election

Reporting from Sacramento — The defeat of a ballot measure that would have allowed for the expansion of rent control across California has buoyed landlords and left tenants pinning their hopes on the state’s new governor for relief.

Proposition 10 failed resoundingly with nearly 62% of voters rejecting the initiative as of results tallied Wednesday. The initiative would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which bans cities and counties from implementing more aggressive forms of rent control. The result means those prohibitions remain in place.

Landlord groups, which funded a nearly $80-million opposition campaign that outraised supporters 3 to 1, said voters made their opinions clear.

“When a measure loses by double digits, that’s such a strong message,” said Debra Carlton, senior vice president at the California Apartment Assn. “Certainly, any changes to rent control or Costa-Hawkins in general will be a heavy lift after this.”

Voters reject Proposition 10, halting effort to expand rent control across the state »

Supporters of expanding rent control, however, said the campaign pushed tenant concerns to the forefront of the state’s housing debate. They’re also taking solace in a pledge from Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, who has said that he will try to strike a deal on new rent control policies upon taking office. Newsom opposed Proposition 10, saying that he preferred amending Costa-Hawkins rather than repealing it.

“What we’re seeing now is that families and seniors are being evicted, facing economic eviction right now,” said Jennifer Martinez, director of strategy for the nonprofit PICO California, a backer of Proposition 10. “That doesn’t seem to be slowing down. It seems to be growing to many more regions of the state. We need relief now.”

Martinez called the prospect of Newsom’s involvement “exciting and important.”

Voters from all parts of California opposed Proposition 10. The initiative was losing in all but one of the state’s 58 counties as of Wednesday, with only San Franciscans giving it majority support. Similarly, municipal efforts to implement some rent controls in Santa Cruz and National City, a small community south of San Diego, also appeared headed for defeat by large margins.

Tenant groups responded to Tuesday’s loss by protesting at the Santa Monica offices of Blackstone, the private equity firm that owns thousands of apartments in the state and was a major donor to the campaign against Proposition 10. At the rally, activists called on Newsom to address skyrocketing rents. Supporters also said they were open to tenant protections that were narrower than those proposed by the initiative.

Costa-Hawkins, which passed 23 years ago, prohibits local governments from implementing rent control on single-family homes, condominiums and apartments built after 1995 or earlier in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities with longstanding rent stabilization rules. It also gives landlords the right to charge rents at the market rate once a tenant in a rent-controlled unit moves out.

Proposition 10 would have repealed Costa-Hawkins entirely, leaving local governments to implement new rent stabilization rules at their discretion. In January, a legislative committee defeated a bill that also would have done away with Costa-Hawkins.

The failures show that lawmakers and advocates should take a different approach, said Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda), a coauthor of the failed rent control bill.

“When you’ve tried something twice and it didn’t pass, you’ve gotta look at other alternatives, too,” Bonta said. “You can’t have blinders on.”

Bonta said he’s hoping his colleagues would consider legislation to counter rent gouging, limit conversions of rent-controlled apartments to for-sale condominiums and amend Costa-Hawkins rather than repealing it.

But the resounding defeat of Proposition 10 might add to the landlord lobby’s already strong position.

During debate over the legislation to repeal Costa-Hawkins, Carlton told lawmakers that her group was willing to consider changes that would allow cities and counties to place rent control rules on more recently built apartments. In an interview Wednesday, Carlton said Tuesday’s result made it less likely landlord groups would agree to such amendments.

“If I were to take the pulse at the moment I’d say they’d be less inclined,” she said. “That would be the logical conclusion.”

It’s unclear what Newsom plans to do. The governor-elect did not speak publicly to reporters on Wednesday, but previously told the Sacramento Bee that he expected to deal with rent control right away.

“I will take responsibility to address the issue if [Proposition 10] does get defeated,” Newsom said.

Adding tenant protections could be part of a larger package of new housing legislation and policies that Newsom is expected to propose in the coming year. He made addressing the state’s housing affordability problems a key campaign promise. Principally, Newsom has called for the construction of 3.5 million new homes by 2025, a level of production never seen in California — at least since the state building industry began keeping statistics in the 1950s.

Some supporters of Proposition 10 have been critical of Newsom’s positions on tenant issues. A top official at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that spent $23.2 million on the pro-Proposition 10 campaign described Newsom last week as “bought and paid for by the landlords and the Realtor lobby and the developer lobby.” But Michael Weinstein, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s president, said late Tuesday that he wanted to work with the new governor before deciding whether to put another rent control initiative on the 2020 ballot.

No matter what happens at the Capitol, there will be another major rent control debate in the state in the coming years. Residents in Sacramento, California’s sixth-largest city, have qualified an initiative for the 2020 ballot that would implement rent stabilization on older apartments. Michelle Pariset, an initiative proponent who works on statewide housing issues for the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates, said she hoped a local rent control battle in the shadow of the Capitol would spur legislators to act.

“When you try to do something progressive you lose a lot of the time,” Pariset said. “But you keep fighting.”

Coverage of California politics »

[email protected]

@dillonliam

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has yet to decide if she’ll run for president in 2028. She’s also not going to dish on her former boss, Joe Biden. And her advice for a Brown-skinned person just getting into politics? There will be many situations when you walk into a meeting room and no one looks like you. Keep your chin up, your shoulders back and remember — all of us have your back.

“All of us” referred to the cheering, sold-out crowd at the Wiltern Theatre in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening who’d come to see the former Democratic presidential candidate speak about her new book, the election-campaign memoir “107 Days.” The chanted “Kamala!” “Kamala!” as she walked on stage. The outbursts of adoration continued for the next hour in eruptions of applause and supportive shout-outs (“We love you!”) as she spoke about everything from the need to pass Proposition 50 to how she coped with the devastating loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

Moderated by actor Kerry Washington, “A Conversation With Kamala Harris” was one of nearly 20 stops on a tour that’s already seen Harris speak in New York, London and at the Wiltern last month. Zealous attendees paid anywhere from $55 to $190 on tickets to see Harris again following “one of the wildest and most consequential campaigns in American history” (the latter is an official descriptor for her book). The memoir details her historically short run for president, the whirlwind 107 days between the time Biden withdrew from the race and Harris become the Democratic nominee to her devastating loss on Nov. 5.

Harris fans flock to the Wiltern to see Kamala speak about her book, “107 Days.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Were there any great revelations or gotcha moments on stage Tuesday evening? Not really, but that’s not what this tour is about — at least for those who chose Harris over watching Game 4 of the World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays. The former attorney general of California shared her thoughts about the current Department of Justice — a “thin-skinned president” is using it as his own personal tool of “vengeance.” She explained how her loyalties to Biden may have cost her votes, and called out the Washington Post and the L.A. Times, whose “billionaire owners pre-capitulated” to Trump when they pulled their respective editorial boards’ endorsements for Harris. She drew a big laugh when discussing the importance of parsing fact from fiction in today’s mediaverse, and made up her own example of misinformation: “Circumcisions are causing autism!” And on a more serious note, she detailed the emotional fallout she experienced after losing the election: “For months [she and her husband, Doug Emhoff] never even mentioned it.”

Criticisms of Harris’ book have centered around a frankly tired refrain that she should accept more personal accountability for the election loss as opposed to blaming the influence of outside forces. On Tuesday she appeared willing to explore those themes when she said she constantly interrogated herself on the campaign trail: Are you doing everything you can to win this election? But before she could go much deeper, Washington told her that she needed to know that we, the audience, understood she did everything she could. The crowd erupted in affirming shouts and applause.

Clearly, a book tour attended by The Converted is not going to produce headline-worthy grist, especially with an interviewer who is an admitted Harris friend and supporter. That’s what debates and media interviews are for, and this was a fan event.

And her base was thirsty. Since Harris has largely stayed out of the spotlight since last November, the audience appeared ready to relive some of the joy they felt in the brief time she was running for office, and perhaps find a glimmer of hope in dark times for those who see the current administration’s actions as anti-democratic, at best.

Before “The Conversation With Kamala Harris” kicked off at 7 p.m., attendees who spotted Harris’ husband, Emhoff, in the first few rows of the venue lined up to shake his hand and take selfies with the former second gentleman of the United States. The close access to SGOTUS was surprising, given the heightened security around political figures after violent events such as the home-invasion assassinations of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband in June, and the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a speaking event last month. Yet the atmosphere was casual and relaxed.

Despite heightened threats of politically-motivated violence, President Trump pulled Harris’ Secret Service detail, as he has done to many of those he sees as his enemies. But as a former state office holder, Harris’ security detail Tuesday was provided by the California Highway Patrol.

The conversation lasted a little over an hour, with a few prescreened questions at the end from audience members, such as the query from an attendee who identified himself as Ramon Chavoya, a proud Latino. He asked for Harris’ advice on getting into local politics. She was the first Black and first South Asian female candidate to be chosen by either party to run for the Oval Office. Her very presence was a reminder that the face of the nation is changing, despite a rise in xenophobic movements and legislation. She advised the aspiring young politician that he would likely stand out, but that he wasn’t alone. “We’re all in the room with you,” she said, a sentiment Harris’ supporters surely understood.

Oct. 30 (UPI) — The centrist liberal Democrats 66 surged in Wednesday’s Dutch elections, finishing in a virtual tie with the far-right Party for Freedom for most seats in parliament, according to reports.

The PVV and D66 were poised to win 26 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, The NL Times and Dutch News reported.

D66 had received several thousand votes more than PVV, though vote counting was ongoing. About 98% of the votes had been counted. Turnout was 78.4%.

The vote is being viewed as a refutation of the PVV and its leader, Geert Wilders, as they lost 11 seats. The party had 37 seats from the 2023 general election.

D66 picked up 17, from the nine seats it held following the last election.

With no party winning a majority, a coalition government will need to be formed, the leader of which is currently uncertain, though D66’s leader, Rob Jetten, appears a likely candidate.

If Jetten is named prime minister, he would not only he the country’s youngest prime minister in modern history at 38 years of age but the first to be openly gay.

“The positive forces have won!” Jetten said on X.

“I want to get to work for all Dutch people, because this is the land of us all!”

Wilders took to social media to declare: “The voter has spoken.”

“We had hoped for a different outcome but we kept our backs straight,” he said.

“We are more determined to fight than ever and still the second and perhaps even largest party of the Netherlands.”

The D66 ran on a platform of “freedom for everyone, but nobody left behind” that emphasized housing and education, climate and energy issues and healthcare with an emphasis on strengthening democracy.

“We are social liberals,” an English-language party report states. “This means that for us, freedom is only real when everyone has the opportunity to truly be free.”

On the other side of the political aisle, the anti-Islam PVV took a hardline stance on most issues, including immigration, such as tightening asylum rules and strengthening border policies.

“Islam, without exception, is the greatest existential threat to our freedom,” the PVV said in a report on its policies. “Worldwide, Islam is the breeding ground for extremism, oppression and terror.”

The party is ultranationalist and stands against funding asylum, developing nations, Ukraine‘s defense, the European Union and the fight against climate change.

“A shopping cart full of groceries at a normal price, being able to turn on the heater without fainting at the energy bill, a roof over your head, affordable healthcare where visiting a doctor or dentist isn’t punished financially, a decent old-age pension — that is the Netherlands of the PVV,” it said.

The right-leaning People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy was poised to pick up the third-most seats in the election with 22 seats followed by the Christian Democratic Appeal party with 18.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan is expected to win the election as the two main opposition parties have been barred from taking part.

Polls have opened in Tanzania for presidential and parliamentary elections being held without the leading opposition party, as the government has been violently cracking down on dissent ahead of the vote.

More than 37 million registered voters will cast their ballots from 7am local time (4:00 GMT) until 4pm (13:00 GMT). The election commission says it will announce the results within three days of election day.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan, 65, is expected to win after candidates from the two leading opposition parties were barred from standing.

The leader of Tanzania’s main opposition party, Chadema’s Tundu Lissu, is on trial for treason, charges he denies. The electoral commission disqualified Chadema in April after it refused to sign an electoral code of conduct.

The commission also disqualified Luhaga Mpina, the candidate for the second largest opposition party, ACT-Wazalendo, after an objection from the attorney general, leaving only candidates from minor parties taking on Hassan.

In addition to the presidential election, voters will choose members of the country’s 400-seat parliament and a president and politicians in the semiautonomous Zanzibar archipelago.

Hassan’s governing party Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), whose predecessor party led the struggle for independence for mainland Tanzania in the 1950s, has dominated national politics since its founding in 1977.

Hassan, one of just two female heads of state in Africa, won plaudits after coming to power in 2021 for easing repression of political opponents and censorship that proliferated under her predecessor, John Magufuli, who died in office.

But in the last two years, rights campaigners and opposition candidates have accused the government of unexplained abductions of its critics.

She maintains her government is committed to respecting human rights and last year ordered an investigation into the reports of abductions. No official findings have been made public.

Stifling opposition

UN human rights experts have called on Hassan’s government to immediately stop the enforced disappearance of political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists “as a tool of repression in the electoral context”.

They said more than 200 cases of enforced disappearance had been recorded in Tanzania since 2019.

A recent Amnesty International report detailed a “wave of terror” including “enforced disappearance and torture … and extrajudicial killings of opposition figures and activists”.

Human Rights Watch said “the authorities have suppressed the political opposition and critics of the ruling party, stifled the media, and failed to ensure the electoral commission’s independence”.

US crisis-monitoring group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) said the ruling CCM was intent on maintaining its status as the “last hegemonic liberation party in southern Africa” and avoiding the recent electoral pressures faced by counterparts in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

In September 2024, the body of Ali Mohamed Kibao, a member of the secretariat of the opposition Chadema party, was found after two armed men forced him off a bus heading from Dar-es-Salaam to the northeastern port city of Tanga.

There are fears that even members of CCM are being targeted. Humphrey Polepole, a former CCM spokesman and ambassador to Cuba, went missing from his home this month after resigning and criticising Hassan. His family found blood stains in his home.

The Tanganyika Law Society says it has confirmed 83 abductions since Hassan came to power, with another 20 reported in recent weeks.

Protests are rare in Tanzania, in part thanks to a relatively healthy economy, which grew by 5.5 percent last year, according to the World Bank, on the back of strong agriculture, tourism and mining sectors.

Hassan has promised big infrastructure projects and universal health insurance in a bid to win over voters.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s elections in recent years have been relatively free of problems, and verified cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare.

That’s not stopping Republicans from pushing for major changes in the way the state conducts its voting.

Maine is one of two states with election-related initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot but is putting the most far-reaching measure before voters. In Texas, Republicans are asking voters to make clear in the state constitution that people who are not U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote.

Maine’s Question 1 centers on requiring voter ID, but is more sweeping in nature. The initiative, which has the backing of an influential conservative group in the state, also would limit the use of drop boxes to just one per municipality and create restrictions for absentee voting even as the practice has been growing in popularity.

Voters in both states will decide on the measures at a time when President Trump continues to lie about widespread fraud leading to his loss in the 2020 presidential election and make unsubstantiated claims about future election-rigging, a strategy that has become routine during election years. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures have been pushing for proof of citizenship requirements to register and vote, but with only limited success.

Maine’s initiative would impose voter ID, restrict absentee voting

The Maine proposal seeks to require voters to produce a voter ID before casting a ballot, a provision that has been adopted in several other states, mostly those controlled by Republicans. In April, Wisconsin voters enshrined that state’s existing voter ID law into the state’s constitution.

Question 1 also would eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, and limit the number of drop boxes, among other changes.

Absentee voting is popular in Maine, where Democrats control the Legislature and governor’s office and voters have elected a Republican and an independent as U.S. senators. Nearly half of voters there used absentee voting in the 2024 presidential election.

Gov. Janet Mills is one of many Democrats in the state speaking out against the proposed changes.

“Whether you vote in person or by absentee ballot, you can trust that your vote will be counted fairly,” Mills said. “But that fundamental right to vote is under attack from Question 1.”

Proponents of the voter ID push said it’s about shoring up election security.

“There’s been a lot of noise about what it would supposedly do, but here’s the simple truth: Question 1 is about securing Maine’s elections,” said Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, a proponent of the measure.

A key supporter of the ballot initiative is Dinner Table PAC, a conservative group in the state. Dinner Table launched Voter ID for ME, which has raised more than $600,000 to promote the initiative. The bulk of that money has come from the Republican State Leadership Committee, which advocates for Republican candidates and initiatives at the state level through the country. Save Maine Absentee Voting, a state group that opposes the initiative, has raised more than $1.6 million, with the National Education Assn. as its top donor.

The campaigning for and against the initiative is playing out as the state and FBI are investigating how dozens of unmarked ballots meant to be used in this year’s election arrived inside a woman’s Amazon order. The secretary of state’s office says the blank ballots, still bundled and wrapped in plastic, will not be used in the election.

Texas voters consider a citizenship requirement

In Texas, voters are deciding whether to add wording to the state constitution that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and other backers said would guarantee that noncitizens will not be able to vote in elections there. State and federal laws already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote.

Thirteen states have made similar changes to their constitutions since North Dakota first did in 2018. Proposed constitutional amendments are on the November 2026 ballot in Kansas and South Dakota.

The measures have so far proven popular, winning approval with an average of 72% of the vote.

“I think it needs to sweep the nation,” said Republican state Rep. A.J. Louderback, who represents a district southwest of Houston. “I think we need to clean this mess up.”

Voters already have to attest they are U.S. citizens when they register, and voting by noncitizens, which is rare, is punishable as a felony and can lead to deportation.

Louderback and other supporters of such amendments point to policies in at least 20 communities across the country that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, though none are in Texas. They include Oakland and San Francisco, where noncitizens can cast ballots in school board races if they have children in the public schools, the District of Columbia, and several towns in Maryland and Vermont.

Other states, including Kansas, have wording in their constitutions putting a citizenship requirement in affirmative terms: Any U.S. citizen over 18 is eligible to vote. In some states, amendments have rewritten the language to make it more of a prohibition: Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.

The article on voting in the Texas Constitution currently begins with a list of three “classes of persons not allowed to vote”: people under 18, convicted felons and those “who have been determined mentally incompetent by a court.” The Nov. 4 amendment would add a fourth, “persons who are not citizens of the United States.”

Critics say the proposed changes are unnecessary

Critics say the Maine voter ID requirement and Texas noncitizen prohibition are solutions in search of a problem and promote a longstanding conservative GOP narrative that noncitizen voting is a significant problem, when in fact it’s exceedingly rare.

In Texas, the secretary of state’s office recently announced it had found the names of 2,700 “potential noncitizens” on its registration rolls out of the state’s nearly 18.5 million registered voters.

Veronikah Warms, staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said pushing the narrative encourages discrimination and stokes fear of state retaliation among naturalized citizens and people of color. Her group works to protect the rights of those groups and immigrants and opposes the proposed amendment.

“It just doesn’t serve any purpose besides furthering the lie that noncitizens are trying to subvert our democratic process,” she said. “This is just furthering a harmful narrative that will make it scarier for people to actually exercise their constitutional right.”

In Maine, approval of Question 1 would most likely make voting more difficult overall, said Mark Brewer, chair of the University of Maine political science department. He added that claims of widespread voter fraud are unsupported by evidence.

“The data show that the more hoops and restrictions you put on voting, the harder it is to vote and the fewer people will vote,” he said.

Whittle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.

Today we’re taking a tour through the mythical Land of Election Fraud, where President Trump has built a palace of lies, imprisoning both truth and democracy.

I put it in fairy tale terms because the idea that American elections are corrupt should hold about as much credence as a magical beanstalk growing into the sky. Countless lawsuits and investigations have found no proof of these false claims.

But here we are — not only do many Americans erroneously believe that Trump won the 2020 election, but the chief water-carriers of that lie are now in powerful government positions.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it will send monitors to Los Angeles and other locations in California and New Jersey for next week’s balloting. Those who study voting and democracies warn that this could be a test run for how far Trump could go in attempting to impose his will on the 2026 midterms and perhaps the 2028 presidential election.

If you think that it is harmless coincidence that he’s stacked election deniers in key posts, or that once again California is the center of his attack on democratic norms, I have beans you may be interested in buying.

“The sending of the observers to the special election could very well be, and probably likely is, a precursor or practice run for 2026,” Mindy Romero told me. She’s an assistant professor and the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

Like others I spoke with, Romero sees a larger context to the poll monitors that has the potential to end with voter suppression.

“The Trump administration is laying a foundation, and they’re being very open about it, very clear about it,” Romero said. “They are saying that they are anticipating there to be fraud and for the election to be rigged.”

Trump put it even more clearly in a social media post on Sunday.

“I hope the DOJ pursues this with as much ‘gusto’ as befitting the biggest SCANDAL in American history!,” he wrote. “If not, it will happen again, including the upcoming Midterms. … Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is!”

To understand where all this may be headed involves digging back into Golden State history. The conspiracy underpinning election fraud claims has deep roots in California’s Proposition 187 — the anti-immigrant measure that was passed by voters in 1994 but squashed by the courts.

The far right never got over the defeat. Anti-immigrant sentiment morphed into conspiracy theory, specifically that undocumented folks were voting in huge numbers, at the behest of Democrats.

This absolutely loony bit of racist paranoia spawned an “election integrity” movement that cloaked itself as patriotism and fairness, but at heart remained doused in fear-of-brown.

Calfornia Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday he sees that Proposition 187 “playbook” at work today with “a targeting, unfortunately, of immigrants … because it creates fear in the eyes of some, in the minds of some, and it helps the Republican Party, MAGA and the Trump administration achieve their goals.”

Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are just the flip side of the coin to his election fraud claims — both at heart a part of the white Christian nationalism that his administration is now openly embracing.

Let me just say here that all Americans want fair elections and many average folks involved in election integrity efforts simply want to ensure our one-person, one-vote system stays honest — regardless of race or anything else. No hate on them at all. It’s the funders and organizers of many voter witch-hunt efforts that draw my ire, because they exploit that reasonable wish for fairness for their own dark agenda.

And that agenda increasingly appears to be the end of free and fair elections, while maintaining the appearance of them — the classic authoritarian way of ruling with the seeming consent of the people. Remember, Russia still holds elections.

“To have real control, you want to rule with a velvet glove,” Romero said. “That velvet glove can come off, and the people know it can come off,” but mostly, you want them to comply because it feels like “just what has to be.”

So how exactly would we get from poll monitors, a reasonable and established norm, to something as dire as an election that is rigged, or that is so chaotic the average person doesn’t know the truth?

It starts with introducing doubt into the system, which Trump has done. To be fair, with Proposition 50, the Election Rigging Response Act, Democrats now fear rigged elections, too.

But Gowri Ramachandran, the director of elections and security in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Elections and Government Program, told me her “biggest fear” is that those election deniers whom Trump elevated to official roles “now have the platform of the federal government.”

For that reason, “information about elections [that] comes out of the federal government right now, I think everyone’s going to have to take it with a really big grain of salt,” she said.

So we come out of the California 2025 special election unable to trust the federal government’s take on it, with one year until the midterm elections that will determine whether or not Trump’s power remains unfettered.

Maybe everything turns out fine, but there’s a string of other maybes where it doesn’t.

Let’s say Trump tries to declare an end to mail-in ballots and early voting, both of which increase turnout for lower-income folks who don’t have time to line up. Trump tried that earlier this year, though courts blocked it.

What does the 2026 election look like if you have to line up in person to vote if you want to be sure it counts, with ICE potentially around the block rounding up citizens and noncitizens alike? And the government requiring that you have multiple forms of identification, all with matching names (take that, married women), and even military “guarding” the polls?

Kind of intimidating, huh?

But let’s say the election happens anyway. And let’s say Republicans lose enough congressional seats to put Democrats in control of the House. But let’s say the federal government claims there is so much fraud, it has to be investigated before any results can be considered official.

Private groups sue on both sides. Half the country believes Trump, half the country believes the secretaries of state, like California’s Shirley Weber, charged with managing the results.

In that chaos, the newly elected Democratic representatives head to Washington, D.C., to get to work, only to have House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refuse to swear them in — no differently than he is currently doing with elected Arizona Rep. Adelita Grijalva, who has promised to vote to release the Epstein files if Johnson ever does his job.

Romero calls that scenario “not even … that big of a stretch.”

Congress comes to a halt, not enough members sworn in to function, which is just fine by Trump.

And voila! The vote is suppressed by confusion, chaos and the velvet glove, because of course it’s reasonable to want to know the truth before we move forward.

So monitor away. Watch the polls and watch the watchers, and protect the vote.

But don’t buy the beans.

Supporters of Proposition 50, California Democrats’ ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts to help the party’s effort to take power in the U.S. House of Representatives, raised more than four times the money as their rivals in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee supporting the redistricting measure raised $36.8 million between Sept. 21 and Oct. 18, bringing their total to $114.3 million, according to the report filed with the Secretary of State’s office on Thursday, which was not available until Monday. They had $37.1 million in the bank and available to spend before the Nov. 4 special election.

“We have hit our budget goals and raised what we need in order to pass Proposition 50,” Newsom emailed supporters on Monday. “You can stop donating.”

The two main opposition groups raised a total of $8.4 million during the 28 days covered by the fundraising period, bringing their total haul to $43.7 million. They had $2.3 million cash on hand going into the final stretch of the campaign.

“As Gavin Newsom likes to say, we are not running the 90-yard dash here. We’ve seen a groundswell of support from Californians who understand what’s at stake if we let [President] Trump steal two more years of unchecked power,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign. “But we are not taking anything for granted nor taking our foot off the gas. If we want to hold this dangerous and reckless president accountable, we must pass Prop. 50.”

Newsom and other California Democrats decided to ask voters to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, which are currently drawn by a voter-approved independent commission, in a middecade redistricting after Trump urged GOP-led states to redraw their districts in an effort for Republicans to retain control of Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The balance of power in the narrowly divided House will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years of office, or is the focus of investigations and possibly an impeachment effort.

Major donors supporting Proposition 50 include billionaire financier George Soros, the House Majority PAC – the campaign arm of congressional Democrats – and labor unions.

Among the opponents of Propostion 50, longtime GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, and the Congressional Leadership Fund – Republicans’ political arm in the House – were top contributors.

“While we are being outspent, we’re continuing to communicate with Californians the dangers of suspending California’s gold-standard redistricting process,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the committee funded by Munger. “With just ten days to go, we are encouraging all voters to make their voice heard and to vote.”

Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the committee that received $5 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, said the organization was committed to continue to raise money to block Newsom’s redistricting effort in the days leading up to the election.

“His costly power grab would silence millions of Californians and deny them fair representation in Congress, which is why grassroots opposition is gaining momentum,” Hockenbury said. “In the final push, our data-driven campaign is strategically targeting key voters with our message to ensure every resource helps us defeat Prop. 50.”

There are several other committees not affiliated with these main campaign groups that are receiving funding. Those include one created by billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who donated $12 million, and the California Republican Party, which received $8 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund.

These reports come a little more than a week before the Nov. 4 special election. More than 4 million mail ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties returned 21% of the ballots that have been received.

The turnout figures are alarming Republicans leaders.

“If Republicans do not get out and vote now, we will lose Prop 50 and Gavin Newsom will control our district lines until 2032,” Orange County GOP chairman Will O’Neill wrote to party members on Friday, urging them to cast ballots this past weekend and sharing the locations of early voting centers in the county.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was more blunt on social media.

“Right now we’re losing the fight against Prop 50 in CA, but turnout is LOW,” he posted on the social media platform X on Friday. “If every Republican voter gets off their ass, returns their ballot and votes NO, we WIN. IT. IS. THAT. SIMPLE.”

More than 18.9 million ballots are outstanding, though not all will be completed. Early voting centers opened on Saturday in 29 California counties.

“Think of Election Day as the last day to vote — not the only day. Like we always do, California gives voters more days and more ways to participate.” said Secretary of State Shirley Weber in a statement. “Don’t Delay! Vote today!”

The U.S. Dept. of Justice announced Friday that it plans on monitoring polling sites in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties at the request of the state GOP.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

Newsom, in a post on X on Friday, said the Trump administration is sending election monitors to polling places in California as part of a broader effort to stifle the vote, particularly among Californians of color, in advance of next year’s midterm election.

“This is about voter intimidation. This is about voter suppression,” Newsom said, predicting that masked border agents would likely be present at California polling places through the Nov. 4 election. “I hope people understand it’s a bridge that they’re trying to build the scaffolding for all across this country in next November’s election, they do not believe in fair and free elections. Our republic, our democracy, is on the line.”

SACRAMENTO — Atty. General Rob Bonta said Monday that he anticipates the Trump administration, which last week announced plans to use federal election monitors in California, will use false reports of voting irregularities to challenge the results of the Nov. 4 special election.

Bonta, California’s top law enforcement officer, said on a call with reporters that he is “100%” concerned about false accusations of wrongdoing at the polling places.

Bonta said it would be “naive” to assume Trump would accept the results of the Nov. 4 election given his history of lying about election outcomes, including his loss to President Biden in 2020.

The attorney general also warned that Trump’s tactics may be a preview of what the country might see in the 2026 election, when control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and the fate of Trump’s controversial political agenda — will be at stake.

“All indications, all arrows, show that this is a tee-up for something more dangerous in the 2026, midterms and maybe beyond,” Bonta said.

The U.S. Department of Justice last week announced it would send election monitors to five California counties where voters are casting ballots in the Proposition 50 election to decide whether to redraw state’s congressional boundaries.

Federal election monitors will visit sites across Southern California and in the Central Valley, in Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties, the Justice Department said last week.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move an “intimidation tactic” aimed at suppressing support for Proposition 50 and inappropriate federal interference in a state election.

While federal monitoring is routine, particularly in federal elections, it recently has been viewed with heightened skepticism from both parties. When the Justice Department under President Biden announced monitoring in 86 jurisdictions across 27 states during last November’s presidential election, some Republican-led states balked and sought to block the effort.

Democrats have been highly suspect of the Trump administration’s plans for monitoring elections, in part because of Trump’s relentless denial of past election losses — including his own to Biden in 2020 — and his appointment of fellow election deniers to high-ranking positions in his administration, including in the Justice Department.

The California Republican Party requested the election monitors and cited several concerns about voting patterns and issues in several counties, according to a letter it sent to the Dept. of Justice.

Bonta, in his remarks Monday questioned the GOP claims, and denied the existence of any widespread fraud that would require federal election monitors. He compared the monitors to Trump’s decision to dispatch the National Guard to Democratic-led cities, despite an outcry from local politicians who said the troops were not necessary.

More broadly, Bonta told reporters that the Trump administration appears to be ready to fight the Nov. 4 results if Prop. 50 passes.

“People vote and you accept the will of the voters — that’s what democracy is. But that’s not what they’re teeing themselves up to do based on everything that we’ve seen, everything that’s been said,” said Bonta, describing Trump’s recent call on social media for Republicans to “wake up.”

Bonta also said that the state would dispatch observers — potentially from his office, the secretary of state and county registrars — to watch the federal monitors at polling places.

Early voting has already started in California, with voters deciding whether to temporarily reconfigure the state’s congressional district boundaries. The Democratic-led California Legislature placed the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot in an effort to increase their party’s numbers in the U.S. House of Representatives .

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other backers of the measure have said they generally support independent redistricting processes and will push for nonpartisan commissions nationwide, but argued that Democrats must fight back against Trump’s current efforts to have Republican states reconfigure their congressional districts to ensure the GOP retains control of Congress after the 2026 election.

Natalie Baldassarre, a spokesperson for the U.S. Dept. of Justice, declined to comment on Bonta’s remarks. Baldassarre also declined to say how many election monitors would work in California.

Federal election monitors observe polling places to ensure compliance with the federal voting rights laws, and are trained to observe and act as “flies on the wall,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan and nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, in an interview last week.

“Generally, what you do is walk inside, stay off to the side, well away from where any voters are, and take some notes,” said Becker, an attorney who formerly worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

A crackdown by armed forces in Cameroon has killed at least four opposition supporters amid protests over the declared re-election win by President Paul Biya.

Protesters calling for fair results from the African country’s contested presidential election held on October 12 have hit the streets in several cities as 92-year-old Biya prepares for an eighth term, which could keep him in power until 2032 as he nears 100.

Biya, whose election win was finally confirmed by Cameroon’s Constitutional Council on Monday, is Africa’s oldest and among the world’s longest ruling leaders. He has spent 43 years – nearly half his life – in office. He has ruled Cameroon, a country of 30 million people, as president since 1982 through elections that political opponents said have been “stolen”.

What’s behind the deadly protests?

Supporters of opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma Bakary of the Front for the National Salvation of Cameroon party have defied a ban on protests, setting police cars on fire, barricading roads and burning tyres in the financial capital, Douala, before the announcement of the election result. Around 30 activists have been arrested.

Police fired tear gas and water cannon to break up the crowds that came out in support of Tchiroma, who had declared himself the real winner, and called for Biya to concede.

Samuel Dieudonne Ivaha Diboua, the governor of the region that includes Douala, told the AFP news agency that the protesters attacked police stations in the second and sixth districts of the city.

Several members of the security forces were wounded, and “four people unfortunately lost their lives,” he said. Tchiroma’s campaign team confirmed the deaths on Sunday were of protesters.

Opposition supporters claim the results of the election have been rigged by Biya and his supporters in power. In the lead-up to the announcement of the result, the current government rejected these accusations and urged people to wait for the result.

Who is the main opposition in Cameroon?

The Union for Change is a coalition of opposition parties that formed in September to counter Biya’s dominance of the political landscape.

The forum brought together more than two dozen political parties and civil society groups in opposition to Biya with an aim to field a consensus candidate.

In September, the group confirmed Tchiroma as its consensus candidate to run against Biya.

Tchiroma, 76, was formerly part of Biya’s government, holding several ministerial positions over 16 years. He also served as government spokesperson during the years of fighting the Boko Haram armed group, and he defended the army when it stood accused of killing civilians. He was once regarded as a member of Biya’s “old guard” but has campaigned on a promise of “change”.

What happened after the election?

After voting ended on October 12, Tchiroma claimed victory.

“Our victory is clear. It must be respected,” he said in a video statement posted on Facebook. He called on Biya to “accept the truth of the ballot box” or “plunge the country into turmoil”.

Tchiroma claimed that he had won the election with 55 percent of the vote. More than 8 million people were registered to vote in the election.

On Monday, however, the Constitutional Council announced Biya as the winner with 53.66 percent of the vote.

It said Tchiroma was the runner-up with 35.19 percent.

Announcing the results on Monday, the council’s leader, Clement Atangana, said the electoral process was “peaceful” and criticised the opposition for “anticipating the result”.

What are the main criticisms of Biya?

Under Biya’s rule, Cameroon has struggled with myriad challenges, including chronic corruption that critics say has dampened economic growth despite the country being rich in resources such as oil and cocoa.

The president, who has clinched wins in eight heavily contested elections held every seven years, is renowned for his absenteeism as he reportedly spends extended periods away from the country.

The 92-year-old appeared at just one campaign rally in the lead-up to this month’s election when he promised voters that “the best is still to come.”

He and his entourage are often away on private or medical treatment trips to Switzerland. An investigation in 2018 by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project found Biya had spent at least 1,645 days (nearly four and a half years) in the European country, excluding official visits, since being in power.

Under Biya, opposition politicians have frequently accused electoral authorities of colluding with the president to rig elections. In 2008, parliament voted to remove the limit on the number of terms a president may serve.

Before the election, the Constitutional Council barred another popular opposition candidate, Maurice Kamto of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement, from running.

Some opposition leaders and their supporters have been detained by police on a slew of charges, including plotting violence.

On Friday, two prominent leaders, Anicet Ekane and Djeukam Tchameni of the Union for Change, were arrested.

The African Movement for New Independence and Democracy party also said its treasurer and other members had been “kidnapped” by local security forces, a move it claimed was designed “to intimidate Cameroonians”.

Analysts also said Biya’s hold on power could lead to instability when he eventually goes.

What is the security situation in Cameroon?

Since 2015, attacks by the armed group, Boko Haram, have become more and more frequent in the Far North Region of the country.

Furthermore, since gaining independence in 1960 from French rule, Cameroon has struggled with conflict rooted in the country’s deep linguistic and political divisions, which developed when French- and English-speaking regions were merged into a single state.

French is the official language, and Anglophone Cameroonians in the northwest and southwest have felt increasingly marginalised by the Francophone-dominated government in Yaounde.

Their grievances – over language, education, courts and distribution of resources – turned into mass protests in 2016 when teachers and lawyers demanded equal recognition of English-language institutions.

The government responded with arrests and internet blackouts, and the situation eventually built up to an armed separatist struggle for an independent state called Ambazonia.

The recent presidential election was the first to take place since the conflict intensified. Armed separatists have barred the Anglophone population from participating in government-organised activities, such as National Day celebrations and elections.

As a result, the Southwest and Northwest regions saw widespread abstention in voting on October 12 with a 53 percent turnout. The highest share of votes, according to the official results, went to Biya: 68.7 percent and 86.31 percent in the two regions, respectively.

What will happen now?

Protests are likely to spread, observers said.

After the deaths of four protesters before the results were announced, Tchiroma paid tribute “to those who fell to the bullets of a regime that has become criminal during a peaceful march”.

He called on Biya’s government to “stop these acts of barbarity, these killings and arbitrary arrests”.

“Tell the truth of the ballots, or we will all mobilise and march peacefully,” he said.

President Trump urged California voters on Sunday not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early in the California election about redistricting — the direct opposite of the message from state GOP leaders.

Repeating his false claim that former President Biden beat him in 2020 because the election was rigged, Trump argued that the November special election about redistricting in California would be rigged, as would the 2026 midterm election to determine control of Congress.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

Proposition 50, a ballot measure proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost their party’s ranks in the U.S. House of Representatives, is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The rare mid-decade redistricting effort was in response to Trump urging GOP-led states, initially Texas, to increase the number of Republicans in the House in the 2026 midterm election to allow him to continue implementing his agenda in his final two years in the White House.

Newsom responded to Trump on X: “Ramblings of an old man that knows he’s going to LOSE.”

Trump has not weighed in on the merits of Proposition 50, while prominent Democrats who support it have, including former President Obama.

More than 4 million mail-in ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

Early-voting centers also opened in 29 counties on Saturday.

Turnout figures were alarming Republicans leaders before Trump’s message.

“It’s simple. Republicans need to stop complaining and vote. We ask and ask and ask and yet turnout still lags,” the San Diego GOP posted on X. “To win this one GOP turnout needs to be materially better than average. It’s very doable but won’t just happen. Work it.”

Republicans historically voted early while Democrats were more likely to cast ballots on election day. Trump upended this dynamic, creating dissonance with GOP leaders across the nation who recognized the value of banking early votes. And it completely contradicts the messaging by the opponents of Proposition 50.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the state GOP and leader of the “No on Prop. 50 — Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee, has been a longtime proponent of urging Republican voters to cast ballots as early and conveniently as possible.

“Sacramento politicians rushed this costly election for partisan gain, and mistakes have been made,” she said Sunday evening. “If Californians want change from our state’s failed one-party rule, it starts by turning out to vote no on Proposition 50.”

Deadly clashes have broken out in Cameroon after opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma declared victory in an election yet to publish results. Tchiroma urged his supporters onto the streets to demand President Paul Biya, the world’s oldest serving ruler, step aside after over 43 years in power.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei sang to his supporters after early results showed he had won the country’s midterm elections, bolstering his push for radical economic reforms closely watched by the US.

Hundreds of supporters of opposition presidential candidate Issa Tchiroma accuse President Paul Biya’s government of seeking to rig the vote.

At least two people have been killed by gunfire in Cameroon, as protesters rallied a day before the announcement of presidential election results, the opposition campaign has said.

Hundreds of supporters of opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma barricaded roads and burned tyres in Cameroon’s commercial capital Douala on Sunday. Police fired tear gas and water cannon to break up the crowds. A police car was also burned.

The protesters say Tchiroma beat veteran leader Paul Biya, 92, in the October 12 polls and have accused authorities of preparing to rig the election.

Protests have flared in several cities, including the capital Yaounde, Tchiroma’s hometown Garoua, as well as Maroua, Meiganga, Bafang, Bertoua, Kousseri, Yagoua, Kaele, and Bafoussam.

The demonstrations came after partial results reported by local media showed that Biya was on course to win an eighth term in office.

During the counting process, according to the figures, Tchiroma was declared the winner. But during the national count, the electoral commission announced that Biya would be the winner, which Tchiroma disputes.

He claims that he has won the elections and that he has evidence to prove it, which led to a call for national demonstrations to demand the truth about the ballot boxes.

‘We want Tchiroma’

“We want Tchiroma, we want Tchiroma!” the protesters chanted in Douala’s New Bell neighbourhood. They blocked roads with debris and threw rocks and other projectiles at security forces.

Reuters news agency reporters saw police detain at least four protesters on Sunday.

Cameroon’s government has rejected opposition accusations of irregularities and urged people to wait for the election result, due on Monday.

Earlier on Sunday, Tchiroma’s campaign manager said authorities had detained about 30 politicians and activists who had supported his candidacy, heightening tensions.

Among those he said were detained were Anicet Ekane, leader of the MANIDEM party, and Djeukam Tchameni, a prominent figure in the Union for Change movement.

Cameroon’s Interior Minister Paul Atanga Nji said on Saturday that arrests had been made in connection with what he described as an “insurrectional movement,” though he did not say who – or how many – had been detained.

Biya is the world’s oldest serving ruler and has been in power in Cameroon since 1982. Another seven-year term could keep him in power until he is nearly 100.

Tchiroma, a former minister and one-time Biya ally, has said that he won and that he will not accept any other result.

In a sign of California’s rising status as a major hub of Democratic politics, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday he’s considering a run for president in 2028 — just a day after former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris made the same pronouncement.

Newsom, a Democrat who has won national prominence this year pitching himself a leader of the resistance to President Trump, admitted for the first time publicly that he is seriously weighing a 2028 presidential run.

In an interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

Harris said this weekend in an interview with the BBC that she expects a woman will be president in the coming year. “Possibly,” she said, it could be her.

“I am not done,” she said. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service and it’s in my bones.”

It’s still more than three years until the November 2028 election, and entirely possible only one or neither of the two California politicians could throw their hat in the race.

But the early willingness of Newsom and Harris to publicly consider a White House bid shows that the Golden State is still a major hub of Democratic politics. It also sets up a potential 2028 political showdown between two of California’s weightiest political figureheads.

For years, Newsom has denied presidential ambitions. But since Trump defeated Harris in the November 2024 election, the California governor has emerged as a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s agenda.

Under Newsom’s leadership, California has filed dozens of lawsuits against Trump — most noticeably against the Trump administration’ deployment of National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. The governor has also become more aggressive on social media, taking to X to taunt and troll Trump.

Still, Newsom, whose term ends in January 2027 and who cannot run again for governor because of term limits, cautioned that he is not rushing into a 2028 presidential campaign.

“I have no idea,” Newsom said Sunday of whether he will actually decide to run.

After Trump defeated Harris in November, Harris was viewed as a possible candidate for California governor. But in July she announced that, after “serious thought” she would not run for the top California office.

“For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office,” Harris said in a statement. “I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.”

Newsom’s interest in the White House raises the stakes for passing Proposition 50, a California ballot measure he has pushed — in response to a similar initiative in Texas — that would allow state Democrats to temporarily change the boundaries of U.S. House maps so that they are more favorable to Democrats. California voters will vote on Prop 50 in a special election next week.

Newsom has cast his effort as a response to Trump’s push to redraw maps in Republican-controlled states to make them more favorable to the GOP.

“I think it’s about our democracy,” Newsom said in the CBS interview. “It’s about the future of this republic. I think it’s about, you know, what the founding fathers lived and died for, this notion of the rule of law, and not the rule of Don.”

If Newsom is successful and Proposition 50 passes, the move could potentially help future Democratic candidates for the White House.

But either way, both Newsom and Harris would face high hurdles in battleground states if they ran for president.

Just being a Californian is a liability, some argue, at a time when Republicans depict the state as a bastion of woke ideas, high taxes and crime.

While California boasts the world’s fifth-largest economy and is home to the massive tech powerhouse of Silicon Valley and the cultural epicenter of Hollywood, it has struggled in recent years with high housing costs and massive income inequality. In September, a study found California tied with Louisiana for the nation’s highest poverty rate.

Newsom, 58, a former San Francisco mayor who was born to a wealthy and well-connected San Francisco family, suggested in the CBS interview that he had already surmounted significant obstacles. Early on, Newsom struggled in school and suffered from dyslexia.

“The idea that a guy who got 960 on his SAT, that still struggles to read scripts, that was always in the back of the classroom, the idea that you would even throw that out is, in and of itself, extraordinary,” Newsom said. “Who the hell knows? I’m looking forward to who presents themselves in 2028 and who meets that moment. And that’s the question for the American people.”

Harris, 61, who served as a U.S. senator and California attorney general before she became vice president in 2020 and then the Democratic Party’s nominee in the 2024 presidential election, received criticism last year after losing to Trump by more than 2.3 million votes, about 1.5% of the popular vote. Some Democrats accused her of being an elite, out of touch candidate who failed to connect with voters in battleground states who have struggled economically in recent years.

But speaking in Los Angeles last month as she promoted her new memoir, “107 Days,” Harris appeared to take little responsibility for her 2024 loss.

“I wrote the book for many reasons, but primarily to remind us how unprecedented that election was,” Harris said.

“Think about it. A sitting president of the United States is running for reelection and three and a half months before the election decides not to run, and then a sitting vice president takes up the mantle to run against a former president of the United States who has been running for 10 years, with 107 days to go.”

Newsom has already raised eyebrows this year by traveling to critical battleground election states.

In July, Newsom traveled more than 2,000 miles to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he was working to help the party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But at the time there were a dozen competitive House districts in California. South Carolina, a staunchly conservative state, did not have a single competitive race.

After Newsom spoke in South Carolina, Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker who rescued former President Biden’s 2020 campaign, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.”

“He’s demonstrated that over and over again,” Clyburn said, stopping short of endorsing him. “I feel good about his chances.”

But other leading South Carolina Democrats voiced doubts that Newsom could win over working class and swing voters in battleground states.

Richard Harpootlian, a South Carolina attorney, former state senator and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, called Newsom “a handsome man with great hair.”

“But the party is searching for a left-of-moderate candidate who can articulate blue-collar hopes and desires,” Harpootlian told The Times.

“If he had a track record of solving huge problems like homelessness, or the social safety net, he’d be a more palatable candidate,” he added. “I just think he’s going to have a tough time explaining why there’s so many failures in California.”