised. The head of the committee, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, has called on Israel’s elected officials to protect public trust rather than shake it.

“This is a real danger. One of the foundations of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power,” Sohlberg ‌told ‌Herzog at his residence on Wednesday. High voter turnout, including among the Arab minority, was a blessing, he said.

Netanyahu’s allies on the far-right, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have called for the immediate arrest and interrogation of Arab party leaders.

Bold.

That’s what I initially thought when a political novice named Nithya Raman upset an incumbent in 2020 to become the first democratic socialist elected to the Los Angeles City Council.

That’s what I felt when Raman weathered well-funded challengers and loudmouth opponents to win reelection outright in the 2024 primary, despite representing a district redrawn to her disadvantage.

Bold was Raman filing to run for mayor just before the deadline. Taking on her ally Karen Bass, an L.A. institution she had endorsed just weeks earlier. Angering members of the Democratic Socialists of America’s L.A. chapter, who hadn’t planned to mount a mayoral campaign this year. Calling out L.A. establishment shibboleths like the pricey Convention Center renovation.

Picking Stevie Wonder’s “Living for the City” as a campaign theme song despite its stark lyrics of urban despair. Dancing with all the grace of Elaine from “Seinfeld” on primary night, despite being in third place at the time.

“Bold,” I texted a friend when we found out Raman was holding her Nov. 3 election night party at the Greek Theatre — either a brilliant move that would mark the start of a new day for L.A., or the worst venue choice for a political loser since Hillary Clinton threw her 2016 party in a hotel ballroom with a glass ceiling.

Bold was all Raman had going for her. Bass raised more funds and was backed by L.A.’s blue establishment. Haters, from the Los Angeles Police Protective League to the California Post to her fellow City Council members, painted Raman as an immature, insecure pinko wimp who didn’t know L.A. and barely could do her job, let alone run one of the world’s great cities.

But Raman didn’t stop. She left the hipster areas of the city where democratic socialists have found a base and campaigned in districts represented by council members who openly loathed her. She trotted out her imperfect Spanish to show that she wanted to reach Angelenos in any way possible and was vulnerable enough to reveal that she still was learning. Raman even teared up in public, which City Hall insiders have long mocked her for, when crying in the name of trying for a better L.A. is as bold as you can get.

Bold is what this metropolis needs. And bold is what Los Angeles is going to get now that Raman has taken out Bass in a campaign for the ages.

Critics will downplay the victory as more a verdict on a deeply unpopular mayor than an embrace of Raman — a tree stump could have trounced Bass, they’re already saying. But that’s not what heavyweights who have long aspired to become mayor — like billionaire developer Rick Caruso, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez — were thinking when they had the chance to run this year and chose not to.

They saw the road to City Hall as too dangerous to risk their reputations on a potential loss. They weren’t bold.

I can’t say I saw any of this coming. I did call Raman the comeback kid of L.A. politics in a September columna, as indefatigable a politician as I’ve ever covered. But she spent the last month of her campaign apologizing for easily preventable gaffes that seemed to confirm all the skepticism about her. The attacks against Raman became nastier and more relentless, while Bass glommed on to anyone she thought might get her more votes, from walking alongside Caruso to standing next to future governor Xavier Becerra at Homegirl Cafe the day before the election.

I told a friend on the morning of the election that Bass probably was going to win. Angelenos wouldn’t be brave enough to go with Raman. As I wrote just a few weeks ago, Los Angeles has long gone with the old for mayor, when it could have gone bold.

Not this time.

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman, left, embraces her father, Venkit Raman, during an election night party at Boomtown Brewery.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

As mayor, Raman will need to be bolder than ever. Angelenos yearn for safer streets, an end to homelessness, a renewal of the dreamland that the city has represented for more than a century. They want less of the bureaucracy that has slowed down rebuilding in Pacific Palisades and made running a small business more of a punishment than a reward. They don’t want someone beholden to any ideology other than that the City of Angels needs to be heaven again.

Raman will assume office with nearly half of those who voted, not to mention the entire City Council, having supported her opponent. She needs to go in with the humility to convince naysayers, the conviction to get rid of things and people that aren’t making L.A. better, the smarts to keep what works, the courage to defy the DSA and the vision to make the city believe in itself once again.

Above all, Raman needs to be bold enough to not become another Karen Bass.

The lifelong Angeleno used to be bold when she was an activist in South L.A. pioneering multiracial coalitions and taking on the old guard. She was an effective Assembly member and Congress member. But City Hall sucked out her creativity, her optimism, her drive. She became cautious, then negative. By the end of the race, Bass seemed to be running only so she could say she kept away another DSA insurgent as a final gift to the city.

Bright-eyed outsiders drowning in the swamp — that’s the story of L.A. politics. It’s a story Raman needs to show can come to an end.

“Bold” ultimately is having hope that you can be the one who breaks systems that need to be obliterated. That was the other big note Raman incessantly hit during her campaign, culminating in her election night speech at the Greek.

“Hopelessness can be fatal for a city,” she told an adoring crowd that kept getting bigger and bigger until security closed off the entrances. “But this campaign refused to accept that. You refuse to accept that. You saw hopelessness, and you chose hope.”

Angelenos chose bold. Let’s hope Raman stays bold.

Melat Kiros becomes the first Generation Z woman elected to Congress, embodying a new era of political representation.

The outcome of the 2026 US midterm elections has marked a historic shift in American politics, as a new generation of younger and more diverse leaders won key positions across the country.

Out of 117 Generation Z candidates who ran for Congress this year, 24 made it onto the general election ballot. Among them was Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old Ethiopian-born democratic socialist from Colorado, who became the first Gen Z woman elected to Congress. She joins Representative Maxwell Frost of Florida, who became the first Gen Z member of the House in 2022.

Unprecedented Firsts

The election brought several historic breakthroughs for marginalized and underrepresented groups:

First Muslim American Senator: Dr. Abdul El-Sayed won his race in Michigan, becoming the first Muslim American elected to the US Senate.

First Native American Woman Senator: Peggy Flanagan was elected to the Senate, following Deb Haaland’s victory as governor of New Mexico.

Historic Senate Representation: Illinois became the first state represented in the Senate by two women of color (Juliana Stratton and Tammy Duckworth).

Additionally, three Black women will serve in the Senate at the same time for the first time in U.S. history.

State governor races saw record-breaking diversity across the country:

Black Leadership: Keisha Lance Bottoms (Georgia) became the first Black woman elected governor in US history. Alongside new governors Byron Donalds (Florida), David Crowley (Wisconsin), Aaron Ford (Nevada), and re-elected Wes Moore (Maryland), a record five Black governors will serve together in 2027.

Latino Leadership: Gina Hinojosa became Texas’s first Latina governor after defeating incumbent Greg Abbott, while Xavier Becerra became California’s first Latino governor since 1875.

Amy Acton (Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) all became the first female governors of their respective states. In total, at least 17 women will serve as governors in 2027, breaking the previous record of 14.

Women also set new records in the House of Representatives:

Democratic women won at least 100 House seats, setting a new record for the party.

Overall female representation in the House is projected to reach at least 139 seats in the upcoming 120th Congress.

Nov. 3, 2026 10:52 AM PT

We’re tracking races across California, including elections for U.S. congressional districts that were recently redistricted. Results for governor, statewide ballot measures and officers such as the attorney general and insurance commissioner, as well as state Senate and Assembly contests are available on this page.

Initial results are expected shortly after the polls close at 8 p.m.

Races are called by the Associated Press, which surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and projects the winner using vote returns and other data. Landslide victories may be called within minutes of the polls closing. Or it can take several days for a winner to be known.

Every registered voter in the state receives a ballot by mail. Ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 have seven days to be delivered and counted. Results from provisional and conditional ballots also take longer and will be added to the tally once they are cleared.

The secretary of state will certify results in early December.

Governor

The election to determine California’s next governor has narrowed to two candidates: Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and veteran of California politics, and Steve Hilton, a Republican immigrant and ally of President Trump.

Back to top

Statewide races

Statewide races include lieutenant governor, insurance commissioner, state schools superintendent and controller. Incumbents including Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber are running for new terms.

In California, not all legislation is decided by lawmakers and the governor. This election, voters are tasked with evaluating a laundry list of 14 propositions as part of the state’s direct democracy process.

Some ballot measures have garnered national attention. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in opposition to Proposition 40’s billionaire tax (and in support of the two counter measures, Propositions 41 and 42). Proposition 39 draws Californians into the national conversation about election integrity by asking voters to consider a strict voter ID requirement.

Propositions

Back to top

Board of Equalization

Back to top

U.S. House

We’re tracking election results for all of the state’s 52 U.S. House districts.

California’s congressional map was redrawn last year after the passage of Proposition 50. Several seats are expected to flip from red to blue because of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting effort. In some cases, districts were moved slightly and incumbents remain unchallenged. However, in one area, lines have been redrawn with no overlap at all with their current boundaries: Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District in the Inland Empire was eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. Calvert is now challenging Republican incumbent Young Kim in the 40th District. Both are marked as incumbents on the table below.

Several races are competitive, according to the Cook Political Report’s House Ratings.

Back to top

State Senate

Half of the 40 seats in the California Senate are up for election. Republicans and independents who caucus with them would need to gain three seats to block a Democratic supermajority.

Back to top

State Assembly

All 80 seats in the California Assembly are up for election. Republicans and allied independents would need to gain seven seats to prevent Democrats from retaining a supermajority for a sixth consecutive term.

Stock index futures were mixed on Thursday, a day after Wall Street rallied following major Democratic victories in the U.S. midterm elections.

Dow futures (INDU) +0.49%, S&P 500 futures (SPX) -0.07%, and Nasdaq futures (US100:IND) -0.94%.

Wall Street’s major averages

Days ahead of New Zealand’s election, polls show the governing centre-right National Party and the opposition centre-left Labour Party neck and neck, with neither on course to win enough seats to govern alone.

The outcome of the November 7 election could be decided by smaller parties under the country’s unique electoral system.

Here is what you need to know:

How does the election work?

New Zealand holds a general election every three years under a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

Voters cast two ballots: one for a candidate in their local electorate and one for a party.

Winning candidates in each of the country’s 71 electorates take their seats automatically. There are seven electorates reserved for Maori, New Zealand’s Indigenous people. Maori voters can choose to enrol on either the Maori electoral roll or the general roll.

The party vote decides how many seats each party gets overall. About 49 more seats are filled from party lists so that each party’s share of parliament matches its proportional share of the vote.

A party needs either 5 percent of the party vote, or one electorate win, to get a seat. In New Zealand’s 120-seat parliament, a majority usually means 61.

If a party wins more electorates than its share of the party vote entitles it to, it keeps them and extra seats are added to parliament. That happened in 2023, when Te Pati Maori won six of the seven Maori electorates, but had only 3.1 percent of the overall party vote.

Because seats in parliament closely track with the party vote, one party rarely wins a majority.

Every government since the MMP system was instituted in 1996 has been a coalition headed by Labour or National, except in 2020, when Labour under then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won big and governed alone.

Who are the two main candidates?

Incumbent Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is seeking a second term.

A former Air New Zealand chief executive, he entered parliament in 2020 as the MP for the Auckland seat of Botany and became leader of the National Party a year later.

He led National back to power in 2023, promising better economic management and ending six years of Labour-led government. He now governs in a three-party coalition with New Zealand First and ACT.

But his leadership has come under pressure. He survived two attempted no-confidence votes by National MPs in April and August, the second orchestrated by his own defence minister at the time.

The challenges came as his popularity declined, with rising economic pressure and political tensions within the governing coalition.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, 48, is bidding to return to the top job.

First elected to parliament in 2008, he became prime minister in January 2023 after his predecessor, Ardern, resigned.

He lost power in an election that October but stayed on to lead Labour in opposition.

What are the key issues?

Most parties are campaigning on the economy, but their suggested remedies differ widely.

National is pledging to return the budget to surplus through fiscal discipline while expanding the national pension scheme.

Labour is focusing on the cost of living, promising cheaper healthcare and transport. It also plans to invest in jobs, housing and infrastructure, and to strengthen public services.

Smaller parties on both sides are taking aim at power companies and supermarkets. The right-wing populist New Zealand First party wants to break up major electricity companies and split one of the largest supermarket operators in two.

The Greens want a state-owned power company, a publicly owned supermarket chain and tougher rules against excessive grocery prices. They are also calling for a wealth tax and higher taxes on big companies and banks, while cutting income tax for most people.

Opportunity, a centrist party, wants a land value tax.

Immigration and voting rights are on the agenda too. ACT wants to deport serious offenders regardless of how long they have lived in New Zealand. New Zealand First is seeking to restrict voting to citizens. Currently, the right to vote also extends to legal residents who have lived in New Zealand for more than 12 months continuously.

Why is there no clear winner?

The real contest is between two rival blocs. National would need both its current coalition partners again, while Labour would depend on the Greens and possibly Opportunity.

Recent polls show no clear winner. A handful of seats either way could decide who governs.

That makes the 5 percent threshold for party participation in parliament crucial. If a smaller party narrowly misses it and also wins no electorate, its votes produce no seats, which could cost its bloc the majority.

Opportunity, for example, must either clear the 5 percent threshold of party votes or win an electorate for its votes to help Labour secure a majority coalition.

The final size of parliament is another unknown. Polls suggest Te Pati Maori may again win more electorates than its share of the party vote entitles it to, adding extra seats.

Each extra seat raises the bar for a majority. If parliament grows to 122 seats, a bloc would need 62 to govern instead of 61.

Who are the smaller parties?

New Zealand First is led by Winston Peters, who has said he wants the country to leave the Paris climate agreement and the central bank to target employment and inflation.

ACT, led by David Seymour, describes itself as a classical liberal, right-libertarian party. It holds 11 of parliament’s 123 seats.

The Greens, a left-leaning environmental party led jointly by Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson, have made social justice, living costs, nature and political funding reform their central themes.

They also want to expand home insulation and offer zero-interest loans for household solar panels and batteries.

Te Pati Maori is co-led by Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Its campaign has centred on enrolling more voters on the Maori electoral roll, housing, health, education, environmental protection and constitutional transformation.

Opportunity, founded by economist Gareth Morgan in 2016, has never won a seat in parliament, peaking at 2.6 percent of the vote in 2017.

Its leader, Auckland businesswoman Qiulae Wong, says the party is neither left nor right and is focused on boosting economic growth.

Who will be the kingmakers?

Smaller parties often end up deciding which of the two main parties governs.

In 2017, although National won 56 seats to Labour’s 46, it could not form a majority. Labour took power instead by forming a coalition with New Zealand First, supported by the Greens.

New Zealand First has played kingmaker for both sides, having also backed National after the 1996 election, the first held under MMP.

Te Pati Maori, now in opposition, has helped the two main parties govern too, supporting National-led governments after the 2008, 2011 and 2014 elections.

The role can secure senior posts in government for the junior parties. Winston Peters secured the role of deputy prime minister in Luxon’s government until May 2025, and ACT’s David Seymour has held the job since mid-2025.

This time, the newest potential kingmaker is Opportunity. If Labour needs its seats to govern, the party would play the role for the first time, a decade after it was founded.

Democrats regained control of both chambers of the United States Congress in this year’s midterm elections, with a wave of victories that party leader Hakeem Jeffries likened to an “American tsunami”.

But as of Wednesday night, two US Senate races remain undecided.

A cliffhanger in the southeastern state of Mississippi and a scandal-plagued Alaska race are the final Senate contests to be tallied.

As it stands, the Democrats will usher in the 120th Congress on January 3 with a majority of at least 54 seats in the 100-member Senate.

If they win both Mississippi and Alaska, they will need fewer Republican breakaways to avoid the filibuster, a means by which the minority party can indefinitely stall legislation in the chamber. Filibusters can be avoided with a 60-member vote.

So, why are Alaska’s and Mississippi’s Senate races still up in the air? Al Jazeera breaks it down with this brief explainer.

What’s the hold-up in Mississippi?

The Republican stronghold of Mississippi was an unlikely Senate battleground this year.

The last time the state voted for a Democratic president was in 1976. The last time it elected a Democrat to statewide office was more than a decade ago, in 2015.

But the race between incumbent Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, and her Democratic challenger, Scott Colom, proved tighter than expected.

The contest remains too close to call, with both candidates holding about 49 percent of the vote, according to The Associated Press (AP) news agency. Ninety-six percent of the ballots have been counted so far.

As of Wednesday night, Colom was leading Hyde-Smith by a razor-thin margin of 1,138 votes, with a few thousand provisional and mail-in absentee ballots left to be counted.

Provisional ballots, also called “affidavit ballots”, are supplied to voters whose eligibility is uncertain. This can happen when a voter fails to present the appropriate identification documents at their local polling precinct.

Mississippi allows 10 days for such votes to be processed. Mail-in ballots, meanwhile, have a window of five business days to be received after the election, according to state officials.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson counted roughly 3,600 mail-in ballots still to be tallied, along with an “unknown” number of affidavit ballots.

“Counties have 10 days from the date of the election to submit their certified results to our office, which is November 13,” Watson wrote.

In the event of a deadlock, Mississippi is the only state in the country with no formal provision that would automatically authorise a recount. The candidates would need a court order to request one.

When will we know Alaska’s results?

In the northwestern state of Alaska, the Senate race could take days or weeks to be called, owing to the state’s vast rural distances and its ranked-choice voting (RCV) system.

Democrat Mary Peltola leads incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan by a meagre 637 votes as of Wednesday night, according to AP.

The race has become one of the most closely watched in the country. Nearly a quarter of the votes remain uncounted.

Ranked-choice ballots allow Alaskan voters to number the candidates in order of preference.

But the system can result in multiple vote counts. The initial count tallies the candidates ranked as voters’ top choice. If one of those candidates gets more than 50 percent of the vote, they win the election outright.

If no candidate passes the 50 percent threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and a new round of vote-tallying commences. Supporters of the eliminated candidates see their votes redistributed to their second choice.

This process of elimination and recounting continues until one candidate ultimately wins a majority.

Alaska is one of only two states in the US to use ranked-choice voting for statewide elections, and critics blame the system for the slow vote tally.

According to Alaska’s Division of Elections, ranked-choice results will not be published until 15 days after the election, on November 18.

The state is also under a microscope due to a controversy in the Senate race. Two candidates named Dan Sullivan competed in the contest.

One, Dan S Sullivan, is the state’s incumbent senator and an ally of President Trump.

The other, Dan J Sullivan Jr, is a retired schoolteacher widely rumoured to have been a Democratic plant to draw votes away from the incumbent.

Trump’s Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to prevent Alaska from certifying its election results, claiming the second Sullivan amounted to an attempt to pervert voter choice.

But a federal judge dismissed the suit on Sunday. The Justice Department has nevertheless pledged to appeal, a prospect all the more likely if Peltola prevails in the vote count.

After Democrats’ stunning blowout in the United States midterm elections, five Republican election deniers have come up short in their races to become governor in top battleground states.

Congressman Andy Biggs in Arizona, Congressman John James in Michigan, State Treasurer Stacy Garrity in Pennsylvania and Congressman Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin all lost their gubernatorial races on Tuesday.

So too did billionaire Rick Jackson of Georgia, a state that was central to President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

All five candidates had either cast doubt on or voted to block Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 election.

Jackson, for instance, had called Biden’s win “totally ridiculous” and criticised Georgia state officials for not complying with Trump’s demands to “find” extra votes.

“Our people really let us down,” Jackson said when he was pressed on the 2020 election during a campaign event earlier this year.

In January 2021, Biggs and Tiffany voted to overturn the 2020 results as members of the US House of Representatives.

Both lawmakers also signed on to a lawsuit that sought to invalidate results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states that Biden won in that year’s contentious presidential race.

James was not in Congress when it came time to certify the 2020 election results. He had unsuccessfully run for the US Senate during that election cycle. He later made a successful bid for the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

That year, he acknowledged Biden’s victory. But he reversed his position in June, when he told podcaster Benny Johnson that the 2020 election was “rigged and manipulated”.

Garrity, who was elected to her current position in 2020, was among the right-wing politicians to campaign with Trump to reverse his election defeat.

She appeared at a rally in Pennsylvania on January 5, 2021, to call on state lawmakers to decertify the 2020 results. A day later, Trump supporters would storm the US Capitol, echoing the Republican leader’s claims of voter fraud.

Tiffany, Garrity and Jackson have since released statements or clarified their previous actions regarding the 2020 election and acknowledged that Biden won. Biggs and James, however, have not.

Al Jazeera has reached out to both of their offices for comment but has not yet heard back.

Tuesday’s midterm results are likely to have significant implications for the next presidential race in 2028.

Trump is entering the final two years of his lame-duck second term, and under the US Constitution, he is ineligible for re-election. It is unclear who will succeed him as the Republican standard-bearer.

Battleground states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all vacillated between presidential nominees of both parties in recent elections.

They will play critical roles in 2028, as the US looks to determine its next leader.

In some US states, governors play a major role in issues like voting access, election administration and efforts to redraw congressional maps.

Over the past year and a half, Trump has sought to rally state leaders to redesign congressional maps to help Republicans get elected.

Some Democratic-led states, notably California, under Governor Gavin Newsom, have responded with their own efforts at gerrymandering.

But it is unclear whether the push for redistricting will retain its momentum after Tuesday’s midterm results.

Already, Georgia’s Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican who was prevented by term limits from running in this midterm cycle, said on Wednesday that he would not call a special session of the state’s legislature to redraw the state’s congressional maps before his Democratic successor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, is sworn in.

Trump, after years of casting doubt on US elections, told The New York Times on Tuesday night that he was “absolutely willing” to accept the midterm results.

He also pledged to engage with the Democratic Party, which handily retook control of both chambers of the US Congress.

“We’ll, you know, look forward to working with them,” Trump said of the Democrats. “We’ll probably work something out.”

California is about to enter the “Becerra era,” though the governor-elect who coined that phrase has dropped few hints about what will define it.

After a decisive Tuesday night victory in the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunities: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games, implementing voter-approved housing bonds and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But a long list of challenges awaits: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless fires, floods and other natural disasters.

The optimistic 68-year-old told supporters gathered for his campaign party in West Sacramento that his mission is to “deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

“Here’s the good news,” Becerra, a Democrat, told the packed and cheering crowd. “Californians don’t expect a miracle from government; they just want government that works. A government that can build things. A government that keeps our streets clean and schools safe. Basic services delivered on time and on budget.”

Easier said than done.

“With billion-dollar deficits on the horizon … he’s going to be limited in his ability to break new ground,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked for former Gov. Gray Davis. “He’d be playing catchup on a lot of things.”

Becerra’s victory arrived during a monumental night for Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Senate and House in a stunning rebuke of the Trump administration.

California’s first directly elected Latino governor joined a wave of historic gubernatorial firsts, including Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, who will become the nation’s first Black female governor, and New Mexico Democrat Deb Haaland, the first Native American woman elected to lead a state. Voters in Florida, Nevada and Wisconsin also picked their first Black governors while Texans selected their first Latina.

After a surprising emergence from a brutal top-two primary in June, and with Republican Steve Hilton placing second, Becerra sailed to election as Newsom’s successor. In a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the matchup nearly guaranteed the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary would win.

By the time former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race following sexual assault allegations (which he has denied), many of California’s liberal kingmakers had already made their picks in the governor’s race — and they weren’t Becerra, who was not even included in a four-way endorsement from the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Newsom won his 2018 gubernatorial primary with the help of the California Nurses Assn. He also secured backing from the powerful California Teachers Assn. after pledging to pause new charter schools and strengthen oversight.

Though Democrats flocked to support Becerra as he rapidly ascended in the primary election polls, he won largely without help from unions or influential organizations such as the California Medical Assn.

“A lot of those constituencies didn’t support him until he looked inevitable,” said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an alumnus of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. “So he doesn’t owe a lot of people anything for any role they played in his campaign.”

Still, Becerra, who grew up in a working-class immigrant family, has shown a personal interest in allying with organized labor. He gave shout-outs to union locals at campaign events and has credited his father’s union construction job for giving his family of six access to healthcare while he was growing up in Sacramento.

Governors can’t please everyone, particularly when state funding is limited. Lobbyists, lawmakers and special-interest leaders will watch closely how the affable Becerra prioritizes his first budget proposal — due days after he takes office on Jan. 4 — for hints about his agenda.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton concedes the race Tuesday evening to Xavier Becerra at the Hyatt Regency Orange County in Garden Grove.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Though light on specifics, Becerra made his priorities clear during his campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction. He will take the baton from Newsom on the thorny question of who is financially responsible when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), a Becerra ally, said he has had “ongoing conversations” throughout the campaign about the incoming governor’s agenda, though he declined to elaborate.

“He certainly asked a lot of questions. He’s come to the Assembly Democratic Caucus already, engaged with members to begin that conversation and build those relations,” Rivas said. “We’ve been laser-focused on affordability and we’re going to continue to do more work in that space.”

Becerra said he would look closely at regulatory reform to lower housing and business costs.

It could be a small needle for the governor-elect to thread. Regulatory reform could mean easing some environmental protections.

Environmentalists flex considerable muscle in the state and found an ally in Newsom, though the outgoing governor’s aggressive climate agenda ran into affordability and federal challenges in recent years.

Becerra may also be sympathetic to environmental justice communities — poorer neighborhoods, often of color — that have experienced disproportionately negative effects from extraction industries such as oil drilling and mining.

He vigorously defended the state’s environmental rules as attorney general and has credited them with improving air quality and the coasts. During the only debate of the general election, Becerra criticized Hilton for proposing to unleash new oil drilling in the state.

“He wants to, he said it himself, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’” he said during a September CNN debate. “Steve, you weren’t living here in California at the time. You weren’t living in America at the time. We went through that experience. We don’t want to see our coastline damaged.”

“For it to be meaningful, there would have to be substantial regulatory resets, recalculating — I would say even updating and modernizing — some of the climate policies to make sure that they’re affordable,” said Stutzman. Schwarzenegger, his former boss, ushered in the state’s landmark cap-and-invest program, which aims to reduce planet-warming emissions.

Hilton conceded the race to Becerra but told supporters gathered at his party that he would work to break the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority in 2028. His team issued this statement in advance of a news conference scheduled for Thursday: “The election is over, but the desire for change is not.”

Becerra is expected to bring a much different governing style than Newsom. In an interview with KQED days before his election, Becerra named Govs. Pat and Jerry Brown as inspirations, citing the younger Brown’s fiscal expertise and the elder’s work to build infrastructure and grow the University of California.

“After eight years of showmanship, it will be refreshing to have a governor who actually focuses on the issues facing the state instead of his own ambition,” Maviglio said.

California Democrats dominated in pivotal congressional races in Tuesday’s election, soundly defeating or holding commanding leads over Republican candidates from the state’s northern redwood forests to the Mexican border.

The election marked the first test of California’s new congressional district lines approved under Proposition 50 in 2025, a counterpunch to President Trump’s push to get Republican-led states to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives — a GOP effort that flopped in spectacular fashion Tuesday.

“We fought fire with fire,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Wednesday. “And won.”

In the Central Valley, voters swept out Republican David Valadao, a longtime incumbent and dairy farmer in the San Joaquin Valley who batted away Democratic challengers for years. Valadao lost to Democrat Randy Villegas, a professor and school board member who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and is aligned with the Working Families Party.

In Northern California, Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley lost to former state Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat, for a newly suburban and rural seat in and around Sacramento. And in Southern California, Democrat Marni von Wilpert beat out a Republican candidate for a new district stretching across San Diego and Riverside counties. Parts of the district previously had been represented by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, a longtime politician who opted not to seek reelection.

Tuesday’s wins in California were part of a national trend, with Democrats seizing control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate and several governor seats.

As victors were declared on Wednesday morning, some political analysts downplayed Proposition 50’s effect. Instead, they credited Democrats’ success in California to voter discontent after two years of rising tariffs and gas prices, and immigration raids in the Golden State.

Democrats would have triumphed regardless, said Republican consultant Rob Stutzman, pointing to widespread anger over Republican policies, including that party’s push to retain control of the U.S. House through a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting experiment in some states.

“These are all things that activate Democrat voters, and things that alienate middle of the road voters. It’s just too much arrogance, too much power grab,” Stutzman said.

Newsom and other Democratic leaders campaigned for Proposition 50 in hopes of unseating five Republican incumbents in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation, the largest in the nation. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

Republicans’ redistricting efforts failed to reap them wins in several states, including in Texas.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map, disputed the notion that Democrats would have picked up five California congressional districts without Proposition 50 and argued Tuesday’s election showed the state was the most successful amid the nationwide redistricting wars.

“It would have been foolish for Democrats to sit back on their butts and say the future is going to take care of it,” he said, adding that Proposition 50 “crystallized” Democrats’ fight and “brought voters along.”

In another highly watched race, Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat from Merced, won reelection after easily cruising past Republican challenger Kevin Lincoln. The perennially competitive district — which stretches from Madera through Merced and includes portions of Stockton — became more favorable to Democrats after it was redrawn under Proposition 50 to add urban voters.

And in Northern California, state Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) beat out Republican Rep. James Gallagher of Yuba City, who won the seat in a special election earlier this year after the death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa. The newly configured district includes Santa Rosa, Paradise and Susanville.

In Southern California, a match-up between two longtime Republican incumbents saw Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona beat Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim.

Calvert retained about half of the voters from his former district heading into Tuesday’s election, while Kim retained about a third. The new maps under Proposition 50 created a district that consolidated conservative voters in Orange and Riverside counties.

In Los Angeles, Angela Gonzales-Torres, a democratic socialist, beat Rep. Jimmy Gomez for a district stretching from Koreatown to East L.A. and the northeast communities of Eagle Rock, Highland Park and El Sereno.

Gonzales-Torres’ victory marks a success for progressive groups, which have long targeted Gomez’s seat. The U.S. House Ethics Committee this summer announced an inquiry into Gomez, elected in 2017, over alleged “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.” He has denied wrongdoing, while acknowledging mistakes outside his marriage.

Other Democratic-against-Democratic races were too close to call, including a race for a district in Napa and Sacramento valleys between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Latino voters, whose swing to the right aided President Trump’s election in 2024, helped Democrats reclaim both chambers of Congress on Tuesday in a stunning reversal of support for Republicans.

The shift, which transpired nationwide but was especially pronounced in Texas, is seen as a rebuke of the president and his party by a group of Americans who have watched as their families and neighbors were detained by immigration agents while their cost of living shot up.

“President Trump asked voters to pretend like he was on the ballot, and our observation is that Latino voters did just by that, resoundingly rejecting his extreme policies and actions and anyone who rubber-stamped them,” said Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS, a Washington-based Latino civil rights and advocacy group.

“While the numbers are still coming in, what we know so far indicates that this will undoubtedly be the largest turnout of Latino voters ever in a midterm election,” she added.

UnidosUS on Wednesday released findings from a poll, conducted by the Los Angeles-based analytics firm BSP Research, of more than 3,000 Latinos who voted in the midterm elections. The findings showed many Latinos are independent, swing voters — 17% of 2024 Trump voters supported Democratic House candidates in this election.

Gary Segura, president of BSP Research, said on a call Wednesday with Murguía and reporters that Latino voters returned this election to historic patterns, with about two-thirds voting for Democrats and one-third voting Republican.

In 2024, Trump won more than 40% of Latino votes, many motivated by his promises to reduce prices.

This year, cost of living and inflation are by far Latino voters’ top concerns, the poll found, with more than half citing food and grocery costs as particular burdens and saying they have no money left over each month or struggle to pay bills.

Immigration was also a factor, with 90% of Latino voters supporting a balanced immigration system and a quarter of them naming ICE and immigration reform as among their top three issues, following cost of living.

“The Republican candidates on the ballot yesterday were really struggling to swim upstream against an administration with this kind of disapproval across issues,” Segura said.

GOP strategist Giancarlo Sopo said right-wing echo chambers didn’t understand that when Latinos hear “criminal illegals” they picture gang members or people who evaded Border Patrol.

“But the vast majority of immigrants without legal status did not swim the Rio Grande,” he wrote in a post on social media. “Conflating people who sneak in with asylum applicants and visa overstayers working through a labyrinthine system is turning off Hispanics.”

In Texas, voters in majority-Latino districts near San Antonio and along the border helped Democrats break Republicans’ longstanding grip on the state to win the races for governor, lieutenant governor and senator. James Talarico’s victory against Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton marks the first time a Democrat has won a Senate seat in Texas since 1988.

NBC exit polling shows that 61% of Latino men, with whom Trump had made particular inroads, voted for Talarico.

Among those casting his ballot was Ronaldo Salgado, the son of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who was killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Houston. He told MSNOW on Monday that he had placed his “I Voted” sticker on a memorial dedicated to his father.

“I always vote with my parents in mind, with my family in mind, but this year’s vote is definitely with much heavier weight on it,” he said. “I cried as I was casting my vote because I was doing it in honor of my dad.”

Bobby Pulido, a South Texas Tejano singer whose campaign strategy included performing at quinceañeras, beat Republican incumbent Rep. Monica De La Cruz by more than 20 percentage points. De La Cruz was among the battleground Republicans to warn the White House that ICE should focus on criminals and not law-abiding people.

Latino voters told the BSP Research pollsters that both parties, but especially Democrats, reached out to them more in this election cycle than in the past.

Even in districts where Democrats did not prevail, Latino votes made some races tight. In Florida, where Republican Sen. Ashley Moody narrowly won reelection and Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar holds a slim lead, Latinos also shifted left.

Doral, a municipality near Miami with the highest concentration of Venezuelans in the country, favored Trump in 2024 by 23 percentage points over Vice President Kamala Harris. On Tuesday, Doral voters chose Moody’s competitor, Angie Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, by 3 percentage points.

Nationally, about 6 in 10 Latino voters opted for the Democratic candidate in their local House race, according to an Associated Press exit poll.

The midterm was also pivotal for Latino representation among elected officials.

In the two states with the most Latino residents, Gina Hinojosa became the first Latina elected governor in Texas, and Xavier Becerra is California’s first Latino governor in more than 150 years.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus announced that it will have at least 55 members in the new Congress, making it the largest membership in the caucus’s 50-year history.

“Our representation is growing, our voices are stronger, and no one can afford to take Latino voters for granted,” caucus leaders wrote in a statement.

But representation alone won’t cut it, said Julián Castro, chief executive of the Latino Community Foundation. Latinos will look to how their votes translate into policy changes that benefit those who trusted the leaders they helped elect.

“What are they going to do about affordability?” he said on the call with UnidosUS. “What are they going to do about corruption and rooting that out? What are they going to do about ending ICE abuse and cruelty and pursuing a more balanced approach on immigration?”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is likely to become the next chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, acknowledged the responsibility that Democrats have.

“One of the big stories coming out of tonight is the enormous swing that Latino voters are now re-entrusting Democrats on,” he told MeidasTouch News. “…We have to deliver on taking on ICE. We have to deliver on passing real immigration solutions and reform.”