election

SACRAMENTO — As Democratic leaders in California challenge President Trump’s latest effort to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, they also must grapple with a troubling development in the last election.

A significant number of mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted in the Nov. 4 special election for Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successful measure to reconfigure the state’s congressional districts, according to state data.

Ballots came in late at an average rate four times higher than that of the 2024 election, with rural counties seeing some of the biggest increases, according to a Times review.

“Something changed,” said Melvin E. Levey, who heads the Merced County Registrar of Voters. “We don’t like seeing late ballots and if someone has made the effort to vote, we want to count it.”

Merced saw almost a sevenfold increase in late-arriving mail ballots in the November election compared with the year before.

Vote-by-mail ballots are considered late if they are not postmarked on or ahead of election day or do not arrive within seven days of election day.

The issue appears to be linked to the U.S. Postal Service, which last year reduced the number of trips to pick up mail at post offices in mostly rural areas. Election officials warned before Nov. 4 that the Postal Service changes could delay the postmarking of ballots and lead to votes not being counted.

During the Nov. 4 election in California, an average of 8 out of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected by counties because they arrived too late, according to Secretary of State data. In the 2024 general election, which included the presidential race, an average of 2 of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected for being late.

In Kern County, for example, 3,303 mail-in ballots — or 1.95% of returned mail-in ballots — were not counted in the 2025 special election because they arrived too late. In 2024, that number was 332 — or 0.14%. And in Riverside County, 5,831 ballots — or 0.95% of those mailed in — were deemed too late to count, more than double the number of late ballots rejected in 2024.

Postal Service spokesperson Cathy Purcell recommended that voters mail their ballot a week in advance of when it must be received by election officials to ensure it arrives on time.

“You should never be mailing your ballot on election day,” Purcell told The Times.

Before last’s year’s special election, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a similar warning about the delays. Anyone dropping off their ballot at a post office on election day should get it postmarked at the counter, she said.

“We don’t want anyone to just toss it into the mailbox as we have been able to do in the past and have it counted,” she said. “The Postal Service has said that they may not be counted in certain areas.”

California voter data expert Paul Mitchell expressed astonishment about the Postal Service’s guidance.

“We’ve had six, eight years of elections where people were feeling confident about mailing in their ballot,” said Mitchell, vice president of the voter data firm Political Data Inc. “Now the USPS is saying they have to mail it in a week early.”

“That is a dramatic change that can disenfranchise voters who are just following the same pattern that they’ve used in prior elections,” he added.

Democrats have been defending the vote-by-mail system in the face of Republican attacks. Trump recently signed an executive order to impose federal restrictions on mail-in ballots and, without evidence, has long criticized mail-in ballots as a source of fraud and a factor in his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

The Nov. 4 special election on Proposition 50 was the Democrats’ attempt to counter Trump’s push for Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. The ballot measure overwhelmingly passed.

Nearly 89% of votes in the Nov. 4 election were vote-by-mail ballots, according to Weber’s office. In addition to Proposition 50, tax measures were also on the ballots in some counties.

Postal Service changes

About a month before the Nov. 4 election, Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta held a news conference to encourage California voters to vote early because of service changes at the U.S. Postal Service.

Bonta told reporters that voters living 50 or more miles from six large mail processing centers in urban areas who mailed their ballots on election day would not have those ballots postmarked in time. The centers are in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.

The changes at the U.S. Postal Service are part of a 10-year plan that kicked off several years ago aimed at improving services and reducing costs at the independent federal agency.

In the 17 counties that are mostly or entirely within the 50-mile distance from the mail facilities, the average rate of late ballots doubled in the November 2025 election compared with the election the year before — from 2.5 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 5.6 per 1,000 in 2025.

But in counties that are entirely or mostly outside of the 50-mile radius, the average rate of late ballots quadrupled — from 2 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 9.3 per 1,000 in 2025, state election records show.

Similar complaints about late ballots because of the mail changes have been reported in other states, including in Snohomish County, Wash., according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Postal Services told the Times that there are “any number of factors” that may affect the timeliness of mail.

“The Postal Service has successfully delivered America’s election mail, and we are confident that we will do so again this year,” spokesperson Nikolaj Hagen said. “We rely on long-standing, robust and tested policies and procedures, which have proven successful in the secure and timely delivery of election mail.”

Hagen added that “adjustments to our transportation operations will result in some mailpieces not arriving at our originating processing facilities on the same day that they are mailed.”

Postmarks are generally applied at those processing facilities, Hagen said, so the postmark date may not reflect the date the mail was collected by a letter carrier, dropped off at a retail location, or placed in a collection box.

While the U.S. Postal Service uses postmarking as an internal tool to track the place and date the mail was accepted, outside entities also use the postmarks for their own purposes, including the Internal Revenue Service, which requires federal tax returns to be mailed by April 15.

Several U.S. senators, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), sent a letter in January to USPS Postmaster Gen. Dave Steiner warning that changes to postmarking will make it more difficult for people, particularly those in rural areas, to vote by mail and pay tax bills on time.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to put new federal controls on voting by mail in states, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters.

States must follow the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots. They also must submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.

Separately, the Republican National Committee is challenging a Mississippi law that allows ballots that arrive up to five days after election day to be accepted and counted. The case was argued before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in March.

Times staff reporter Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Former clerk Tina Peters has become a cause celebre for the election denial movement and President Donald Trump.

An appeals court in the state of Colorado has ordered the resentencing of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of involvement in an election meddling scheme in the United States.

The court overturned Peters’s nine-year prison sentence on Thursday, but not her conviction for helping to tamper with voting machines after the 2020 presidential race.

Her case has become a cause celebre for President Donald Trump and the election denial movement, after it emerged that she was seeking evidence to support Trump’s false claim that his 2020 loss was due to massive fraud.

In Thursday’s decision, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that a lower court had considered Peters’s personal beliefs when deciding upon a punishment, thereby rendering the sentence improper.

“The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the appeals court wrote.

The panel cited comments from Judge Matthew Barrett, who blasted Peters as a “charlatan” promoting “snake oil” claims.

“Her offence was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud,” the appeals court said. “It was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.”

Peters was convicted in August 2024 for helping someone from outside the government gain access to the Mesa County election system and make copies.

That person was affiliated with efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, and the copies they obtained were then shared on social media.

False claims that the 2020 election was marred by massive fraud have been a persistent fixation for Trump and his allies, even after his successful re-election in 2024.

Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his 2020 defeat were the subject of a 2023 criminal indictment brought by former special counsel Jack Smith.

He alleged that Trump led a criminal conspiracy to undermine the election process and rally supporters to overturn the results. Those charges, however, were ultimately dropped when Trump took office again in 2025, as the US Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Since his inauguration, Trump has continued to push the claims he won the 2020 race. He has also used his allegations of fraud to demand greater control over the country’s election infrastructure in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

In December, the president pardoned Peters, even though she was not in federal custody, and the presidential power of pardon does not extend to state crimes.

The appeals court panel confirmed on Thursday that Trump’s pardon had no impact on state offences.

“We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” the panel said.

State Governor Jared Polis suggested last month that he could consider clemency for Peters.

DENVER — A Colorado appeals court ruled Thursday that a former county clerk convicted in a scheme that sought to prove fraud in the 2020 presidential election should be resentenced because a judge wrongly punished her for statements protected as free speech.

Tina Peters is serving a nine-year prison term after being convicted of state crimes for sneaking in an outside computer expert to make a copy of her county’s election computer system during a software update in 2021. A photo and video of confidential voting system passwords were later posted on social media and a conservative website.

Calls for Peters’ release have become a cause celebre in the election conspiracy movement. President Trump has sought unsuccessfully to pardon Peters and pressured Colorado to set her free.

Judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld her conviction in a 74-page ruling that rejected the notion that Trump has authority to pardon her state crimes. But they said a lower court judge should not have considered Peters’ continued promotion of election fraud conspiracies when he sentenced her in 2024.

One of Tina Peters’ lawyers, John Case, said the court’s ruling affirmed the importance of free speech.

“Tina Peters was punished for words that she used to criticize our insecure and illegal voting system,” Case said. “The decision affirms that people are free to speak what they believe in Colorado as well as the rest of the United States of America.”

Case said he would likely ask at resentencing for Peters to receive the approximately 540 days she’s served already. That would allow her to be freed.

Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who has been considering granting clemency to Peters, praised the court’s decision for rejecting Trump’s pardon but upholding her free speech rights.

“This case has been very challenging and a true test of our resolve as a state to have a fair judicial system, not just for people we agree with but a fair system for Coloradans that we vehemently disagree with,” Polis said in statement.

Peters was the former clerk in Mesa County, in the far western part of Colorado, and convicted by jurors in the Republican stronghold that has supported Trump.

She was unapologetic when she was sentenced by Judge Matthew Barrett and insisted that she tried to unearth what she believed was fraud for the greater good. He ripped into her, calling her a “charlatan” who had used her position to “peddle snake oil.”

The appeals court found that Barrett violated her rights to free speech by punishing Peters for persistently alleging fraud in the 2020 election. They noted that because Peters is no longer serving as an election clerk, she can no longer engage in the conduct that led to her conviction.

“The trial court obviously erred by imposing sentence at least partially based on Peters’ protected speech,” Judge Ted Tow wrote in Thursday’s ruling.

The court sent Peters’ case back to a lower court for a judge to issue a new sentence.

Trump has threatened to take “harsh measures” against Colorado unless the state releases Peters. In February, Trump said Colorado was “suffering a big price” for refusing to release her.

Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor, has accused the Trump administration of waging a revenge campaign by choking off funds and ending federal programs over the state’s refusal to free Peters.

Weiser said in response to the ruling that the original sentence had been “fair and appropriate.”

“Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk, and threatened our democracy. Nothing will remove that stain,” Weiser said in a statement.

The Justice Department inserted itself into Peters’ bid to be released while her state appeal was considered. The federal Bureau of Prisons also tried to get Peters moved to a federal prison. After both efforts failed, Trump in December announced a pardon for Peters.

However, the appeals court judges said they could find no prior example of a president pardoning someone for a state crime. And they rejected her attorney’s claims that Peters actions had been carried out while “defending a federal interest.”

“We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” they said, adding that the president’s pardon has “no impact” on the state’s case against Peters.

The Associated Press left messages with the White House for comment.

She was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state.

Peters’ lawyers didn’t deny that she used the security badge of a local man she pretended to hire to allow an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to make a copy of the Dominion Voting Systems election computer server during an annual software update in 2021.

But they said she only wanted to preserve election data and find out whether any outside actor had accessed the system while ballots were being counted. They said she didn’t want the information made public.

Slevin and Brown write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — As President Trump assembled his Cabinet last week, he asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to give an update on the Iran war.

Rubio, known for his hawkish views, gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and the world.

Vance, who has long pushed for restraint in U.S. military intervention overseas, was more sedate. He said that the U.S. now has “options” it didn’t have a year ago and that it is important Iran does not get a nuclear weapon — before redirecting his remarks toward wishing the troops a happy Easter.

The exchange was a distillation of their diverging postures toward the war that their boss has launched in Iran. And it comes as some would-be Republican presidential candidates begin quietly courting officials in key states like New Hampshire in the early stages of the GOP’s next nomination fight.

With Vance and Rubio seen as the party’s strongest potential candidates in a 2028 primary, the two have to balance their roles in the Trump administration with their future political plans.

“It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of “The American Conservative” magazine and a vocal critic of the war. The Cabinet meeting episode was telling, he said, because it seemed as though Vance, discussing Easter, was “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war.”

The White House addressed the Rubio-Vance relationship on Wednesday in an unsolicited statement after the initial publication of this article.

“President Trump has full confidence in both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, who continue to be trusted voices within the administration,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He values both the vice president and the secretary’s opinions and wealth of expertise.”

It’s too soon to forecast how Republican voters might feel about the war next spring, when the 2028 contest is expected to begin in earnest, but the risks for both Vance and Rubio are acute. Rubio’s full-throated support for the war could come back to haunt him depending on how the conflict develops. Vance, meanwhile, would risk accusations of disloyalty if he were to stray too far from Trump, but struggles to square an appearance of support for the war with his past comments.

Vance, who served in the Marines in the Iraq war, has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but he’s long been skeptical of foreign military interventions.

Trump seemed to allude that Vance may have held onto that position in private discussions about Iran, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” at the outset of the conflict.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump said.

Though Vance has been careful in how he speaks about the war, what he’s not saying has been conspicuous. On a March 13 trip to North Carolina, he was twice asked by reporters if he had concerns about the conflict. Each time, he said it was important that Trump could have conversations with advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

A few days later at the White House, when Vance was again asked if he had concerns, he accused the reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president.”

For Rubio, long before he became the country’s chief diplomat, he voiced support for muscular foreign policy and American intervention abroad.

Days into the war, he told reporters that it was “a wise decision” for Trump to launch the operation, that there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran and that the operation “needed to happen.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott pointed to last week’s Cabinet meeting as evidence that “the entire administration is in lockstep behind President Trump.”

“Secretary Rubio is proud to be on the team implementing President Trump’s policies, and he has a great relationship, both professionally and personally, with the entire team,” Pigott said.

Fractures are emerging in the GOP

The apparent split between Rubio and Vance on the Iran war is emblematic of the divide starting to cleave within the Republican Party. A recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found some divisions within the GOP on Iran, with about half of Republicans saying the U.S. military action has been “about right.” Relatively few Republicans, about 2 in 10, say military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

While some conservatives have described the war as a betrayal, many other Republicans have cheered on the president’s actions.

Alice Swanson, a 62-year-old who attended Vance’s event in North Carolina, said she wants Vance and Rubio to run together in 2028 but favors the vice president.

“I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said.

Swanson acknowledged, nonetheless, that Vance has been an outspoken opponent of interventionist policy but has been quieter on the subject since the war. “I can see both sides,” Swanson said after expressing full support for Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, a 62-year-old from Rocky Mount, spoke highly of Rubio, but declared, “I love JD Vance.”

She made it clear she sides with the president, calling the course he’s taken “spot on.” But she defended the vice president if he seems at odds with his past statements, noting politicians do it frequently. “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another,” she said.

However, Joe Ropar, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, said Rubio’s unequivocal support for the Iran war helped crystallize his preference for the secretary of state for 2028.

“I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” said Ropar, a 72-year-old retired military contractor from McKinney, Texas. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, of Austin, Texas, said at CPAC that both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war.” The 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty is looking elsewhere for a candidate.

The political risks might not be known until the field fills out

Whether the war becomes a political problem for Vance and Rubio depends on who ultimately enters the GOP’s next presidential primary.

While Vance and Rubio are currently considered the overwhelming front-runners, former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu expects a half dozen high-profile Republicans to enter the contest.

Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron told The Associated Press that multiple Republican presidential prospects have reached out to them in recent weeks to discuss the political landscape in the state that traditionally hosts the opening presidential primary; they declined to name them.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, a top New Hampshire adviser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, predicted that Iran would become a flashpoint in 2028 — just as the Iraq war was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

“If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Still, Sununu is doubtful that Iran would become a meaningful dividing line in a prospective Vance-Rubio matchup given their status as prominent members of the Trump administration. Both will likely take credit if the conflict ends well, and both would look bad if it does not, he predicted.

“They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu said.

Price and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Bill Barrow in Rocky Mount, N.C., and Thomas Beaumont in Grapevine, Texas, contributed to this report.

President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday purporting to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

California leaders immediately responded with promises to fight the order in court. They said mail ballots are a safe and secure method for voting relied on by millions of Californians, that Trump’s order infringes on the state’s constitutional right to administer elections as it sees fit, and that it amounts to an “illegal power grab” ahead of midterm elections in which his party is poised to suffer substantial losses.

The order directs the United States Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters, and that only eligible voters return such ballots.

It requires states to submit to the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots, and to submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.

It also requires the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Social Security Administration to “compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State.”

Those lists will be drawn from federal citizenship and naturalization records, Social Security records and “other relevant Federal databases,” and the USPS will be barred from transmitting ballots that do not match those lists, the order says.

“Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters,” the order reads. “Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.”

Trump — who recently voted by mail himself in Florida — framed the order as a solution to “massive cheating” in U.S. elections currently, which he did not back up with evidence.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on,” Trump said.

“He’s going to make sure that mail-in ballots are safe secure and accurate,” said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who appeared alongside Trump and whose agency the order requires to be involved in the coordination of the new voting measures.

California officials blasted the president for attacking and undermining election integrity, rather than shoring it up, and said they would fight the order from taking effect.

“President Trump’s Executive Order marks a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in his ongoing attacks on our elections. The power to regulate elections belongs to the States and to Congress — he has no role to play. We blocked his previous Executive Order on elections in court, and we are prepared to stop him again,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

“The reality is that President Trump and Congressional Republicans see the writing on the wall — that they are likely to lose in the upcoming midterms — and they are pushing to make it harder for people to vote,” Bonta added. “We won’t stand idly by.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in a statement to The Times, said Trump’s actions were “a clear and present threat to our democracy,” that he will “use every tool I can to stop him,” and that he expects “immediate legal challenges in order to protect our free and fair elections.”

“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November. This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” said Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

“The President and the Department of Homeland Security have no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the independent Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting that nearly 50 million Americans relied on in 2024,” he said. “A decade of lies about election fraud does not change the Constitution.”

“In the middle of an unauthorized war abroad and an escalating authoritarian crackdown by ICE here at home, Trump is attempting another illegal power grab,” Padilla said.

A vast majority of Californians vote by mail. In the state’s 2025 special election on Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure, nearly 89% of votes were cast by mail, according to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office — or nearly 10.3 million out of about 11.6 million votes cast.

Trump has long criticized mail-in ballots — without evidence — as a source of fraud and a factor in his losing the 2020 election to President Biden, which he still contends was illegitimate.

Election experts, voting rights advocates, local elections officials and other California leaders have all dismissed those claims as unfounded and inaccurate. They have also been preparing for Trump to act to curtail such voting.

Padilla previously warned colleagues that he would force a vote on any effort by Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, forcing them to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

Critics of mail ballots have also been actively working to end or curtail the practice. Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case in which the Republican Party challenged a Mississippi law that allows ballots to be accepted and counted if they arrive up to five days after election day.

During those arguments, the court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted as legal.

Weber, California’s top elections official, has warned that attacks on mail-in voting risked undermining a system the state has spent years building around universal mail voting.

Trump’s executive order is the latest front in a years-long campaign he has led attacking the integrity of U.S. elections — which has contributed to a steep decline in voter trust in U.S. elections.

On Tuesday, Trump said his order was drafted by “great legal minds,” and will survive any legal challenges unless “rogue” judges rule against it inappropriately.

“We want to have honest voting in our country,” he said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, argued otherwise in a post Tuesday, noting that an earlier executive order purporting to place new federal controls on elections was blocked in court, and “this one is likely to fare no better.”

“To put this in plain terms: the order would use the USPS, which is not under the direct control of the President, to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots. If the state does not comply with these rules, federal law would purport to interfere with a state’s conduct of its own elections,” Hasen wrote. “The President does not have the authority to do this.”

March 29 (Asia Today) — China intensified an online influence campaign targeting Japan during the country’s February general election, sharply increasing English-language messaging aimed at shaping international opinion, according to a joint analysis cited by Japanese media.

The Yomiuri Shimbun reported Sunday that the findings were based on a joint study with AI firm Sakana AI, which examined social media posts, including on X, from Jan. 19 through mid-February.

The analysis tracked what researchers described as the “flow of narratives” in China-linked criticism of Japan. It found that English-language posts outnumbered Japanese-language content by as much as four to one, indicating a strategic shift toward influencing global audiences rather than domestic Japanese opinion.

The surge followed remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in November, when she described a potential Taiwan contingency as a “crisis threatening Japan’s existence.” After several days of relative silence, China-linked accounts escalated criticism of Japan.

The volume of such posts rose steadily during the election period. Researchers estimated roughly 1,400 posts on Jan. 19, increasing to about 1,700 by Jan. 23 and 1,800 by Jan. 27. On Feb. 8, the day of voting, the number surged to around 4,000, though still below levels seen during a larger campaign in November.

The messaging themes also shifted. Earlier narratives focused on criticizing Japan’s leadership and accusing Tokyo of interfering in Taiwan-related issues. During the election, however, posts increasingly framed Japan in terms of “militarization,” “revival of militarism,” and economic decline. As voting approached, criticism of political leadership again became more prominent.

A Japanese government official said the messaging may have been designed to influence voter behavior through pressure or intimidation.

Separate analysis of posts from November through January showed a sharp rise in English-language output from accounts linked to the Chinese Communist Party. During a peak period in mid-November, English-language criticism reached roughly four times the volume of Japanese posts. In December, about 560 of roughly 900 posts were in English, and in January, more than half of approximately 300 posts were written in English.

Officials in Japan suggested the shift reflects a strategic recalibration. With the Takaichi administration maintaining relatively strong approval ratings despite earlier criticism, Chinese efforts may have pivoted toward shaping international narratives rather than domestic opinion.

A Chinese official was quoted as saying the campaign would continue to apply “tactical pressure” on Takaichi while seeking to prevent countries from aligning with Japan.

The report concluded that China’s social media operations during the election represented a coordinated effort to influence both domestic and global perceptions by leveraging political and security narratives.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260329010008715

After a wearying 24 hours at work in the midst of chaos over last week’s presidential election, an exhausted Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris took a moment to reflect on her role in the process.

“I feel so historic,” she said. Little did she know.

By ruling Monday that all of Florida’s 67 counties would have to complete their ballot recounts by 5 p.m. EST today–a move backed by the campaign of GOP Texas Gov. George W. Bush–the 43-year-old Republican became an unlikely pivotal player in the closest balloting in America’s history.

Harris contended she had no discretion to extend the deadline, except in the case of a natural disaster. “But a close election, regardless of the identity of the candidate, is not such a circumstance,” she said.

This, from a woman who once told an interviewer that she didn’t like “gamesmanship” in politics. A multimillionaire whose state position is due to be eliminated in 2002, Harris has spent much of her time in office as an influential patron of the arts.

In taking her hard line against time-consuming hand recounts sought by the presidential campaign of Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Harris incurred the icy disdain of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who accused her Monday of a “move in the direction of partisan politics.”

Republicans say otherwise. Former Florida Secretary of State Sandra Mortham, who lost to Harris in a recent primary battle, insisted “she’s doing exactly what her constitutional duties require, no more, no less. To me, this isn’t a political issue. This is whether someone is doing her job.”

The job requires oversight of Florida’s arts, libraries, historical sites and international trade, and supervision of corporate registration, business licensing and elections. It has been largely ceremonial–until now.

“It’s an extraordinary responsibility,” Harris said of her mandate to oversee the recount. “I’m very anxious. The process is so important here.”

Harris has won high marks from both Republicans and Democrats for her support of the arts. There has been speculation in political circles here that Harris might win an ambassadorship or arts post in a Bush administration, whose candidacy she supported.

Harris campaigned for Bush in New Hampshire, was a Florida delegate to the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia and was one of eight co-chairs of his Florida campaign.

“She was a diligent member of the Florida Senate and has been a fairly active secretary of state, from both a cultural and arts perspective as well as a foreign trade perspective,” said Florida lobbyist Ron Book, a Democrat, who helped raise money for Harris when she ran for the statewide office.

Harris’ short term has not been without criticism. She has flown around the world to promote Florida trade, but critics note she has spent more money on travel than Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “I’m not abusing anything,” she said last month. “I’m working my heart out for the state of Florida.”

Harris grew up in Bartow, a small rural Florida town not far from Tampa. Her grandfather was the late Ben Hill Griffin Jr., a citrus and cattle baron who served in the state Senate.

After graduating from Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Ga., and studying art in Spain and philosophy and religion in Switzerland, she went into business as a marketing executive for IBM, then sold commercial real estate in Sarasota. Later, she earned a master’s degree in international trade at Harvard.

After the late Democratic Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles appointed her to the board of trustees of the Ringling Museum of Art, she sought more state money for the institution.

Disgusted with Sarasota politicians who did not have her commitment to cultural issues, she ran for the state Senate in 1994, collecting more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from a Florida insurance company called Riscorp. The firm would later be indicted in federal court for making illegal contributions to 23 candidates for state and federal offices, Harris among them. Harris, who was not charged, said she felt unfairly tainted by the scandal.

“If somebody hands you counterfeit money, how are you supposed to know it’s counterfeit?” she said.

As a state senator, she sponsored a bill that would have required parental notification before girls under 18 could get an abortion. But it was vetoed by Chiles.

Dubbed one of Sarasota’s “most prominent bachelorettes” by the local newspaper, her marriage in December 1996 to businessman Sven Anders Axel Ebbeson made headlines. They married at the Charlotte County government center, where she made her first campaign appearance. Then they flew to Paris.

Harris is worth about $6.5 million, mostly from stock in her family’s agricultural interests–she used $23,000 of her own money to run for secretary of state.

After one term as a state senator, Harris decided to run for statewide office, raising more than $1.5 million.

Harris won the 1988 GOP primary after a hard fight, then defeated her Democratic opponent.

Her first term will be her last. Harris will be Florida’s last elected secretary of state. Voters approved a change in the state Constitution that eliminates the position in 2002.

Do newspaper endorsements for president still matter? Certainly not as much as they once did, but that doesn’t stop most newspapers (including this one) from exercising their 1st Amendment right to spout off about their choice of candidate, and it doesn’t stop the presidential campaigns from breathlessly reporting each and every endorsement as if it were handed down by the Oracle of Delphi.

So who’s winning the endorsement race?

That all depends on how you look at it.

According to Editor & Publisher, the longtime bible of the newspaper business, the tally as of Saturday was 112 for Republican Mitt Romney and 84 for President Obama. That list didn’t include papers from Sunday, when many delivered their endorsements, but it suggested a shift from 2008, when E&P;’s final tally showed daily newspapers — which historically have skewed Republican — endorsing Obama over Republican John McCain by a better than 3-2 margin, 296 to 180

The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara has also been tracking endorsements, but it limits its list to the 100 largest newspapers. On average, they tend to have more liberal editorial pages, presumably reflecting their locations in Democratic-leaning big cities. As of Sunday, the project showed 33 endorsements for Obama and 27 for Romney. (Although most newspapers have issued their endorsements by now, a significant number are apparently waiting for the final week of the campaign.)

The tally reflects some notable gains for the GOP, however. According to the American Presidency Project, nine of the 100 top newspapers have switched sides from Obama to Romney since 2008, whereas only one went the other direction.

Among those abandoning the president was his Arlington Heights, Il., Daily Herald in his home state, which cast its lot — albeit a bit hesitantly– with Romney on Sunday.

“We believe that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are good and decent men who care about the country,” the newspaper wrote. “We believe each possesses extraordinary skills and talent. But, philosophically, it is clear that one trusts government too much; the other appears to trust it too little.” The editorial went on to criticize “the tone of Obama’s relentless insinuations that wealthy Americans refuse to pay their fair share. That tone is divisive and damaging for the nation and for our economy. It creates villains and victims, and unfairly so.” That, it said, was, “ultimately, the point where we must break with him.”

The San Antonio Express-News was the only one of the big papers to go the other way. It had endorsed McCain in 2008. This year, it said that while Obama has “had his failings,” such as a failure to pursue immigration reform and to tackle the debt crisis, “These shortcomings … don’t justify a change in leadership, particularly when many of Mitt Romney’s proposals — such as an across-the-board 20 percent cut in taxes and the elimination of unspecified itemized deductions — invite skepticism.”

Concluded the Express-News: “No candidate has all the right policies — that includes Barack Obama. But having weathered the challenges of the last four years, we believe he is in a better position to guide the nation over the next four years — and has earned from voters the privilege to do so.”

It is probably in the nature of newspaper editorials to stop short of adulation and unbridled enthusiasm. That certainly is the case with virtually all the endorsements of Obama and Romney, very few of which are wholehearted.

The Chicago Tribune (owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns The Times) endorsed Obama, but its editorial page editors said, “On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing — overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed.” So why not just endorse Romney? The Trib concluded that he had been “astonishingly willing to bend his views to the politics of the moment: on abortion, on immigration, on gun laws and, most famously, on healthcare.”

And several newspapers that did endorse Romney expressed the hope that, if elected, he would turn out to be the moderate Romney, not the “severe” conservative he presented himself to be in the Republican primaries.

“Let us stipulate,” said the Houston Chronicle, the largest newspaper to switch from Obama in 2008 to Romney this year. “The Mitt Romney we are endorsing is the Massachusetts moderate who worked successfully alongside an 88 percent Democratic majority in the state Legislature to produce what the Obama administration says became its model for national healthcare reform.”

Not everyone was so equivocal. The New York Post, never known for mincing words, did not choose this occasion to begin.

“Four frustratingly long years ago, a war-weary and economically battered America took a flier on a savior,” the Post wrote.

Next paragraph, in full: “It didn’t work out.”

Some newspapers that endorsed candidates in 2008 decided not to pick anyone this year. The Oregonian, in Portland, supported Obama four years ago, during a campaign in which he held one of his largest rallies in that city. The paper sounded a bit miffed this year when it said it wasn’t endorsing anyone this time around because the candidates hadn’t campaigned in Oregon. “The access and close observation that inform our endorsements for state and local offices and Congress do not apply in a national race; our CNN-level view of the presidential race is similar to everyone else’s,” the paper said.

The New York Times was the largest of the nation’s newspapers to endorse a candidate. It concluded Saturday that Obama “has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless.” Romney, it said, “has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas.”

The two largest newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, do not usually issue formal endorsements, although the Journal has made no secret of its strong preference for Romney.

The Los Angels Times, for what it’s worth, endorsed Obama and followed up with an explanation from Editorial Page Editor Nick Goldberg of why the newspaper endorses anyone at all, given its mandate to be nonpartisan and unbiased in its news articles. The article contained one reminder of the historically less-than-awesome power wielded by newspaper endorsements: The Times’ first endorsement, in 1884, was for Republican James G. Blaine.

Remember him?

mitchell.landsberg@latimes.com

Twitter: @LATlands

STOWE, Vt. — Looking back, gubernatorial candidate Dean Roy says his political ambitions started in the eighth grade. And by that he means last year.

After working as a legislative page at the Vermont Statehouse, the 14-year-old freshman at Stowe High School now has his sights set on the corner office. In November, he’ll be the first candidate for governor under age 18 to appear on the state’s general election ballot.

“I don’t expect necessarily to win,” he said. “What I do expect is to start the movement, and get more young people to come in behind me and say, ‘Yeah, we also want to make change.’”

Another eighth-grader, Ethan Sonneborn, sought the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018 but finished last in a four-way primary. Roy secured his spot in the general election by creating his own third party, the Freedom and Unity party. Both were able to run because the state constitution sets no minimum age for gubernatorial candidates, requiring only that candidates have resided in the state for four years.

“I know it sounds crazy, a 14-year-old running for governor, but honestly, look at the people in charge right now,” Roy said in a post on his campaign’s Instagram page. “They’ve been doing this forever and things still aren’t working.”

Nearly all other states set minimum age requirements for governor, often 30 years old. In Kansas, lawmakers added a requirement that gubernatorial candidates be at least 25 years old in 2018 after six teenagers ran for office.

Peter Teachout, a professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, has a different take than Roy on Vermont’s constitution. He points to a section in the document referring to what qualifies someone to be “entitled to the privileges of a voter,” and that is that they must be 18 years of age. Even under Roy’s interpretation, Teachout doesn’t predict a win for the teenager.

“In theory, a 4-year-old could run for governor. Should we be worried about it? No,” he said. “Vermonters can be a little cantankerous and provocative just for the fun of it, but it is not something they are likely to support in this context.”

But Roy’s former history teacher, James Carpenter, said he thinks it’s great that Roy is giving it his all. Though most 14-year-olds aren’t concerned with property taxes or healthcare, Carpenter describes Roy as an “old soul” with endless curiosity.

“It just really shows what type of kid Dean is. He’s very earnest in what he’s doing. There’s no gimmick behind this,” he said. “I think he blends that youthful optimism with some pragmatism that few kids have.”

Roy, who said he doesn’t identify with either major party, said housing is the most important issue facing the state. He’s also thought about how he’d juggle school with a full-time job as governor, saying he’d consider online classes and would do his homework at night after work.

The current governor, Republican Phil Scott, applauds Roy’s interest in politics and public service but questions whether someone so young is ready for the responsibilities that come with running a state.

“He believes it’s important for our youth to get involved,” said Press Secretary Amanda Wheeler. “But the governor also believes that a teenager may not be best suited to serve in that role given the lack of experience and lived perspectives youth have at that point in their lives.”

Roy disagrees that age has anything to do with whether a candidate is fit to run for office.

“What I’m aiming for is that these career politicians look at me and they say, ‘Oh my God, he actually has a chance to disrupt things,’” he said. “If I can get people to think that I am a threat to them, then I know that’s been a success. Because what I want is to show them that the youth have a voice. We’re gonna make change. The future is now.”

Swinhart writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Holly Ramer contributed to this report from Concord, N.H.

ATLANTA — Attorneys for Georgia’s Fulton County and President Trump’s administration squared off in court Friday over the county’s demand that the FBI return seized ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing Fulton County, noted that the January raid was “unusual” because it involved an old election and allegations that have already been investigated in the years since Trump, a Republican, lost the county and the state to Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Lowell contended that the Trump administration seized the materials because it grew impatient with litigation the Justice Department filed to obtain them last year. “There’s abundant law that the left hand of the department needs to know what the right hand is doing,” Lowell told U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee.

Michael Weisbuch, representing the federal government, replied that the separate civil litigation wasn’t “relevant in any respect.” He said the administration has already provided Fulton County with digital copies of everything taken and needs to retain physical copies to carry out its own investigation.

Boulee wrote in a scheduling order that the hearing was needed after the two sides failed to reach an agreement in court-ordered mediation.

Trump’s actions alarm Democrats and election officials

The Jan. 28 seizure from a warehouse near Atlanta targeted the elections hub in Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him reelection.

The FBI’s move was among several actions by the Trump administration that have alarmed Democrats and many election officials who are concerned it’s using law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year’s midterm elections. The FBI also used a subpoena earlier this month to obtain records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona, another battleground state Trump lost that year.

At the same time, the Justice Department is fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

Justice Department says it’s investigating 2020 ‘irregularities’

Lawyers for Fulton County argued in a court filing that the seizure of its documents was “improper and unjustified” and demonstrates “callous disregard” for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Justice Department seeks to “set a precedent that would grant the federal government unchecked power to interfere with the local administration of elections,” it wrote.

Justice Department attorneys argued that preparing a detailed affidavit and presenting it to a judge “is the exact opposite of ‘callous disregard’” for those constitutional rights. “Their goal to disrupt an ongoing federal criminal investigation is clear,” they wrote of Fulton County officials.

The Justice Department said it is investigating “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.

The filing said the FBI is looking into whether Fulton County properly retained ballot images; whether some ballots were scanned and counted multiple times; whether unfolded, unmailed ballots were counted as mail-in absentee ballots; and potential irregularities concerning tabulator tapes from the scanners used to count ballots.

Fulton County’s lawyers wrote that the “deficiencies” or “defects” in the county’s handling of the 2020 election cited in the affidavit are the kinds of human errors that commonly occur without any intentional wrongdoing and cannot establish probable cause.

Election tech expert cites problems in the affidavit

To support their claims, Fulton County officials submitted a sworn declaration from Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who advised the county during the 2020 election. He said the affidavit contains “a multitude of false or misleading statements and omissions” and offered explanations for the alleged “deficiencies.”

Investigations by the Georgia secretary of state and independent reviews contradict the core allegations of the affidavit, which is “rife with statements from witnesses lacking credibility, with extraordinary and undisclosed biases,” Fulton’s lawyers argued.

Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Biden’s win.

Federal government lawyers rejected the idea that the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit “intentionally or recklessly misled” the judge, writing that “the supposed misrepresentations and omissions flagged by Petitioners are illusory and/or immaterial.” They also asserted that a lapse of the statute of limitations on the potential crimes does not negate probable cause.

The Justice Department also noted that a federal magistrate judge reviewed the FBI affidavit and signed off on the search warrant. Fulton County sought to have the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit testify at Friday’s hearing, but the Justice Department objected and the judge sided with the federal government.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

March 26 (UPI) — South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden on Thursday signed six election-related bills, including one that requires newly registered voters to prove their citizenship.

The bills, which Rhoden, his administration and the state legislature said are meant to protect the integrity of the state’s elections, also affect campaign finance disclosures, publication of election results, processing of absentee ballots, publication of statewide voter registration files and the submission of nomination petitions.

The voter registration law, called the South Dakota SAVE Act, is one of several that states across the country have been considering as similar legislation has been the subject of heated debate in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

“In South Dakota, we do things right, especially when running out state elections,” Rhoden said in a press release.

“This bill ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure,” he said.

All six bills that Rhoden signed were named emergencies, which allows them to go into effect immediately, as opposed to July 1, when laws in South Dakota usually go into effect.

This will allow for the requirements to apply to the state’s June 2 primary elections, registration for which has a May 18 deadline, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.

The governor’s office said the state’s SAVE Act applies only to state elections and only to people who are registering to vote in South Dakota for the first time, and will need to show a passport, birth certificate or other document that proves they are a U.S. citizen.

South Dakota residents who are already registered do not need to take any action, and those who need to update their name, address or other information are not required to prove their U.S. citizenship.

“Noncitizens cannot vote in South Dakota — this bill is wholly unnecessary,” South Dakota Democratic state Rep. Erik Muckey said during debate of the bill, The New York Times reported.

Earlier this year, Rhoden also signed into law a bill that would allow voters to challenge the citizenship of other registered voters with a sign, sworn statement and some type of documented evidence.

That law will not take effect before the primary, but it will be effective during the general election in November.

REDDING — At a Board of Supervisors meeting in rural Shasta County last month, Clint Curtis dropped a bombshell: A sheriff way down in Riverside was going to confiscate all the ballots from a recent election.

Curtis, the county registrar of voters, was the first to announce the planned ballot seizure. Even the sheriff himself, Chad Bianco, had not publicly revealed his intentions.

Later, as Bianco’s move grabbed headlines — he is a leading Republican candidate for governor — Curtis’ behind-the-scenes maneuvering remained largely unknown. The registrar had worked with the Riverside County citizens group whose fraud allegations had sparked Bianco’s investigation, even traveling 600 miles south to speak on their behalf.

Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis poses last month in the new election observation room at the elections office in Redding.

In his short time in Shasta County, Curtis, whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s, has solidified his position as a torchbearer of the election denialism movement, vowing to take his message about untrustworthy machines and potential fraud across California and beyond.

Critics here say he has steadily disenfranchised voters. He has eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes, telling The Times he did not trust ballots in the hands of “little old ladies running all over” to collect them. And he has advocated for a local ballot initiative that would limit elections to one day, eliminate most voting by mail and require voter ID as well as a hand count of ballots.

Curtis also has accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of election fraud and has called for federal authorities to raid the office he now runs.

“Do I think ballots were stuffed? Yes. Have I contacted the DOJ? Yes,” Curtis said at the Feb. 24 Shasta County supervisors’ meeting just before announcing Bianco’s planned ballot seizure.

Curtis, a 67-year-old attorney, was appointed by the Shasta County supervisors last April. He lived in Florida then, had no previous ties to the area and had never run an election.

He got the job based largely on two stated qualifications: He wanted to hand-count votes. And he had worked with Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist.

In his public job interview, Curtis promised to grill local elections staffers to “find out what they know.”

Now Curtis is running for election himself, trying to keep his job in this Northern California county where a majority of the supervisors were so swept up in President Trump’s discredited election fraud claims that they ditched their Dominion voting machines in 2023 and opted to hand-count ballots (quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so).

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Curtis says he is running to make elections more transparent by questioning the status quo and hanging cameras everywhere to capture election workers’ every move.

“Republicans love me,” Curtis told The Times. “The Democrats are pretty good. And then I have these crazy socialist people that just hate me.”

Beliefs aside, Curtis has quickly become a colorful local character.

He took a lie detector test to attest that he didn’t rig the November election. He chose as his number two a heavy metal guitarist from San Francisco — stage name “Turmoil” — who is a progressive Democrat.

And last September, surveillance cameras captured him pushing an antique metal safe through the Shasta County elections office on a Saturday while his wife assisted with a pulling harness. Curtis wore blue jeans — and no shirt.

He said he moved the safe, which contained odds and ends, on a hot day to make more room for election observers.

Curtis first gained national attention for election skepticism in December 2004, in testimony before Congress.

He had been working as a computer programmer in Florida and was brought in as an expert witness by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who were reeling over President George W. Bush’s defeat of John Kerry a few weeks earlier and furious about an error with an electronic voting machine that gave Bush extra votes in Ohio.

Curtis claimed that he had written “a prototype” of software that would allow cheaters to alter votes using “invisible buttons” on touch-screen balloting machines. His claims were largely dismissed. But he continues to tout his congressional testimony to cast himself as an expert on election malfeasance.

A woman passes by a “Greetings From Redding” mural on Feb. 25.

After testifying, he unsuccessfully ran for office multiple times in Florida. He refused to concede after one loss, alleging the machines were rigged.

In Shasta County, he saw a chance for redemption.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Supervisors gained a hard-right majority supported by anti-vaxxers, secessionists, members of a local militia and pro-Trump election deniers.

In 2022, someone hung a trail camera — the kind hunters use to track wildlife — behind the elections office to monitor the staff. Some observers yelled at staffers and got in the face of Cathy Darling Allen, the longtime registrar, who installed a 7-foot metal fence to keep them at bay.

Joanna Francescut, who worked in the elections office for 17 years, is running to be county registrar.

Darling Allen clashed with the supervisors as they pushed to hand-count votes, a process she argued would be slow, expensive and prone to error. She retired in 2024, citing health reasons.

Her successor resigned after less than a year. The supervisors appointed Curtis in a 3-2 vote, passing over Joanna Francescut, who had worked in the elections office since 2008 and was Darling Allen’s number two.

Days later, Curtis fired Francescut. She is now running against him in the June 2 election.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, called Curtis a “nationally known conspiracy theorist.”

“I can’t imagine bringing in someone who is neither an election administrator nor a Californian for a job like that and basically chasing out experienced election officials whose work had withstood scrutiny for decades,” Becker said. “The voters of Shasta County, unfortunately, are paying the price.”

Curtis has accused Francescut and other elections staffers of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans.

“I want to laugh because it’s that ridiculous,” Francescut, 43, said of the allegations.

“People that work in this field, they’re doing this work because they care about elections,” she said. “They want the community to be better. They want what both sides want — transparent and accurate elections.”

During her 17-year tenure, the elections office got little public attention. But “once 2020 hit, people went from completely trusting us to, the day after election day, calling and yelling at our staff so much that we couldn’t get the work done to count ballots,” she said.

Curtis was a favorite of then-board chairman Kevin Crye, a hard-right supervisor who enlisted Lindell to support the county’s crusade against Dominion. Crye had survived a 2024 recall effort by just 50 votes.

1

2

1. Carl Bott, co-owner of KCNR 96.5 FM, interviews Joanna Francescut on Feb. 25, 2026, in Redding, Calif. 2. Joanna Francescut’s campaign manager, Mary Williams, wears an orange button that reads “Vote for Jo for County Clerk” as Francescut waits in the offices of talk radio station KCNR.

Citing that close margin, Curtis said he believed recent elections were rigged because Republicans were not winning by large enough margins in a county where registered Republicans greatly outnumber Democrats.

In a letter to the U.S. Justice Department, Curtis said he had learned of lax security and potential ballot stuffing in 2024, the year of the attempted recall against Crye. Curtis sent a copy of the letter to Trump and requested a federal investigation because “the destruction of these ballots is nearing.”

In 2019 and 2024, a Shasta County grand jury investigated local election procedures and found no wrongdoing.

“How does it make me feel? Really angry,” Darling Allen, who is advising Francescut’s campaign, said of Curtis’ allegations. “It calls into question the integrity and character of every single person who worked in the elections department.”

To replace Francescut, Curtis hired Brent Turner, the guitarist from San Francisco. He is a longtime election reform activist who has pushed for nonproprietary open-source voting systems with software code that can be examined by anyone.

Turner described their partnership as: “Republican and Democrat team up to fight outdated software for elections. Oh, my!”

“We have to have the adult conversation in the United States that if the systems are loose enough to allow people — in this case, we’re talking about even people internal to the system — to cheat, they might cheat,” Turner said.

Last October, Secretary of State Shirley Weber wrote to Curtis, asking him to detail planned changes to voting procedures. He responded with a 15-page letter.

Election observers, he wrote, were “treated like invaders … corralled behind spiked fences.” And drivers who picked up ballots from drop boxes sometimes left them in their vehicles. Under his watch, he wrote, “no detours or even bathroom breaks are allowed.”

A woman exits the Cottonwood Post Office in Shasta County.

Curtis told Weber that someone had carved death threats on his vehicle and left “antifa” business cards on his windshield wipers.

Weber’s communications team said in an email that her office “continues to monitor new election processes proposed by Shasta (or any county) County to ensure they do not violate state law.”

In his letter to Weber, Curtis promised to take a lie detector test after each election. Answering pre-written questions he had submitted, Curtis said in a January polygraph test that he did not change the results of the November election and believed a predecessor had rigged previous contests, according to a summary obtained by The Times.

The examiner wrote that he “was likely telling the truth.”

Inside the elections office, Curtis created a large room, decked out with American flags, for citizens to observe the vote-counting process.

More than a dozen large TV monitors display close-up video, also streamed online, of election workers’ hands inserting ballots into machines. On June 2, those workers will sit beneath iPhones hung overhead to record them while observers are positioned on barstools a few inches behind them.

The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office is decorated with American flags.

Curtis has been traveling across California to tout his methods. He told The Times he has spoken about his video setup in Kern and San Joaquin counties and discussed it with candidates for state office.

And he advised the Riverside County citizens group that claimed to have found an overcount of 45,896 ballots in the November election for Proposition 50, which redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.

Art Tinoco, the Riverside County registrar of voters, has refuted that number — saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.

After Bianco last week announced that his office had seized more than 650,000 ballots, Curtis appeared on the social media broadcast of a right-wing election integrity advocate who called him “the stealth behind the scenes in making that happen.”

Curtis smiled and repeated what he has been espousing since the early 2000s: “You can’t really trust a computer.”

March 23 (UPI) — A sheriff in Riverside, Calif., has seized more than 650,000 ballots from a 2025 state election that allowed the state to redistrict to gain five congressional seats.

Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for California governor, said Friday that he is investigating allegations by an activist group that alleged the reported tallies don’t match the ballots.

“This investigation is simple,” he said at a press conference. “Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.”

The election Bianco is investigating is the special election for Proposition 50, asking voters for endorsement to redraw the congressional districts in response to other Republican-led states, like Texas, redrawing their districts to pick up seats.

Californians voted to redistrict, and it was not a close election: 7.4 million in favor to 4.1 million.

A group called Riverside Election Integrity Team called for the investigation saying its examination of records shows about 45,000 more ballots were counted than received, Bianco said.

Local election officials said those allegations were based on a misunderstanding of how ballots are officially counted, the Palm Springs Desert Sun reported.

“County election staff follow detailed procedures established by state and federal law to protect the integrity of the vote and to ensure that every eligible ballot is processed and counted in accordance with those legal requirements,” Riverside County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen said in a statement.

Bianco seized the ballots with two warrants signed by a judge. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Bianco a letter March 6 alleging, “my office has serious concerns as to whether probable cause existed to support the issuance of the warrants and whether your office presented the magistrate with all material evidence as required by law.”

Bonta also alleged that Bianco’s office is not qualified to count ballots and the investigation “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.”

Bianco replied: “A judge approved the warrant, so Bonta’s opinion means absolutely nothing.”

Bianco also said Friday that he would give the investigation to a judge-appointed special master.

Democrats and Republicans in the state have said the investigation is baseless.

“It looks to me like it’s a politically motivated effort,” Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, told The New York Times. “It’s awfully coincidental that he would be taking this high-profile and extreme of an action literally two months before he’s facing a statewide election.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said Bianco’s claims are not supported by the evidence.

“The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections,” Weber said in a statement on Friday.

“Investigations into election processes must be conducted by those with the appropriate legal authority and subject matter expertise. Similar claims raised in other states by individuals without election administration experience have been thoroughly reviewed and debunked.”

Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat running for governor, said Bianco is trying to gain national exposure.

“What we’re seeing from Chad Bianco is a dangerous abuse of power and no different from what we’re seeing from Donald Trump and the extreme Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters nationally,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

“Seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots without credible evidence is an attack on the very foundation of our democracy. If you’re willing to undermine free and fair elections for MAGA stardom, you have no business holding public office.”

Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff and a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election as part of an investigation that he called a “fact-finding mission” to determine if they were fraudulently counted.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement official, has sharply criticized the probe, which he called “unprecedented in both scope and scale.”

In a March 4 letter to the sheriff, Bonta said the seizure of the ballots “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.” He threatened to seek legal recourse if Bianco does not halt his investigation.

Bianco said Friday that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.

Here is what we know.

Why were ballots taken?

According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 took about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.

Bianco said that it’s his “constitutional duty” to investigate a potential crime and that he is not trying to change the election results.

The investigation includes all of the ballots cast in the county, where Proposition 50 passed with 56% of the vote, a margin of more than 82,000 ballots. Statewide, it passed with 64% of the vote, a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.

Bianco said he had been contacted by “a group of citizen volunteers” that said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast. He did not name the group, but the allegations match those made by a group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team.

In a February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed the group’s allegations and said they were based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.

The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes — a variance of 0.016%.

How did the sheriff get the ballots?

Bianco said his department served the registrar with a warrant “approved and signed by a judge” on Feb. 9.

According to Bonta’s office, an additional warrant was issued on Feb. 23. Bianco said the warrants are now sealed.

In the March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general said he had “serious concerns” about whether the sheriff had probable cause to seize the election materials.

Bonta questioned whether Bianco had concealed information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants, including details from the registrar’s analysis of the citizen group’s allegations.

An official from Bonta’s office told The Times that the attorney general “found out in the middle of the week that [Bianco] was going to execute the warrants on a Friday.” Bonta’s office asked the sheriff to slow down and share information about the investigation, but “instead of waiting, he actually moved it up” and seized the ballots sooner than planned, said the official, who would only speak on background.

Bianco said a Riverside County Superior Court judge ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.

The ballots would have soon been destroyed

California law requires county officials to keep election materials — including ballots and voter identification envelopes — for 22 months for elections involving a federal office and for six months for all other contests.

The materials must be sealed and then destroyed at the end of the retention period.

The Proposition 50 election took place on Nov. 4, so the ballots are scheduled to be destroyed in May.

Why investigate now?

Political observers say that Bianco — a leading gubernatorial candidate — appears to be vying for attention from President Trump and his supporters.

Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said the investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”

“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”

Trump has repeatedly called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections. He remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.

In January, the FBI raided the elections office in Fulton County, Ga., seizing 2020 presidential election records. And this month, the Republican leader of Arizona’s state Senate said he had handed over 2020 election records to the FBI, complying with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to a controversial audit of the election in Maricopa County.

Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter.

A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.

The top two vote getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November election.

Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for Proposition 50 and had nothing to do with his campaign for governor.

WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.

That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.

The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.

In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”

California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.

Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.

But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.

GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.

Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.

The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.

The case before the court is Watson vs. Republican National Committee.

California has been criticized for taking weeks to count all the votes, but that issue was not raised in this case.

Governing liberals edge ahead of opposition conservatives in a race too close to call, according to exit poll.

Slovenia’s governing Freedom Movement (GS) is on track to win a parliamentary election but will need to find more coalition partners to form a government, according to an exit poll.

GS was set to secure 29.9 percent of the votes, or 30 seats in the country’s 90-seat parliament, in a dip from its previous result of 41 seats, according to the poll, published by TV Slovenia and Pop TV on Sunday.

The opposition Slovenian Democratic Party, led by populist Janez Jansa, is expected to come second and secure 27 seats in parliament, according to the Mediana polling agency.

As he voted, incumbent Prime Minister Robert Golob, 59, called on citizens to cast their ballots.

“Democracy and Slovenia’s sovereignty cannot be taken for granted any more,” he told reporters.

Jansa welcomed the exit poll results and said he would wait for the final result.

“If someone wants a government like the one we’ve had so far, then they are probably satisfied with what these parallel results indicate,” Jansa said.

“Whoever wants change will likely have to wait for the final results, just as we will, and then we will analyse the situation. But we have done everything that was within our power,” he said.

The opposition party leader has served as prime minister three times, most recently from 2020 to 2022.

Ahead of the vote, the election had been marred by controversy after a report last week alleged that Jansa met with officials from the Israeli spy firm Black Cube in December.

Golob told journalists after the report: “The fact that … foreign services are interfering in the elections of a democratic member state of the European Union is something unheard of.”

Voters choosing between incumbent PM Robert Golob and pro-Trump Janez Jansa, with neither likely to win parliamentary majority.

Slovenians are voting in a tight parliamentary election, as incumbent liberal Prime Minister Robert Golob takes on right-wing populist Janez Jansa, who is eyeing a comeback.

Polls opened at 7am local time (06:00 GMT) on Sunday and will close at 7pm (18:00 GMT), with exit poll results to be released after voting.

A return of Jansa, an admirer of United States President Donald Trump, could see the former Yugoslav nation, a European Union member of two million people, take an illiberal turn again after four years of centre-left rule under 59-year-old Golob.

Neither is likely to win a parliamentary majority in the vote, which could be decided by smaller coalition partners.

Latest opinion polls confirm Jansa’s Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) and Golob’s Freedom Movement (GS) are set for a close race after an eleventh-hour campaign drama involving allegations of foreign meddling and corruption.

The last government of three-time premier Jansa, who is pro-Israel and an ally of nationalist Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, saw mass protests and EU criticism over rule-of-law concerns.

Under Golob, a political newcomer when he took over from Jansa in 2022, Slovenia legalised same-sex marriage and became one of the few EU countries to describe Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide.

Analysts say Jansa, 67, has a devoted voter base, and the lower the turnout, the higher the chances of him winning the election.

At stake is the domestic and foreign agenda of Slovenia, where the outgoing government focused on social and health reforms but delivered mixed results, resulting in a fall in popularity for Golob’s governing coalition.

Jansa has promised to introduce tax breaks for businesses and cut funding for civil society, welfare and media.

Slovenia, an Alpine country with a developed industrial base, emerged stronger from the collapse of Yugoslavia than other states such as Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina, which have been held back by war, economic sanctions and political infighting.

Jansa would also likely change Golob’s foreign policy under which Slovenia was one of the few European countries that recognised an independent Palestinian state and last year imposed an arms embargo on Israel.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.

“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.

The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”

“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”

According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.

The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.

President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.

Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.

Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.

Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.

A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.

Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.

A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.

In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.

The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.

Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”

The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.

Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”

Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.

“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.

In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.

“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”

At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”

A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.

In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”

SACRAMENTO — Californians have never been forced to choose between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, two homegrown political darlings, during any election.

But if the state’s registered Democrats picked now, Newsom would trounce Harris as their party’s next nominee for president and have the edge over other Democratic contenders, according to a poll released Friday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Twenty-eight percent of the California Democrats who were surveyed selected the governor as their top choice in the 2028 presidential election. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) followed with 14% and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg received 11%. Harris came in fourth, with only 9% of voters in her own state naming her as their preferred Democratic nominee.

“It’s quite a positive result for Newsom,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “He’s separated himself from the rest of the pack, and especially when you compare him to the other major Californian in the considerations, he’s three times as much as Kamala. That’s quite impressive.”

The political careers of the governor and former vice president have orbited each other but never crossed since Newsom was sworn in as San Francisco’s mayor and Harris as the city’s district attorney on the same day in 2004. Now the two Bay Area natives are both flirting with the 2028 presidential contest as they travel the country promoting their life stories on respective book tours.

It’s early days and neither politician has said they will or won’t launch official campaigns for the Oval Office. The possibility remains that Californians might finally see a matchup that the two Democrats have long avoided.

Newsom set his sights on the governor’s office in 2010 before dropping out and running for lieutenant governor, a largely powerless post in which he served in the shadow of Gov. Jerry Brown for eight years. Harris won election that year as California attorney general.

Harris’ and Newsom’s paths diverged again when she chose to run for U.S. Senate in a 2016 contest to replace former Sen. Barbara Boxer and he announced his candidacy for governor in the 2018 election.

When Harris jumped into the 2020 and 2024 races for the White House, Newsom said he wouldn’t run against her. He’s discredited the idea that the two politicians have some kind of a sibling rivalry and noted that their trajectories ran adjacent and never collided.

Newsom was asked again last month whether he would vie against Harris in a presidential contest. The governor said he hasn’t “gotten in the way of her ambition ever,” and he doesn’t imagine that he would in the future. His answer changed when he was pressed to respond specifically to the potential for 2028.

“That’s fate. I don’t, I don’t know,” Newsom said to CNN’s Dana Bash, throwing up his hands. “You know, you can only control what you can control.”

Newsom and Harris had greater support from Black and Latino voters than white and Asian American Democrats in the new poll. She performed well among Democrats younger than 30 compared with other age groups, while Newsom fared better with older Democrats. More women selected Newsom as their first or second choice than they did Harris.

Neither California heavyweight performed particularly great among Democratic voters in the Bay Area, which DiCamillo called a curious finding for two politicians from the region. Support was higher for Harris and Newsom in almost every other region of the state.

DiCamillo believes the presence of Ocasio-Cortez on the list probably pulled some support from Harris. California voters in other recent polls were also sour on a third presidential run by Harris.

An Institute of Governmental Studies poll in August gauged interest in the potential candidacy of Newsom and Harris. About 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% for Harris. Almost two-third of voters in that survey, and half of Democrats, said Harris should not run for president again.

Although Newsom clearly beat the field of candidates in the most recent poll, DiCamillo said receiving support from a little more than a quarter of those surveyed in his own backyard isn’t exactly wonderful. The governor’s approval rating is also down.

The poll found that 48% of California registered voters say they approve of the job Newsom is doing, with the same share disapproving of his performance. That marks a drop from 51% approval the last time DiCamillo asked in August. Disapproval also climbed, by 5 percentage points.

Voters held positive opinions about Newsom’s participation in international conferences, which was described in the poll as the governor “offering an alternative to the policies being promoted by President Trump on issues like climate change and the economy.” The poll found 59% of statewide registered voters approve and 37% disapprove.

Cristina G. Mora, co-director of the poll, said the results suggest Newsom’s more aggressive stance with Trump seems to resonate in his own state.

“Though Californians may hold mixed views on his gubernatorial tenure, they overwhelmingly see him as the strongest counter to Trump and MAGA candidates,” Mora said. “Harris’s earlier presidential defeat, compounded by persistent voter biases against women and candidates of color, may also be shaping these early numbers.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows California voters are sharply divided over two brewing statewide ballot measures stirring up the nation’s partisan and economic divides: a one-time tax on billionaires to pay for mostly healthcare and a voter ID mandate that includes citizenship verification.

The survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed 52% of registered voters supported the billionaire’s tax, while 33% said they opposed it. Fifteen percent were undecided.

Support for the voter ID measure was more evenly split, with 44% of voters in support, 45% opposed and the remainder undecided.

The pair of statewide proposals, which have yet to qualify for California’s November ballot, emanated from opposite sides of California’s political spectrum. Organized labor and progressives are pushing hard for a new wealth tax in response to Republican cuts to federal healthcare programs, and the GOP-led call for additional voter restrictions comes in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said he “was a little surprised” by the results given how much attention each measure has already received.

“Just from reading the press accounts of these initiatives, I thought they would both be well ahead. There’s been a lot of discussion about them and advocates seem to be very confident in their chances of passage, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise,” he said.

The divisions over each measure fell largely along partisan and ideological lines.

On the billionaire’s tax initiative, 72% of Democratic voters said they would support the measure if the election were held today — and the same percentage of Republicans oppose it. A slim majority — 51% — of voters who are unaffiliated or registered with another party support the wealth tax, while 30% said they oppose it, with the remainder undecided.

Republican voters overwhelmingly support the voter ID initiative, with 91% saying they would vote for it. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters, 68%, said they would oppose the measure. No party preference voters appeared evenly split.

Neither ballot measure has officially qualified for the November ballot thus far, though proponents of the voter ID measure said this month that they turned in 1.3 million voter signatures to elections officials, well above the 875,000 required to qualify. Proponents of the new tax on billionaires have until June 24 to submit signatures to elections officials.

The billionaire tax has generated national news coverage and widespread debate over whether it would benefit low-income Californians or end up hurting the state’s tax base as billionaires move out of the state to avoid paying it.

The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 workers in California. Union leaders say that the tax would raise $100 billion to backfill steep cuts to federal healthcare programs under a sweeping tax and spending bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed in the summer by Trump.

The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents who are worth $1 billion or more, with options to pay it over multiple years.

According to SEIU-UHW, the new tax would apply to around 200 people in the state, though several wealthy tech leaders have made moves to change their residences and avoid paying the tax should it pass. In recent months, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and others have bought up lavish beachfront estates and new commercial office spaces in South Florida.

Some of those billionaires are also ponying up to defeat the measure. Brin, who according to Forbes is the world’s third-richest person, has contributed $45 million to a new ballot measure committee called Building a Better California, which is pushing an alternative statewide ballot measure that could scrap the billionaire’s tax.

Brandon Castillo, a veteran ballot measure campaign strategist who is not working on either of the two measures, said even though it’s currently polling above 50%, the billionaire’s tax is starting out “in a really shaky position.”

“This is not a very strong place to start,” he said. “That’s not to say they can’t keep this thing over 50%, but when you’re starting just barely above 50% and you have a tsunami of money and a huge campaign against you, it’s really hard to keep yourself at that level.”

Though previous public opinion polls at the state and national levels have shown broad support for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, even among Democrats, the new Berkeley poll showed liberal voters are skeptical of the measure.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID requirements threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

The poll showed that slim majorities of predominantly Spanish-speaking voters, voters who were born in another country and first-generation immigrants support the voter ID measure. A plurality of Latino voters also favor it, with 44% in support and 41% opposed.

But DiCamillo cautioned against reading too much into those numbers, noting that awareness of the measure is still relatively low.

“I’ve always seen in my history of measuring Latino voters’ support that they are relatively late deciders on most ballot measures,” he said. “How they break will be critical. I would say we’ll have to look at how they feel when we do our final preelection poll.”

Voter ID laws are also a top priority of Trump, who has pressured the Senate into taking up the SAVE Act, which would impose nationwide requirements for proof of citizenship to vote and already has passed the House of Representatives.

Castillo said Trump’s support could sway Democratic and liberal-leaning independents to vote against the measure.

Both DiCamillo and Castillo noted that with the November election still seven months away, voters are not paying much attention and those on either side of each ballot measure have not launched major campaigns yet.

“I suspect by the time election day comes around, these awareness numbers on the billionaire’s tax certainly are going to be much higher,” Castillo said. “You’re going to see 80-90% of voters familiar with it, just because they’re going to be inundated with advertising and earned media between now and November.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 registered California voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

For months, the senior U.S. senator from Montana pondered his political future.

Or so he said.

Wrapping up his second term and facing a glide path to a third, Steve Daines unexpectedly opted this month against seeking reelection, saying in an aw-shucksy video he planned to spend more time back home in Montana and enjoy more cherished moments with his seven grandkids.

Notably, after long “wrestling with this decision,” Daines announced his intent a scant two minutes after the deadline passed for candidates to put their names on the ballot. March 4 at 5:02 p.m local time, to be precise.

More notable still, Daines’ preferred successor, Republican former U.S. Atty. Kurt Alme, jumped into the race at 4:52 p.m. that very same day.

There are relay runners who might learn a thing or two from their timing and coordination.

As part of the seamless handoff, Alme was swiftly endorsed by President Trump, Montana’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and its other Republican senator, Tim Sheehy, for all intents settling the GOP contest and, quite likely, choosing the state’s next member of the U.S. Senate.

Never mind what voters might have wished, or other prospective candidates might have had in mind.

“There are a lot of Republicans in the state, folks with political ambitions, who are extremely peeved right now,” said Kal Munis, a Montana native and political science professor at Auburn University, who closely tracks politics in his home state.

Moreover, Munis said, with enough notice a heavy-hitting Democrat might have entered the contest, instead of the lowly bunch now running hopeless campaigns.

Montana, which has a rich Democratic history, has become a solidly Republican state, though the makeover took some time to complete.

As recently as 2008, Barack Obama made a serious run there, losing to John McCain by less than 3 percentage points. Montana had a Democratic governor until Gianforte was elected in 2020 and a Democratic U.S. senator until Jon Tester was defeated in 2024.

Still, while Daines’ seat hardly appeared at great risk for the GOP, a fight for the party’s nomination might have been a costly distraction, diverting money and attention that could go elsewhere as Republican prospects for the midterm election grow increasingly dim. (An unpopular war and shaky economy that’s been knee-capped by a sudden spike in oil prices will do that.)

Of all people, Daines certainly appreciates the bigger political picture, having led Republicans’ Senate campaign committee during the 2024 cycle. So he and his allies short-circuited the election process by laying hands on Alme, who stepped down as U.S. attorney to sidle into the Senate.

Seth Bodnar was among those who quite rightly criticized Daines for, as Bodnar put it, having “so little respect for Montana Republicans that he withdrew at the last minute to coronate his handpicked successor instead of giving them a voice at the ballot box.”

It just goes to show, Bodnar suggested, “the disgusting arrogance of Washington politicians and their party bosses who trade power back and forth like candy.”

Bodnar, the former president of the University of Montana, is running for Senate as an independent, conspicuously steering clear of the toxic Democratic brand. There is speculation the high-handed behavior of Daines, Trump and other Republicans might be enough to give Bodnar’s steep-odds candidacy a decent shot in November.

Munis, for one, is doubtful.

“There are a number of activist types who are deeply angered by this,” he said. “But when it comes to tallying votes in an election, that’s just a drop in the bucket.”

Unfortunately, Daines’ scheming, stick-it-to-the-voters approach isn’t just a Montana Republican thing.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois announced in the fall that he would not seek a fifth term this year. The last-second move — which came after Garcia had earlier filed paperwork to run for reelection — made it so his chief of staff and preferred successor, Patty Garcia (no relation), was the only major Democrat to appear on the ballot, virtually guaranteeing her election in November.

The cynical maneuver so disgusted Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a maverick Democrat from rural Washington state, that she defied party leaders and introduced a resolution rebuking Garcia.

His actions were “beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution,” said Gluesenkamp Perez, who was jeered and booed by fellow Democrats during the floor debate for having the temerity — heavens to Betsy! — to put principle above knee-jerk partisanship. The measure passed the House, 236 to 183, with only 22 Democrats joining Gluesenkamp Perez in support.

In California, the law prevents incumbents from pulling off the kind of underhanded stunt that Garcia and Daines managed. That’s because the filing deadline is automatically extended for an extra five days whenever a sitting lawmaker opts against seeking another term.

So, for instance, when Rep. Darrell Issa suddenly announced this month he would not run for reelection, he endorsed his favored replacement, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, but couldn’t grease the process to see to it that Desmond takes his place.

Legislators in other states should pass a law like the one in California to prevent the undemocratic shenanigans that in effect neutered voters in Montana and the Chicago area.

That is, if they truly believe elections matter and voters should have a choice and not stand by powerless as their government representatives are anointed from on high.

WASHINGTON — Republicans launched an unprecedented effort on Tuesday to hold the Senate floor and talk for days about a bill that they know won’t pass — an attempt to capture public attention on legislation requiring stricter voter registration rules as President Trump pressures Congress to act before November’s midterm elections.

The talkathon could last a week or longer, potentially through the weekend, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) tries to navigate Trump’s insistence on the issue and Democrats’ united opposition. Trump has urged Thune to scrap the legislative filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, or find another workaround to pass the bill, but Thune has repeatedly said he doesn’t have the votes to do that.

Instead, Republicans intend to make a long, noisy show of support for the legislation, which would require Americans to prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and to show identification at the polls, among other things. It’s a risky strategy, with no guarantee it will be enough for Trump, who has said he won’t sign other bills until the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — also known as the SAVE America Act or the SAVE Act — is passed.

The floor debate is expected to eventually end with a failed vote. Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill to a final vote, but they hold 53 seats, and all 45 Democrats and both independents, who caucus with the Democrats, oppose it.

The debate will “put Democrats on the record,” Thune said. He added that “how it ends remains to be seen.”

The Senate voted 51 to 48 Tuesday to begin the debate, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican voting against moving forward on the bill.

In a social media post on Tuesday morning, Trump issued a warning to any Republican who doesn’t support the bill: “I WILL NEVER (EVER!) ENDORSE ANYONE WHO VOTES AGAINST ‘SAVE AMERICA!!!’”

Creating strict voter registration rules

Trump says, without evidence, that Democrats can only win in the midterms if they cheat and explicitly said Republicans need the SAVE America Act to win in November. The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but the Senate turned to other issues as it became evident that Republicans didn’t have the votes to pass it.

But Trump made clear he wasn’t satisfied and pushed the Senate to act. The Republican president has said he won’t sign other legislation, including a bipartisan housing bill backed by the White House, until the voting bill passes.

The bill contains a slew of provisions that Trump and his most loyal supporters have pushed as part of a broad effort to assert federal control over elections. It would require voters nationwide to provide proof of citizenship when they register and to show accepted voter identification when casting a ballot.

It would also create new penalties for election workers who register voters without proof of citizenship and require states to hand voter data over to the Department of Homeland Security so federal officials could screen for voters who are in the country illegally.

Trump also wants new provisions added to the bill, including a ban on most mail-in ballots.

“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” Trump said of the bill last week. “If you don’t get it, big trouble.”

Democratic opposition to the bill is firm

Democrats and many groups that champion voter access say there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the bill would disenfranchise millions of voters — including Republicans — by creating new burdens to prove citizenship.

It is already illegal to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen, but the bill would lay out strict new rules for paperwork that most people would have to present in person to register to vote. Opponents of the measure say those documents are not always readily available for many people and argue that it would kill voter registration efforts and unfairly penalize young people who are registering to vote for the first time, married women who change their last name and people who cannot travel to present their documents, among other groups.

While Republicans have focused on the bill’s new requirements to show identification when they show up to vote, Democrats say they are most concerned that the legislation would allow the federal government to take voters off the rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats are not opposed to voter identification but “this is about purging the voter rolls in a massive way, so you never even get the chance to show a voter ID when you showed up to vote.”

Expect a show on the Senate floor

Trump, backed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, has pushed for a talking filibuster, which would force Democrats to talk for days or weeks to delay passage of the bill. But Thune and the larger GOP conference rejected that idea, arguing that it would end in failure after giving Democrats a stage and the opportunity to offer endless amendments, potentially adding their priorities to the bill.

Republicans are instead taking over the floor with their own speeches, proceeding under regular order but operating outside the normal time limits that are customary when debating legislation. Democrats are expected to answer with their own procedural hijinks, potentially forcing Republicans to come to the floor at all hours for votes, meaning they will need to stay close to the Senate for the duration.

Lee said last week that it’s unclear how it will all play out. He said he thinks Trump “understands that we need to put in an aggressive effort here.”

“And a lot of that,” he said, “is going to have to be determined in real time as we go about it.”

The extent of Trump’s satisfaction with the process, Lee said, “will depend on whether, in his view, we gave it everything we have.”

On Monday night, Lee was rallying voters in Trump’s base on X.

“Once we’re on this bill,” he wrote, “we must stay on it until it’s passed into law.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.