election

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to toss out $122,000 in legal costs that lawyers for former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake were ordered to pay for false and misleading statements they made in a lawsuit that sought to require a hand-count of all ballots in the 2022 midterm elections.

The nation’s highest court on Tuesday denied a request from Andrew D. Parker, an attorney who represented Lake in the lawsuit, to review a lower-court decision over the legal costs arising from the unsuccessful litigation.

The lawsuit by Lake and state lawmaker Mark Finchem sought to ban electronic tabulation devices. It was dismissed by a judge who found Lake and Finchem lacked standing to sue and that their lawsuit was filed too close to the election.

In 2022, Lake lost the governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs and Finchem was defeated in the secretary of state’s race by Democrat Andrian Fontes. Both Republicans had promoted the narrative that the 2020 election was marred by fraud.

Maricopa County had sought sanctions against Lake, Finchem and their lawyers, alleging they broke a court rule by making unfounded allegations and by not conducting the necessary research before filing the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge John Tuchi later concluded the lawsuit’s claims lacked an adequate basis in fact, that the standard inquiry attorneys must make before pressing litigation hadn’t been done and that the lawyers acted recklessly in seeking a court order based on frivolous claims.

The requirement to pay the legal fees applies to the lawyers who pressed the lawsuit, not to Lake and Finchem.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected appeals over the lawsuit’s dismissal and the awarding of the legal fees.

The Associated Press left phone and email messages Tuesday for Parker, whose firm is based in Minneapolis.

Earlier this year, Parker asked the Supreme Court to throw out the requirement to pay Maricopa County’s legal fees in the case, arguing such sanctions would deter attorneys from bringing aggressive or novel legal claims.

Maricopa County said lawyers for Lake and Finchem had disregarded a letter that identified false allegations they had made in their lawsuit and relied on some of those claims in a later court filing. The county’s attorneys said those who brought the lawsuit failed to present evidence to support their allegations and falsely alleged that Arizona didn’t use paper ballots and that its electronic voting systems hadn’t been subjected to expert analysis.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

The former head of Israel’s domestic security agency Shin Bet has sued Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for defamation over claims of his responsibility in the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.

Coming just before Israel’s close-fought October 27 election in which Netanyahu is fighting for his political life, the case filed on Wednesday is set to ramp up the country’s political drama.

Ronen Bar, the former director of Shin Bet, accused Netanyahu of “lying to cover himself” and said it was slanderous of the prime minister to have accused him of “criminal failures” over the attack, in a 134-page court document.

Bar said he telephoned the prime minister’s military secretary as soon as signs of a possible attack became apparent, but that he did not have Netanyahu’s direct number.

Netanyahu has said he was not alerted by Bar on the morning of the Hamas-led assault, insisting that he could have stopped the attack had the Shin Bet’s then-director or military leaders called to wake him up the day of the early-morning attack.

Bar’s lawsuit says Netanyahu made accusations “that he knew to be false, with the aim of diverting the debate from his own responsibility for the events of October 7”.

Instead, it was Netanyahu’s policies over several years that had “increased the dangers posed by terrorist organisations in Gaza”, it said.

Likud response

On Wednesday, Netanyahu responded to Bar’s accusations in a statement issued by his Likud party saying, “Ronen, are you serious?”

“You had my number on the red line and could have called me immediately, as all security chiefs do,” Netanyahu asked, adding, “How many lives could we have saved if only you had called in time?”

Bar resigned as head of Shin Bet in June 2025 amid recriminations over the deadliest attack in Israel’s history, while insisting he had informed Netanyahu of the threat in advance.

He is seeking three million shekels (about $968,500) in damages from Netanyahu.

Warnings, lies, manipulation

The allegations in Bar’s lawsuit come days after Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, told Israel’s Channel 12 that the prime minister’s office had “falsified records related to October 7, 2023”, including altering the recorded time of a key phone call.

Gil, who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary from July 2021 to May 2024, said a stenographer in the prime minister’s office approached him in January 2024 with instructions from Netanyahu’s chief of staff to change the time of a four-minute call from 6:40am local time (03:40GMT) to 6:29am (03:29 GMT).

“She told me, I’m not allowed to change it,” said Gil, accusing the head of Netanyahu’s office of manipulating telephone records, adding, “Those are facts, and there is no dispute about them.”

Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Netanyahu had been warned of the attack by Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel.

In a rare move, Kamel reportedly phoned the prime minister just days before the attack, underscoring previous warnings in September 2023, when he is said to have flown to Israel to warn security officials in person that Hamas was planning an attack.

Polls show Netanyahu is in a tight race to stay in power in the October 27 election, after being hammered by former staff and government officials as well as the opposition for failing to prevent the bloodshed.

At least 1,221 Israelis were killed on October 7, 2023, after Hamas broke through the fence separating Israel and Gaza, according to Israeli official figures.

Also, 251 Israelis were taken captive, including the bodies of 44 Israelis killed that day.

In the three years since, Israel has killed more than 74,300 people in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry in the enclave.

More than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in Israeli attacks since a tentative “ceasefire” backed by the US was reached last year.

Karen Bass and Nithya Raman faced off Tuesday night in a debate hosted by NBC4 and Telemundo52 in Universal City. It was the L.A. mayoral candidates’ last head-to-head before the Nov. 3 election.

Times columnists Lorraine Ali, Gustavo Arellano and Steve Lopez weigh in on the highlights and lowlights.

Arellano: Raman had the line of the night at the very beginning, channeling — of all politicians — Ronald Reagan, one of the last people you’d think of as an Angeleno, even though he absolutely was.

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” she asked while looking directly into the camera.

For the vast majority of L.A. residents, the answer is a resounding no.

Up until tonight, Raman has done a good job of communicating a message of hope and change, while Bass, as the incumbent, has repeatedly tripped on her record over the biblically bad four years of her first term.

But I didn’t hear that Raman tonight — partly because Bass made her play defense, from her first answer to her closing statement.

The mayor won the debate, if we’re judging by forensics. She rarely looked down at her notepad, unlike Raman. It’s something I’ve never noticed about Raman before — either a new nervous tic, or an indication that the city councilmember can’t seem to speak with conviction, which has been a frequent critique against her.

Bass’ barrages got to Raman more than a few times, leading her to talk over the NBC and Telemundo moderators or even shush them. A whining Raman is not a good Raman, which her advisors need to drill into her sooner rather than later.

But Raman’s answers never meandered and weren’t too elliptical, even when she was pressed by the able moderators. Since she’s ahead in most reputable polls, Raman’s job for the night was not failing — and she cleared that low, low hurdle.

Bass, meanwhile, needed to deliver a knockout punch. Instead, as a politico friend who cares for neither candidate texted me after the debate, she won one round. There are only so many more rounds before Election Day for her to catch up — and Bass can’t rely on just winning on points anymore, especially with an opponent who’s now running like she’s ahead.

During closing remarks, Raman hearkened back to her Reagan shout-out, stating, “We cannot afford another four years of decline, of mismanagement, of excuses.” She then pivoted to her positivity message, smiling while proclaiming, “We can be joyful and ambitious again.” The more she sticks to that upbeat vibe, the better she comes off to a voter base tired of the doom and gloom that has fallen over L.A. under Bass.

Bass, meanwhile, came off as funereal, beginning with, “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve in the city that I was born and raised.” That’s how you start a retirement announcement, not another four-year term. Let’s see what the voters say on Election Day.

Incumbent Karen Bass during a mayoral debate against City Councilmember Nithya Raman Tuesday night.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

City Councilmember Nithya Raman during Tuesday night’s debate against Mayor Karen Bass.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Lopez: After watching the debate, I don’t think this thing is over.

Yes, Raman has been ahead in polling, and Bass is saddled with high negativity ratings, the baggage of the Palisades fire and the continued challenge of homelessness.

But this debate could have been a knockout punch for Raman, and instead, I think Bass won the night, not just by touting her achievements and responding sharply to criticism, but by seeming to have a better command of the moment.

My colleague Lorraine Ali made a good point — how many people were actually watching this debate? Probably not many, so it’s not like this one-hour back-and-forth tips the scale.

But as has been noted, a huge percentage of likely voters remain undecided. Maybe that’s because they’re not in love with either candidate. Or maybe they’re ready to move on from Bass but aren’t sure about who Raman really is. If they watched tonight, looking for an answer, I’m not sure they got one.

Raman came into elected office as a darling of the Democratic Socialists of America and was a high-profile member of that wing on the City Council. But even the council’s DSA members didn’t endorse her bid for mayor. In fact, Bass has gotten support from 13 of the 15 council members.

So how will Raman build a coalition in a city where mayoral power is shared with the council, and matters like homelessness are the joint responsibility of the city and the county, and any progress is stymied without strong mayoral relationships in Sacramento and D.C.?

It’s possible that the council will come around to her if she’s elected, because just as the mayor needs the council to get much done, the council needs the mayor.

But I’d like to know more about who Raman is and why she’s flip-flopped so much (on support for the LAPD, on the mansion tax, on the Inside Safe homeless initiative, etc., etc.), as my colleague David Zahniser reported just the other day.

Learning and evolving can be a good thing. But voters need to know who Raman is, what her vision is for the city and how she expects to lead.

I didn’t get that in this debate. Bass, whose first term works against her as much as for her, is still hanging on and hanging in.

It may come down to whether older voters, who are likely to favor Bass, turn out in greater numbers than younger voters, who are likely to favor Raman.

But from where I sit, it ain’t over. Except maybe for the Dodgers.

Ali: Raman was ahead in the polls headed into tonight’s mayoral debate, so her job wasn’t quite as hard as Bass’, who is fighting for her political life. Raman just needed to knock the mayor off balance — then keep her there for an hour. But that didn’t happen.

Bass came off composed, confident and in command of the conversation, while Raman appeared less sure of herself, frequently looking down to check her notes while defending her work on key concerns such as homelessness (until recently, she was chair of the city’s housing and homelessness committee) and attacking Bass for leaving the city “leaderless” during crises such as the Palisades and Lineage fires.

The overall tone of the debate was less heated than when the two candidates met in August to battle it out sans Spencer Pratt, the former reality TV personality and Republican contender who lost in the primary.

But there were moments Tuesday when the women’s history as colleagues — and onetime allies — informed their attacks on one another.

Bass said Raman was “not ready for prime time” and that she had a “contemptuous” relationship with her constituents. Raman continually pointed out that Bass had failed to remedy L.A.’s homelessness crisis, and did so from the perspective of someone who had worked closely with the mayor.

There’s still a question around how many folks actually watched the debate, and if the candidates’ points will resonate in subsequent clips or memes. Neither contender has the charm or spark of, say, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and as vapid as it may sound, charisma matters.

Three weeks out from the election and there still isn’t a lot of excitement over the mayoral choices on the ballot. This debate didn’t help that cause, or juice the race.

Lucky for Bass, she has the presence of a leader, and that gave her the edge over Raman tonight. But was anyone watching beyond my fellow columnists Gustavo Arellano and Steve Lopez?

President Trump has pushed Congress to pass a proof-of-citizenship law, signed an executive order seeking a national voter ID requirement and tried to limit mail voting through U.S. Postal Service changes.

None of those moves succeeded in time to affect this year’s midterm elections. It’s a different matter in the states.

More than three dozen voting laws passed in Republican-controlled states are taking effect for the first time this year, many of them containing elements of Trump’s stalled proposals. They include changes to what IDs are acceptable to register for the first time and requirements to show proof of citizenship, an issue the Republican president has tried but failed to get through Congress.

“Trump’s attacks on our elections are deeply damaging, but they are not happening in isolation,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project. ”Across the country, states are also advancing restrictions that make it harder for eligible voters to cast a ballot.”

Republican lawmakers who support the tighter voting laws, especially around voter ID, describe them as common sense changes that help build trust in elections.

Trump and other Republicans have been pushing for more restrictive rules since the president’s false claims of widespread fraud in his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump’s false claims have resonated with Republican voters, a majority of whom believe Biden was not legitimately elected despite all evidence to the contrary. Trump lost dozens of court challenges, his own attorney general found no evidence of widespread fraud, and reviews, audits and recounts in the battleground states where he contested his loss all affirmed Biden’s victory.

Among the changes confronting voters as early voting gets underway: Students in New Hampshire can no longer use student IDs; Utah voters returning mail ballots must include more information on the envelope; and some voters in Mississippi might need birth certificates or passports to verify their identities.

Changes to voter ID requirements are challenged

New Hampshire state Rep. Donald McFarlane said he sponsored the bill to eliminate student IDs as acceptable for voting because colleges don’t have the same controls when issuing those cards as government agencies.

“The change removes a special exception and applies the same government-issued ID standard to all voters,” he said, adding that his bill had bipartisan support.

Students, he said, can still get state IDs free of charge.

The new requirements have not gone unchallenged.

In South Dakota, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt a new law that includes requiring voters registering for the first time to present the most common forms of ID — driver’s licenses, Tribal IDs and non-driver state IDs. They must be presented in person at places that accept registration.

“Proof of citizenship in itself is not terrible,” said Kathryn Johnson, president of the League of Women Voters of South Dakota.

Her concern is the requirement to present the IDs in person.

“We’re kind of a remote state, so sometimes it takes a drive, and you have to coordinate, you have to take off work, and all of these kinds of things,” she said.

Some Democrats also have expressed support for voter ID during recent debates. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he was open to the idea as long as it wasn’t based on “conspiracy theories.” When legislatures change their state’s voting laws, they typically give election offices and voters time to adjust. Trump wanted federal voter ID and proof-of-citizenship legislation to take effect immediately, forcing election officials and voters to comply in the middle of the midterms.

Ohio seeks to scrub voter rolls

Ohio has a proof of citizenship requirement in effect for the first time this year for those registering to vote or updating their voter registration information at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles location. The state also eliminated its four-day grace period for mail ballots, which now must be received at local election offices by Election Day.

Yet the biggest concern for voting rights groups is an ongoing purge of the state’s voter rolls. The databases used to check citizenship against voter registration lists can be outdated, said Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, which has sued to overturn the law.

“Vast numbers of perfectly eligible voters are vulnerable to being disenfranchised,” she said.

Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, one of the primary sponsors of the bill, challenged the ACLU’s legal action and said the problem it addresses is a real one.

“In the past two years, hundreds of noncitizens have been removed from Ohio’s voter rolls,” she said in an email. “Every single vote cast by a noncitizen disenfranchises a lawful Ohio voter.”

Voters have mixed views on the changes

Outside an early voting center in Wayne County, Ohio, retired steel worker Dan Walter, an independent voter, said he opposes requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote.

“It’s to keep people from voting, it sounds to me like,” he said.

His wife, Jody, a retired aerospace executive and a Democrat, said she felt the same way about Ohio’s new requirement for registering to vote.

“A driver’s license doesn’t prove citizenship, and that’s all they ask for now,” she said. “It’s going to be an obstacle for so many people.”

Genia Fortune had a different view. A nurse, the Millersburg resident described herself as an independent and said she voted for President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and later for Trump. She believes Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and sees requiring documentary proof of citizenship as a necessary precaution.

“I just feel like you need to be a citizen and show proof of ID,” she said.

Voting and election laws have become a regular target for legislatures

The Trump administration has pushed multiple strategies to influence this year’s midterm elections, most of them stymied by Congress or the courts.

Chris Diaz, director of legislative tracking at the Voting Rights Lab, said the group has seen several versions of the Republican president’s proposals passed by his allies in the states.

A recently released report by the group highlighted some of the key areas drawing Republican lawmakers’ attention, including mail balloting, voter ID and the hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls.

Noncitizen voting has been a focus of the Trump administration despite it being a rare problem. The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced it had brought charges in roughly 90 cases for various types of election misconduct, including 50 against people who are alleged to have voted as noncitizens. The U.S. had 227 million registered voters for the 2024 presidential election.

The Brennan Center for Justice has identified nearly 40 laws in 21 states taking effect this election season that will make it harder for eligible voters to register, stay on the rolls or cast ballots.

The report from the center, part of the New York University School of Law, found that many of the new laws target subsets of voters.

“What I want voters to take away from this is that elections are still run by the states and there are still people in many states who are trying to make it harder for you to vote,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, senior director of the center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program. “But that’s all the more reason to go make a plan to vote and participate.”

Fields and Smyth write for the Associated Press. Fields reported from Washington and Smyth reported from Wooster and Millersburg, Ohio.

In rural Modoc County, in California’s remote northeast corner, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton donned a beige cowboy hat and climbed atop a horse.

Riding through a grassy field, with his dress shoes in the stirrups, Hilton lamented to a camera that California was “completely being ruined by killjoy bureaucrats” who put too many rules on fun stuff like beach fire pits and bars that stay open extra late.

In coastal San Luis Obispo County, Hilton boarded a bright yellow dune buggy at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area and called the California Coastal Commission “idiots” for trying to end off-road beach driving.

And in the Central Valley, he waved the ceremonial green flag at a stock car race at the Madera Speedway, where he was named grand marshal of the annual Harvest Classic. (The designation caused a minor uproar, prompting the operator of the racetrack to make a fake online concession menu that offered a hot dog and soda for $6 for Republicans and $17.50 for Democrats.)

If it seems like Hilton — the British immigrant and former Fox News talk show host — is just about everywhere, taking just about every media interview that comes his way, well, that’s the point, he says.

He has logged thousands of miles on the proverbial campaign trail, visiting all 58 counties in his quest to lead the nation’s most populous state, where no Republican has been elected to statewide office in 20 years.

Meanwhile, his heavily favored — and far more staid — opponent, Democrat Xavier Becerra, has kept a comparatively low profile, agreeing to just one debate with Hilton and holding few public events, mostly in urban areas.

In a phone interview while driving through Los Angeles, Hilton said: “Whether I’m in Humboldt or Del Norte or Siskiyou County, my joke is, when people say, ‘Where do you live?’ I say I live in the Hampton Inn somewhere in California because we’re basically in a different place every night.”

The odds are against him.

Sure, California produced GOP presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But today, Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in the state, and the current White House occupant shares a mutual disdain with the vast majority of Golden State voters.

Hilton was endorsed during the primary by President Trump, who suggested at a campaign rally this month that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego, drawing swift outrage from both Democrats and Republicans.

Hilton has tried to walk a fine line, appealing to the 6 million Californians who voted for the president in 2024 while simultaneously downplaying Trump’s support.

This summer, Hilton took out full-page ads in The Times and the San Francisco Chronicle asking: “Can you be anti-Trump and still vote for me?”

“Yes, I’m the Republican,” it said. “The ‘Fox News guy.’ Endorsed by Trump. But this election is not about who you hate in Washington. It’s about what you love here.”

Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said that 16 years after the state’s last Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, left office, “it’s safe to say Democrats own all the problems in California.”

“You can’t blame Trump for what’s going on here in California,” she said. “We feel really good about Steve Hilton’s campaign. He is working so hard, up and down the state.”

Hilton has blasted California Democrats as entitled, saying they assume Becerra will cruise to victory in the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom simply because he has a “D” beside his name on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Hilton frequently quotes a September podcast interview by Los Angeles’ Democratic mayor, Karen Bass, who mocked his British accent and said: “The governor’s race right now is over. Our governor’s name is Xavier Becerra. You don’t need an election on Nov. 3. A Republican cannot win in this state.”

Hilton told The Times that Democrats “feel they don’t have to earn your vote. … They can deliver results that are bad as ever, and they don’t need to work hard to deliver results for people or earn their support. And I think it’s that attitude that is going to be their downfall.”

Steve Hilton has the support of 33% of likely California voters, according to a recent poll, while rival Xavier Becerra has 58%.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Becerra is a former member of Congress who represented Los Angeles, and he was the California attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden. He has the backing of 58% of likely California voters, compared with 33% who support Hilton, according to a poll released late last month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

The poll showed that voters’ top concern was reducing the state’s high cost of living — followed by fighting Trump administration policies.

Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for the Becerra campaign, said, “Trump has browbeaten his way into the California political discourse” with his mass deportation raids, his willingness to stonewall federal wildfire relief funds for political reasons, and his aggressive tariffs that many blame for driving up costs nationwide.

“Hilton is trying to win an election, so he tries to frame himself as someone who can appeal to the broader electorate,” Underland said. “But at the end of the day, he has the albatross around his neck, which is Trump, who is openly hostile to California.”

Hilton cuts a colorful and pugnacious figure on the campaign trail. He eschews ties and jackets, favoring T-shirts with punchy phrases like, “$ave With Steve” and “WAKE UP” superimposed on a California license plate — a reference to his proposal to eliminate the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and slash vehicle registration fees, which would cut billions in state revenue.

He wears one bracelet with the name of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, whom he called an “incredibly close friend.” Another reads, “Save Girls’ Sports,” calling back to this spring, when he traveled to the state high school track and field championship in Clovis to protest the participation of a transgender athlete.

Republican nominee Steve Hilton protests transgender athletes’ participation in girls’ sports during a May 29 news conference in Clovis, Calif.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

Hilton, 57, was born in London to parents who fled conflict in their native Hungary during the 1956 uprising against the Soviet-controlled communist government and later anglicized their surname, Hircsák, to Hilton.

He was a senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, a member of the Conservative Party, though the men’s once-close friendship never recovered from Brexit, Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Hilton supported it; Cameron did not.

Hilton earned a reputation as eccentric but savvy, pushing the Conservative Party to embrace same-sex marriage and more climate-friendly policies. Dubbed “the barefoot revolutionary” for his refusal to wear shoes, Hilton was satirized on the BBC political sitcom “The Thick of It” as Stewart Pearson, the Tories’ “eco-friendly, media-savvy, blue-sky-thinking” communications director.

He and his family moved to California in 2012 after his wife, Rachel Whetstone, was promoted to lead global communications at Google. For six years, he hosted “The Next Revolution,” a weekly Fox News show from which Trump regularly tweeted clips.

In 2015, the couple purchased their home in the Silicon Valley city of Atherton, one of the wealthiest ZIP Codes in the U.S., for $12.5 million, property records show.

Whetstone now leads communications for Sierra, an AI startup founded by OpenAI board Chairman Bret Taylor and Clay Bavor, who met while working at Google. Hilton and Whetstone’s 2024 tax returns show they had a combined household income of $7.5 million, which included his reported earnings of $250,000 from Fox News and her $6.7 million from her then-employer, Netflix.

Hilton became a U.S. citizen in 2021 and last year renounced his British citizenship.

He finished second in the June 2 primary behind Becerra. Under California’s top-two primary system, the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election.

The pack of Democratic candidates was so large that party leaders initially urged struggling candidates — including Becerra — to drop out to avoid splitting the vote. Becerra shot to the top of the polls when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, a front-runner at the time, dropped out of the race after he was accused of sexual assault and misconduct.

Republicans coalesced around Hilton after the president endorsed him over his GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a staunch Trump supporter who later said the endorsement made Hilton unelectable.

Kim Nalder, director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said it is exceedingly difficult for Hilton to distance himself from Trump and the Fox News brand.

“If you had a different brand of Republican they might have a shot,” given the discontent in the state over myriad issues, she said. “But Trump is so politically radioactive in California right now that it is an effective technique to tie this particular candidate to him.”

The governor’s race comes as Californians are deeply frustrated by the state’s exorbitant housing costs, top-in-the-nation gasoline prices and high taxes, as well as its entrenched homelessness crisis.

California’s population growth is stagnant after years of pandemic-era losses, with immigration lagging amid the Trump administration’s crackdown and many residents leaving the state for more affordable parts of the country.

Greg Perrone, past president of the conservative Greater Bakersfield Republican Assembly, said he was impressed with Hilton’s policy knowledge and the amount of detail in his economic plans.

Steve Hilton, right, chats with Sir Richard Branson before a White House dinner with then-British Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama in 2012. Hilton was an advisor to Cameron.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

“There’s a real concern that the current state of the economy is worse than people expected,” Perrone said. “A lot of people hung their hat on Donald Trump saying he was going to bring down prices, and that just has not happened. There’s a lot of angst.”

Perrone said he remains a Trump supporter, though he has been frustrated by the frenetic roll-out of tariffs that, he said, hurt many businesses. While he has been annoyed that Becerra, in his view, has focused more on the president than laying out his own detailed economic plans, he acknowledged that the strategy plays well in blue California.

Christopher Cole, former chairman of the Lassen County Republican Party, said that in his rural corner of the state, he has seen Trump banners that have hung since 2016 start to come down because people are angry about the Iran war, the high cost of fuel and the economy.

“When Trump stupidly endorsed Hilton, it was the kiss of death for any down-ticket Republican,” said Cole, whose county voted for Trump on 76% of the ballots in 2024, the highest percentage in the state, and was the only one to support Bianco in this year’s primary.

“Hilton is a carnival barker and a very wealthy man,” said Cole, who supported Bianco. “You can’t run a multimillionaire when people are struggling to put food on the table.”

Hilton has made a slew of campaign promises to lower the cost of living, including having no taxes on income below $150,000, lowering energy bills by slashing climate-friendly regulations imposed by Democrats, and having $3 gasoline (though governors cannot directly set the price at the pump, which is driven largely by global crude oil supply and demand).

He has tried to channel the state’s discontent into persuading voters to “try something different” by voting Republican.

During the gubernatorial race debate on CNN last month, Hilton quoted a former Biden domestic policy advisor who reportedly called Becerra a “bitch-ass,” and his campaign promptly launched a website, bitchassbecerra.com, outlining alleged failures of the politician known for his calm demeanor and decades of government experience.

“I think Hilton got dealt a bad card with Becerra making the runoff,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who was Schwarzenegger’s spokesman. “It’s difficult to get anyone outraged about Becerra because he is perfectly boring. He worked for Joe Biden — maybe that upsets some people? — but you can’t associate him with any bizarre, woke policies like you could Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom.”

Hilton’s campaign this month released a provocative, sexually suggestive ad titled “Just Try It!” in which two young women sit on a bed in a candlelit room. An LGBTQ+ pride flag hangs on the wall, and they’re seemingly talking through one’s first romantic encounter with another female.

In a recent poll, voters rated California’s high cost of living as their top concern, followed by fighting Trump administration policies. Above, people gather in North Hollywood to watch the Sept. 30 gubernatorial debate.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Wearing a T-shirt that says, “RESIST,” the anti-MAGA mantra, the first-timer nervously says: “I’ve just never done anything like this before. Like, what if my dad finds out?”

The other woman holds her hand as she fills out a ballot for Hilton then says, “Now lick it,” referring to the mail ballot envelope.

Some conservatives condemned the ad, saying it promoted lesbianism. Liberals criticized it, too, saying it was insensitive to the LGBTQ+ community.

The day the ad launched, he told The Times: “I think there’s a very strong sense that things aren’t working in California, and my argument is: ‘OK, let’s try something different.’”

Later, he said he never meant to offend anyone with the risqué ad, which did, after all, do its job in racking up millions of views online — coveted and invaluable publicity for a long-shot California Republican.

New Delhi, India — India’s main opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has returned to the streets of central New Delhi, leading dozens of members of parliament demanding the election chief’s resignation, as protests gather momentum.

Gandhi, heir to India’s most influential political dynasty, is seeking to turn a summer youth uprising into a broader challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decade-long dominance of Indian politics, putting the Hindu nationalist government under growing pressure.

In a press briefing on Monday, Gandhi said the Modi government had put the capital city “in jail”.

The youth-led “Cockroach” movement that forced out the education minister in July has also threatened to protest on Tuesday if it is not allowed to rally at Jantar Mantar in central Delhi, which was the focus of summer demonstrations.

Joining Gandhi’s Congress party, other opposition forces and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) are thousands of students from left-wing organisations. As the government braces for further protests, security forces have been detaining thousands of students every day, with allegations of custodial violence casting a climate of fear over the capital.

‘No constraints on Modi’

India’s Election Commission, a supposedly autonomous body tasked with overseeing the world’s largest electorate, has been criticised after revelations that its chief, Gyanesh Kumar, frequently overruled concerns raised by the other two election commissioners about the integrity of changes to the voter database.

For months, India’s opposition parties have argued that the election commission is compromised, sabotaging elections at the behest of Modi’s Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for its electoral benefit. The BJP denies the allegations.

Since June last year, the commission has been revising and updating statewide voter lists. It has since removed more than 130 million names, which critics say has disproportionately deprived minorities and other vulnerable groups in India of the right to vote.

Gandhi has called for the Chief Election Commissioner to be tried for treason. “We will not spare you,” he said, referring to Kumar, at his Monday press briefing.

Opposition politicians allege that protest rallies by leaders including Gandhi have been met with violent and brutal force, as seen in videos showing them being detained.

“[The protesters] came with love in their hearts, not hatred or anger,” Gandhi said, referring to a  protest on Saturday. “They were beaten, both by cops and BJP goons.”

“Narendra Modi … cannot silence India’s voice. These cowards cannot intimidate us. They will have to step aside,” he wrote on X, calling on people from all walks of life to join the protest on Monday.

Analysts say circumstances this time around are starkly different to the summer protests, when CJP-led demonstrators demanded the resignation of then-Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Asim Ali, a political analyst in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera that the mobilisation of the wider opposition would not stop, but the Modi government was unlikely to back down.

“The crackdown this time on students is making it apparent that it would be tougher for young protesters this time, and students can’t get beaten up and dragged violently daily,” he said. “Going forward, the opposition parties stand to be the front face of the protests, and they need to lead from the front.”

Since 1975, when then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a state of national emergency suspending civil liberties, “India saw more civil politics grow into mainstream, where opposition parties were allowed space,” Ali said.

He added that after five decades, “those democratic gains have vanished – and there are no constraints on this government by independent institutions.”

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said he has seen New Delhi at the centre of “several big opposition political rallies, held in areas near the parliament, hosting hundreds of thousands of people,” when the police did not interfere, unlike the crackdowns this year.

Kidwai said that the violent detention of members of parliament, in particular, was worrying.

“We are seeing a big change from when politicians were more tolerant of dissent,” he added.

Cat-and-mouse chases

With an unprecedented security deployment in central New Delhi designed to prevent protest, youth leaders are turning to new tactics.

Neha Bora, the president of All India Students’ Association (AISA), a left-wing group affiliated with the Communist Party of India, has often tricked Delhi police in order to stage protests.

Bora, a post-doctoral student of theatre, came to national prominence for her fiery speeches in the July protests, becoming a leading face of the Gen Z movement challenging Modi’s Hindu nationalist politics.

Aditi Thakur, a 23-year-old student in the capital, has turned on notifications for all of Bora’s posts on social media. “A call to protest can come anytime, anywhere,” she told Al Jazeera.

Bora does not reveal when or where she is going to stage a protest until just 30 minutes before, to avoid detentions by the police. Her supporters are alerted via social media to join her at a given location in the capital.

On Sunday, she picked a congested street near central Delhi — and was able to jump several barricades to reach the heavily secured Parliament Street, before being chased down and dragged into a police van.

Even Thakur couldn’t catch her, she told Al Jazeera, laughing. “These are guerrilla times, but peacefully. If the government cracks down on us, we also need to adapt,” she said. “It is a fun cat-and-mouse chase every day. I’m hooked on it.”

The Gandhi-led Congress is also adopting similar measures, holding flash rallies at unannounced venues, then running away from police.

The mood is changing

A defining feature of the July protests – a watershed moment for wrestling concessions from the government – was Gen Z’s humour in the face of police brutality.

Now, protesters are prepared for a more serious confrontation, even if demonstrations remain peaceful, say analysts.

“We are seeing that humour changing more into anger this time,” Asim Ali said.

The biggest challenge for the government is disruption in central New Delhi, which, Ali said, the government cannot allow on a daily basis. The area is home to most federal government offices, as well as being a major business hub.

Protesters know that too, and that gives them leverage.

“We are seeing this movement grow into a bigger anti-government, anti-Modi movement,” Ali said.

As Israel entered the final month before its October 27 election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a chilling warning to share.

Israel’s enemies, he said on September 29, were plotting an attack on the country before the vote. Without providing any evidence, he then quickly referred to continuing attacks by Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip, where he said they had killed more than 100 “terrorists” in recent weeks.

That link drawn by Netanyahu – between the genocidal war on Gaza that began after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, the upcoming elections, and Israel’s national security – was not coincidental, say analysts.

Netanyahu’s insistence that he alone can secure Israelis from a range of threats they face from across the country’s borders, they say, lies at the heart of his re-election campaign, even as his alleged failures during the attack three years ago and in securing the quick release of captives have offered his opponents ammunition.

When a Flydubai flight packed with Israeli passengers on their way from Dubai to Tel Aviv a day after his recent warning nearly crashed after a co-pilot attacked his pilot with an axe in the cockpit, Netanyahu was quick to seize on the incident to argue that he is still man for the country’s top job.

Polls suggest that he faces a stiff test in what is the first general vote since the 2023 attacks, which led to the killing of 1,139 people in Israel and triggered the genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, where Israeli have attacks have since killed more than 74,000 Palestinians.

Three years later, the war has become inseparable from the domestic debate over Israel’s direction while also accelerating a political shift to the right – with once-fringe positions on Palestinians now very much the mainstream view.

Few embody this transformation more than Israel’s far-right financial Minister Bezalel Smotrich, sanctioned by a number of Western countries and known for his incendiary and racist language and policies towards Palestinians.

In one of his characteristically inflammatory statements, Smotrich told Israeli outlet Ynet late last month that the Israeli army should “go to war” in the occupied West Bank and “do there what we did in Gaza”.

Less than two weeks later, Smotrich’s electoral ally Moshe Feiglin added fuel to the fire.

“The enemy is Gaza, not Hamas”, he told the Jerusalem Post, calling for the annexation of the besieged territory after the election. “The baby that will be born tomorrow in Gaza will do exactly the same,” he said, in reference to the 2023 attacks.

Palestinian political analyst Ahmed Najar said these are not “stray comments” from marginal figures but an electoral message from power-seeking politicians aimed at portraying Palestinians as “not a people with rights, but a demographic and security problem to be expelled, conquered or destroyed”.

He added: “The frightening reality is that the coming election risks becoming a competition not over whether Palestinian life should be protected, but over who can promise to erase it most aggressively.”

‘This is madness’

Following October 7, the younger generation in particular slid rightwards, said Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow at King’s College London.

He said the forces driving Israel to the right had been gathering for decades.

“The trend toward the right began after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, but it has intensified dramatically since October 7,” Bregman told Al Jazeera, referring to the bloody 19-day October War, or the 1973 Arab-Israeli War – a conflict between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

More recently, the far right has been emboldened through electoral politics as part of Netanyahu’s government since 2022 – the most right-wing government in Israeli history.

Another outspoken cabinet member alongside Smotrich is Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right provocateur who has previously been convicted of inciting racism and of supporting a terrorist organisation.

“Netanyahu’s greatest mistake – among many – was bringing figures like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich into his coalition,” said Bergman. “By doing so, he legitimised them as influential forces in Israeli politics.”

Ben-Gvir has been so cemented into Israel’s political system, he has hopes pinned on becoming the next Israeli defence minister, the analyst pointed out.

“This is madness. But that’s contemporary Israel,” said Bergman.

Analysts also pointed out that several parties running, including ones that are currently in power and a number that are challenging the current coalition, all advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, as one of the examples of the shift to the right.

Omar Baddar, director of Palthink for Strategic Studies, said the messaging from across the Israeli political and military spectrum in the lead-up to the election shows that there is “a consensus” to continue the attacks on Gaza, where nearly 1,500 have been killed since a “ceasefire” last year.

“They’re using the threats to get more votes,” he said, pointing out to what he described as the radicalisation of the society.

With the election approaching, added Baddar, Israeli leaders are seeking to undo one another: “Who[ever]’s more radical is more likely to get more votes.”

As Ehab Jabareen, a Palestinian political analyst and researcher from inside Israel, writes, “what it means to be ‘right-wing’ in Israel today is above all to take a harder line on Palestinian national claims, security and territorial control.”

He adds: “On security and the Palestinians, a large part of Jewish Israeli politics already works from assumptions that would have been treated as right-wing a generation ago: Deep suspicion of a sovereign Palestinian state, a high tolerance for prolonged military control, and a stronger insistence on Jewish sovereignty as the starting point rather than one value among others.”

Observers and rights groups say the disparity is even evident in the electoral process. A prominent politician and Palestinian citizen of Israel, Sami Abu Shehadeh, has been forced to withdraw from the election over his remarks about the Gaza war, while Israeli far-right leaders have remained untouched despite their violent rhetoric against Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s security credentials endure

Recent polling indicates that the events of October 7 are top of mind for Israelis, who also have questions about who was responsible for the security failures of that day.

Just last month, reports surfaced indicating that Netanyahu had received two separate warnings about an imminent Hamas attack in 2023, from Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, and United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Netanyahu’s two main rivals in the race for prime minister have cited the alleged warnings to call the prime minister “unfit” to remain at the helm of the country.

But Netanyahu has denied suggestions that he had been forewarned about the attack, and the reports do not appear to have had a significant effect on opinion polls.

While October 7 represents a profound rupture in Israelis’ sense of security, public trust in the Netanyahu government had already been badly shaken by its controversial judicial overhaul, introduced when the prime minister’s current coalition first came to power, said Mairav Zonszein, an Israel-Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group based in Tel Aviv.

Despite these breaches of trust, the Israeli leader retains support.

“Israelis in general still see Netanyahu as kind of the guy on security. And more to the point, they don’t really see an alternative,” Zonszein told Al Jazeera.

A June survey by Mitvim – the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies found that the Israeli public supports its government’s military and security solutions, and rejects resolving the Palestinian issue and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. This is the case even while it has been concerned about international isolation and the decline of Israel’s international standing since the beginning of the genocidal war on Gaza, the survey reported.

Yet Israelis are also increasingly war-weary, even as they back the use of more force. Its troops – stretched between six fronts of war in the last few years – are bearing the brunt of this fatigue in Israeli society.

Israel’s Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday that nearly 30,000 soldiers and security personnel are facing psychological trauma since the war.

The ministry said its rehabilitation department’s budget has increased by 88 percent over the past three years to 10 billion shekels ($3.3m), with the majority supporting treatment for mental health conditions and post-traumatic stress disorder.

As Israel expands, the two-state solution fades

Still, Israel in recent months has been more and more vocal about its expansionist vision, with officials brazenly stating the goal of “Greater Israel”. The claim for the conquest is based on a biblical verse (Genesis 15:18-21).

For decades, Israel has ignored international law in its continuous occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land, and has shown little respect for its neighbours’ sovereignty, occupying more land in Syria, as well as in Lebanon in more recent years.

According to Najar, the political economist, the “complete dehumanisation” of Palestinians as evidenced during the campaign reveal that Gaza “is being presented to Israeli voters not as a catastrophe or a crime for which there must be accountability, but as a blueprint to be repeated elsewhere”.

In southern Lebanon, where Israel has been carrying out near daily attacks and and has occupied large swathes of land, residents have told Al Jazeera they expect little to change even if Netanyahu is defeated in the election.

Netanyahu’s main political challenger, Gadi Eisenkot – head of the Yashar party and former army chief of staff – is the father of the so-called Dahiyeh Doctrine, and is just as hawkish about expansion. That doctrine, since Israel’s war with the Lebanese group Hezbollah in 2006, calls for the use of huge force, even against civilian infrastructure, as a deterrent against enemies and was deployed in Israel’s recent wars, particularly in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

If it were up to Eisenkot, the Lebanon front of war would have never scaled down: He has accused Netanyahu of bowing to US pressure to halt operations in Beirut, and has insisted that the military should be able to attack Hezbollah anywhere in Lebanon.

For Israelis still reeling from the events of October 7, Eisenkot could fill the security void many are feeling, said Zonszein.

“They really … see the world as kind of very hostile towards them, the world not understanding what they went through on October 7, and [therefore why] the need to have these security buffer zones in Lebanon, in Syria, and Gaza,” she said.

A two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is therefore out of the question, said the analysts – and has not even made a blip of an appearance in campaigning before the election.

The idea first emerged during the Oslo Accords more than 30 years ago, which set out a negotiating process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, predicated on the belief that the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel was imperative to forge peace.

But since the Oslo process began in 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has ballooned from about 260,000 to more than 700,000, embedded deep inside West Bank areas that would be needed for a contiguous Palestinian state.

“The concept of a two-state solution is currently irrelevant and likely will remain so for another decade or two, if not longer,” said Bergman. “It is unlikely to become a reality in the foreseeable future, as no Israeli leader can propose it to the Israeli public after the events of October 7.”

The only way it could regain prominence is if there is substantial international pressure, including severe sanctions on Israel, and a non-violent intifada, or an uprising by Palestinians, he said.

The outright rejection of Palestinian statehood has simply become much more “acceptable”, said Zonszein.

“There’s several parties who advocate these views, whereas there isn’t a single Jewish Zionist Party that puts the need for a two-state solution or a Palestinian political process at the forefront,” she said.

Taken all together, Israel’s election appears less a demand for change than a further entrenchment of the jingoism that surged after October 7, 2023.

“[There’s] more and more movement towards more military force, more need for pushing the borders … out of a lot of fear that another October 7 could happen,” said Zonszein.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more in the state budget than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration.

Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers. More recent carve-outs in the law also allow leaders to direct excess funds to infrastructure and local government.

The limit applies to most other appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the “rainy day” fund and other reserves.

California voters also have capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund at 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

In effect, the measure would allow the governor and the Legislature to put more money into budget reserves, creating another option to avoid triggering rebates.

For example, if the spending limit is $400 billion for the year, and revenue hits $410 billion, the measure would give lawmakers the option to deposit the $10 billion above the spending limit into the rainy day fund, direct the money to infrastructure or give it to local governments, instead of returning the funding to taxpayers and increasing funding for schools.

One of Israel’s top ultra-Orthodox rabbis, Dov Lando, has become the centre of controversy in Israel after comments emerged in which he denigrated Zionism.

In a recently released video recording, the 96-year-old rabbi is heard saying the ideology of Zionism caused the Jewish people to suffer “disasters”, and that Jewish Israelis may have been better off without a state.

The remarks have drawn rebukes from Israeli politicians weeks before landmark legislative elections, in which the role of the country’s growing ultra-Orthodox community – particularly over military service – is a major issue. The political alignment of ultra-Orthodox parties could also prove crucial to the formation of the next government.

So, who is Lando and why are his comments significant?

Who is Dov Lando?

Dov Lando is a 96-year-old rabbi regarded as the leader of Israel’s Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community. Born in Poland and raised in the Lithuanian-style ultra-Orthodox tradition, Lando heads a yeshiva – a traditional Jewish academy – in the Israeli city of Bnei Brak.

He is a member of Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, a council of senior ultra-Orthodox rabbis that offer religious guidance to the community, as well as the spiritual leader of Israel’s Degel HaTorah party. That party is part of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) alliance, which is a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition.

What has Lando said about Zionism?

Earlier this week, Israeli media released a video of Lando making year-old comments that harshly criticise Zionism, military service and secular Israelis.

Lando, who has made similarly critical remarks before, is heard in the video saying that Zionism “caused the Arabs to hate us” and brought physical as well as spiritual “disasters” on the Jewish people.

“It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state,” Lando said, adding that international or Palestinian rule would have been “the best situation” for Jews.

Lando went on to castigate soldiers who adhere to Religious Zionism – a strand of Orthodox Judaism that upholds Zionism – saying “they are killed because their rabbis teach them a distorted Torah.” Many military operations, he said, are carried out “not for saving lives, but for the honour of the state”.

The veteran rabbi also had harsh words for secular Israelis, who he said have “no connection to Judaism at all”. He described them as having built “a state of apostasy and heresy”.

What has been the reaction in Israel?

Lando’s remarks have drawn fierce criticism from numerous Israeli politicians, including all major figures that have joined an opposition alliance challenging Netanyahu.

Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Yashar party who is viewed as the opposition bloc’s most likely candidate for prime minister, said Lando’s “outrageous statements” were “the embodiment of anti-Zionism”.

Yair Lapid, the head of Israel’s opposition in the Knesset, called the comments “a disgrace to every Jew”.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the Together alliance co-founded with Lapid, said Lando’s remarks are “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist” and against the Israeli military.

Netanyahu has not commented on Lando’s latest reported remarks, but he publicly condemned earlier statements by the rabbi in July, when Lando accused the Religious Zionism movement of “incitement to murder” for its support for drafting religious seminary students into the military.

Could the controversy impact Israel’s upcoming elections?

Potentially.

Members of the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc have called for the UTJ, which Lando’s party is part of, to be cast out of any future government, and criticised Netanyahu for staying aligned with the group.

Yair Golan, head of the Democrats party, said Netanyahu is “silent because without Rabbi Lando and his emissaries, he has no government”.

Netanyahu’s “political survival is more important to him than Zionism, more than equality in service, and more than the blood of our soldiers”, Golan said.

But breaking with the UTJ would come at a huge political cost to Netanyahu, whose coalition is already in for a tough election battle on October 27 and is polling well below the 61-seat threshold needed for a majority.

UTJ is projected to win 8 seats in parliament, according to an October 5 poll by Israel’s Channel 12.

“If Netanyahu attacks Lando forcefully, he pays a price with the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) he needs to form a government,” said Ehab Jabareen, a researcher on Israeli affairs. “If he stays silent, he hands his rivals material to tell right-wing voters that the man who speaks of Zionism and security depends on a religious leadership that doubts Zionism itself.”

Italy’s parliament is voting on Thursday on a new electoral law that would make it easier for election winners to form a majority government.

The law, proposed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, would award extra seats to any party or coalition that obtains more than 42 percent of seats in both parliamentary chambers, ensuring it holds a majority.

Meloni has framed the legislation as a route to greater stability in Italy’s political system, which has often been run by fragile coalition governments. Her critics, however, say the move is actually aimed at boosting her own chances in elections next year.

Here’s what we know about the electoral law and what it means for Italian politics:

What is Italy’s current electoral system?

Italy currently has a mixed electoral system for its 600-seat parliament, with about 36 percent of members of parliament elected directly in constituencies where the candidate with the most votes wins, and the rest decided through proportional representation.

The system, called “Rosatellum”, has been in place since 2017. It encourages coalition-building but can produce fractured results that make a governing majority hard to forge.

What would the new law change?

The new legislation would replace the mixed electoral system with a fully proportional one, as well as awarding extra seats to the party or coalition that wins the most seats if it secures at least 42 percent in both chambers.

The bonus would be as many as 70 seats in the 400-member Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, and up to 35 seats in the Senate, which has 200 elected members.

That means if a party or coalition meets the 42 percent share threshold in both chambers, it would have stronger power to govern. If no party or coalition meets the threshold, representation would be decided proportionally.

The new law would also force coalitions to announce their candidates for prime minister before the elections. Rado Fonda, head of research at Italian pollster SWG, told the Reuters news agency this provision could “prove problematic for the centre-left, potentially forcing an early leadership contest and exposing divisions that could weaken the bloc”.

Meloni, who currently leads the country’s longest-serving government since World War II, has said the reform will help stabilise the country rather than serve any one political group. “Whoever wins the elections will have the numbers to govern,” she said.

What stage is the legislation at?

The proposed law has already been approved by the Senate and must now undergo a final secret-ballot vote in the Chamber of Deputies.

Giovanni Orsina, a political scientist at Rome’s Luiss Guido Carli University, predicted that the law is “extremely likely” to pass.

If it fails, Meloni has said she will resign.

Why is the legislation controversial?

Opponents say the law is undemocratic because it could potentially grant a winning coalition a disproportionate level of power in parliament.

They also say that the legislation is intended to favour Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party (Fdl) is bracing for a tough election battle next year.

Riccardo Magi, head of the liberal More Europe party, who is on a hunger strike to protest the proposed reform, has called it an “anti-democratic law” that risks giving a minority bloc a huge majority in parliament.

Senator Matteo Renzi, who leads the Italia Viva party, has accused Italy’s governing coalition of pushing the electoral reform due to a fear of losing power.

Other critics have pointed out that the law would do little to stabilise the political system if no party or coalition reaches the 42 percent threshold in both chambers – a relatively high bar.

“This could produce a hung parliament, making post-electoral negotiations necessary to form a government,” Vincenzo Emanuele, a political science professor at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome and a member of the Italian Center for Electoral Studies (CISE), told Al Jazeera. “Even relatively small changes in coalition composition could make the difference between a clear parliamentary majority and a situation of political deadlock.”

When are Italy’s next elections, and what do the polls show?

Italy’s next general election must be held by December 22, 2027, although the government can call elections earlier if it wishes.

Currently, Meloni’s Fdl is polling ahead of all other parties, with 27 percent support, according to Politico’s polling aggregator. Her coalition partners, Lega and Forza Italia, have a combined 12 percent support, according to Politico, bringing the coalition share to 39 percent.

Fdl’s polling has been dented by support for a new far-right group, Futuro Nazionale (National Future), Reuters reported. It currently has 7.8 percent support, according to Italian polling institute SWG.

In opposition, the Democratic Party (PD) has 21 percent support, the Five Star Movement (M5S) has 12 percent and the Alliance of Greens and Left (AVS) has 6 percent, according to Politico. The Italy Viva (IV) and More Europe parties have 2 percent support each.

Emanuele said the current landscape means the proposed electoral law would not necessarily favour Meloni and could even benefit the opposition.

He said recent simulations by the CISE have shown that a centre-left coalition including the PD and M5S could potentially reach 44 percent of the vote, securing a “comfortable parliamentary majority”, though that could change if Meloni allies with National Future.

“The reform does not inherently favour the incumbent government: Its effects will depend crucially on how the competing coalitions are formed,” said Emanuele.

Former Tottenham Hotspur defender Ramon Vega says he intends to stand as a candidate in next year’s Fifa presidential election.

The 55-year-old is the first person to confirm they want to challenge Gianni Infantino, who has defied calls to step down in the wake of his failed plan to sell off stakes in the World Cup to private investors, which has sparked a major backlash across football.

A former Switzerland centre-back, Vega also played for Celtic and Watford and has worked in finance since retiring from football in 2004.

“I am standing to reunite the global football family, deliver genuine and lasting reform, modernise Fifa for the 21st Century, restore stability and credibility, and rebuild the trust that our game urgently needs,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa – president of the Asian Football Confederation – has written to Infantino, distancing himself from an external review of Fifa’s governance system.

In his letter – seen by BBC Sport – Sheikh Salman proposes that Fifa’s council sets up a working group to examine potential reforms, “rather than being outsourced to an external party”.

Last month, Infantino said he was “fully committed to leading Fifa” despite Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation calling for him to quit.

Vega considered running for Fifa’s top job in 2015 following the suspension of former president Sepp Blatter.

Four years later he said he would stand against Infantino, but failed to garner enough support to be included in the ballot, having required the backing of five of Fifa’s 211 member federations.

Candidates must also be proposed by a member association and have played an active role in the game for two of the past five years, as well as passing an eligibility check by a review committee.

“I am standing because my life has prepared me to serve the game,” Vega said in a statement announcing his candidacy.

“Football does not belong to presidents, confederations or administrators. Football is greater than any position, any individual or any institution.

“It is the people’s game and belongs to everyone: the players, coaches, referees, supporters, volunteers, clubs, leagues, associations and communities that give football its life.

“It belongs to every child discovering the game, every professional carrying the hopes of a nation, and the billions of supporters whose passion makes football the world’s game.

“Football must always come first. Yet for too long, division has fractured our football family.

“The current leadership has demoralised the game. Weak governance has damaged Fifa’s credibility and eroded trust across the global football family. We must stop this conflict from escalating.

“Ego-driven battles within football administration must never be allowed to damage those who matter most: the players, coaches, referees and supporters around the world. They are not responsible for these conflicts. They deserve better.”

Vega concluded: “Football is in the emergency room, on life support. We cannot wait any longer. Fifa needs a new direction and fundamental reform.

“We must reunite the football family, restore trust, bring stability and modernise Fifa’s governance. This requires decisive change – not cosmetic adjustments.”

Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California oppose the proposal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, who are running to replace Newsom, also have spoken out against it.

Opponents describe the wealth tax as a “flawed experiment” that will harm California’s economy because companies and rich people will flee the state.

“If they leave, it will create a huge hole in our budget, threatening core services like education, healthcare and public safety,” arguments against the proposition say.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would harm California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California already is largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

Billionaires such as Palmer Luckey, the co-founder of defense tech startup Anduril Industries, and entrepreneur Mark Cuban have pushed back against the proposal on social media. Some tech executives have been relocating or moving their assets to try to avoid the potential tax. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been cutting ties to California, relocating to Nevada while funding groups such as Building a Better California that are backing ballot measures that could nullify the billionaire tax.

More than $187 million has been spent opposing the proposition, with the bulk coming from Building a Better California, cryptocurrency company Ripple Labs and its co-founder Chris Larsen, data from the secretary of state show.

Proposition 39 is opposed by leading state Democrats, major civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and major labor unions in the state, who say the measure would disenfranchise eligible voters and expose voters to identity theft by forcing them to write personal ID numbers on mail ballot envelopes.

According to campaign finance reports, the ACLU of Northern California has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeating the measure. Quinn Delaney, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser for former President Obama, and Patty Quillin, a major philanthropist and wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, both have given $1.5 million.

The Service Employees International Union Local 2015, which represents long-term caregivers, provided $1 million, the SEIU California State Council for Working People gave $500,000, and the California Teachers Assn., through its independent expenditure committee, gave another $500,000.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015, said in a statement that the group’s members “know our nation is stronger when working people make their voices heard and have their ballots counted,” and that strict voter ID laws “are part of Trump and MAGA extremists’ agenda to rig the election system so they can cling onto their own power and get richer from corporate corruption.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) recently convened a news conference where a slate of Democratic leaders — including state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — called on Californians to vote no on Proposition 39.

The Democrats called the measure a “dirty trick” from “Trump acolytes” akin to historic poll taxes designed to disenfranchise Black voters, and a power grab that would seriously harm millions of eligible voters, especially in Black and Latino communities.

“Proposition 39 is a direct assault on everything California stands for. Our people, our values and our fundamental belief that every eligible voter here in California deserves to have their voice heard and deserves to have their vote counted,” Rivas said.

A Gallup survey highlights a deep – and historic – partisan divide over confidence in the country’s elections.

With less than a month to go before the United States’ pivotal midterms, a new survey found that most independent voters and supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party do not believe the elections will be honest.

Polling from Gallup, released on Wednesday, found 37 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents have confidence in the country’s electoral system, significantly lower than US Democrats (63 percent).

Overall, 49 percent of Americans said they were confident in the honesty of elections, while 51 percent said they were not. Those figures are unchanged from the country’s last midterm election in 2022.

This “marks a change from 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, when confidence was nominally higher among approvers (51 percent) than disapprovers (45 percent)”, Gallup wrote in a statement highlighting the results of the survey.

The numbers highlight a deep, historic partisan divide over confidence in US elections.

“Since 2025 and Trump’s return to the White House, the relationship between leadership approval and confidence in elections has disappeared,” Gallup wrote.

Gallup said that the US is the only country out of more than 100 polled annually over the past 15 years to show this pattern – trust in US election integrity is markedly higher among those who disapprove of the country’s leadership under Trump (52 percent) than those who approve (41 percent).

In more than 100 countries where the polling organisation tracks views of national leadership and confidence in elections, people who approve of their governments have generally been more likely to trust their country’s elections.

In 2025, 70 percent of people globally who approved of their national leadership expressed confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30 percent among those who disapproved.

“The current US pattern is highly unusual compared with the rest of the world,” Gallup wrote.

Under former US President Joe Biden, 81 percent of Americans who approved of the government expressed confidence in elections, compared with just 30 percent of those who disapproved, according to Gallup.

Gallup said the unusual divide could have implications for the November elections, raising questions about whether some voters will view the results as legitimate.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Rahul Gandhi has been arrested several times at protests demanding the resignation of poll body chief.

Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has been detained for the third time in two days during a protest demanding the resignation of the election chief over a controversial revision of voter lists.

Gandhi and other opposition lawmakers were apprehended by police on Wednesday as they marched towards Jantar Mantar, a designated protest site in India’s capital, New Delhi.

A live feed on the YouTube channel of Gandhi’s Congress Party showed police taking him into a vehicle and driving away. Authorities also detained several other opposition lawmakers and protesters.

Opposition parties, their student units and the “Cockroach” youth movement have been demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the poll body he heads of benefiting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

India’s Election Commission has so far removed more than 130 million names from the voter lists, with millions appealing the removals. About 969 million people were eligible to vote in the 2024 election.

Protesters allege the changes disproportionately removed voters who support opposition parties while preserving or adding voters more likely to back Modi’s party.

The commission and government deny the allegations. They say the revision has no political motive but is aimed at removing duplicate and ineligible entries while ensuring eligible voters remain registered.

Opposition lawmakers led by Gandhi protested on Tuesday as well, before police broke up their gathering and ‌‌briefly detained them.

Speaking before his detention on Wednesday, Gandhi said protesters showed up unannounced after Delhi police “stopped” their gathering the day before.

“We will go to the designated protest site, sit there, and tell the country that, for us, Gyanesh Kumar is not the legitimate commissioner,” he told reporters, referring to Jantar Mantar.

“The people who have done this [vote theft] are traitors … Gyanesh Kumar will have to resign,” he ⁠⁠added.

There was no immediate comment from the police on the detentions.

The demonstrations present a new political challenge to Modi midway into his third term, just months after similar protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party ‌‌youth ‌‌movement forced the resignation of his education minister over exam paper leaks.

The “Cockroach” protests, one of the most visible signs of public dissent against Modi’s government in recent years, reflected growing anger over job scarcity, corruption and a lack of government accountability.

Comments by one of Israel’s most senior ultra-Orthodox rabbis postulating that Jews may have been better off without a state have prompted controversy in the country.

In footage broadcast by Channel 12 on Monday, the 96-year-old Rabbi Dov Lando, the spiritual leader of the Degel HaTorah party, also said that soldiers adhering to “Religious Zionism” killed in Israel’s wars were dying because of what their rabbis had taught them. The remarks, made at a closed meeting at his home in Bnei Brak, have set off a political storm three weeks before Israel’s October 27 parliamentary election.

“They are killed because their rabbis teach them a distorted Torah,” Lando said, adding that many military operations are carried out “not for saving lives, but for the honour of the state”.

Lando’s comment came in response to a question about admiration among some ultra-Orthodox Jewish men – who have traditionally refused the military draft – for religious Zionists who combine Torah study with military service.

His comments aren’t new – they were first published in February 2025. However, their reemergence this week comes amid an election campaign in which ultra-Orthodox military service has become one of the sharpest fault lines in Israeli politics.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that there was no legal basis for ultra-Orthodox seminary students to have exemptions from military service, and the government has since not been able to pass legislation restoring the exemptions. The issue has led to large protests on both sides of the divide.

“The question is not what he said, but why this discourse has been placed at the heart of the Israeli debate three weeks before the election,” Ehab Jabareen, a researcher on Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera.

Better ‘without a state’

Lando’s party is one of the two factions of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) alliance, which won seven seats during the last election in 2022, and had been part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government before its ministers resigned last year.

The bloc did continue to intermittently support the coalition government, however, and Netanyahu has been wary of removing the military exemption – despite widespread opposition to it from many in Israel – out of fear that the UTJ and similar parties would remove their support completely.

Along with his role within Degel HaTorah, Lando is also one of the spiritual leaders of Israel’s Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community, which makes up roughly a third of the country’s estimated 1.45 million ultra-Orthodox Jews, also known as Haredim.

In May, he said he no longer trusted Netanyahu and called for parliament to be dissolved.

In the footage, he goes further. “It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state,” he says, adding that international or Palestinian rule would have been “the best situation”.

Zionism, he argues, “caused the Arabs to hate us” and brought physical as well as spiritual disaster on the Jewish people. He describes secular Israelis as having built “a state of apostasy and heresy”.

The comments reflect non-Zionist and anti-Zionist positions that used to be dominant within ultra-Orthodox Judaism, but take on an overt reference to the possibility of living within a non-Zionist state, something that is even more controversial in Israel.

Ibrahim Khatib, a conflict studies scholar at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, said Lando’s remarks drew a line between Zionism and Judaism “from inside the Jewish community itself”, at a time when the official Israeli establishment “tries to bind them together”.

They also put to the test the narrative that Jewish communities in Arab societies were in danger and threatened, and that the Zionist movement came to “save them” at the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, he told Al Jazeera. However, Khatib cautioned that the ultra-Orthodox polity in Israel “is right-wing, its leaders hold right-wing positions, and some of them have made clearly offensive statements about Arabs and Palestinians”.

Political ammunition

Israeli opposition leaders moved quickly after the footage of Lando emerged this week, taking it as an opportunity to attack a figure from a party within Netanyahu’s electoral bloc.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett – one of Netanyahu’s main challengers in the upcoming elections – called the remarks “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and anti-[Israeli military]”, but aimed his fire at Netanyahu and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who he said “back [Lando] and funnel tens of billions of shekels to him and his friends”.

Gadi Eisenkot, another opposition leader whose Yashar party has campaigned on enforcing the military draft, urged every Zionist party to pledge not to sit with Lando’s party.

Netanyahu, who publicly rejected Lando’s remarks in July when the rabbi accused the Religious Zionism movement of “incitement to murder” for its support of the drafting of religious seminary students to the military, has not yet commented.

Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, put it bluntly: “Netanyahu is silent because without Rabbi Lando and his emissaries, he has no government.”

Jabareen sees Netanyahu’s silence as “calculated”.

“If Netanyahu attacks Lando forcefully, he pays a price with the Haredim he needs to form a government,” he said. “If he stays silent, he hands his rivals material to tell right-wing voters that the man who speaks of Zionism and security depends on a religious leadership that doubts Zionism itself.”

Who fights and who dies

The military draft of the ultra-Orthodox, Jabareen added, has turned “from an old dispute over religion and state into a question about the Israeli [social] contract itself: Who fights? Who dies? And who gets the exemptions, the budgets and the political influence in return?”

Mohammad Abu Rumman, an academic adviser at the Politics and Society Institute in Amman, said the significance of Lando’s remarks lay in the question that prompted them. The example of a young religious man who combines Torah study with military service, he said, “raises a question inside the ultra-Orthodox world itself: Why don’t we do the same?”

“When Lando describes their teaching as a distorted Torah, he is trying to close the door on emulating them,” Abu Rumman told Al Jazeera. “His words are aimed at his own audience as much as at his opponents.”

But Jabareen argued that the row exposes a rift more dangerous for Netanyahu than the familiar clash between secular and religious Israelis, because it runs through the right itself. Religious Zionists have paid a heavy human price in the war, while the ultra-Orthodox leadership still rejects conscription. Caught between those who pay the price of war and those who refuse to, Netanyahu needs both, and cannot satisfy them at once.

Whether the outrage over Lando’s comments translates into votes is less clear. Abu Rumman expects the remarks to “reinforce existing positions more than change voters’ choices”. The space where they could matter, he said, lies among right-wing voters who serve in the army and resent Netanyahu’s protection of ultra-Orthodox demands.

“If Netanyahu needs these parties to build a majority, that need will not disappear because of a rabbi’s remarks, however shocking,” Abu Rumman said. Netanyahu is also not the UTJ’s only suitor: Channel 12 reported that, frustrated by his failure to secure a law exempting ultra-Orthodox men from military service, the party would not rule out or oppose a government led by Eisenkot.

“The Israeli right has managed to bring under one political roof two currents with almost contradictory visions of the Jewish state,” Jabareen said. “One sanctifies the state and the expansion of its sovereignty. In the other, one of its most important rabbis can say it might have been better had the state never been founded.”

Far-right and far-left parties gain ground in local elections as Merz’s approval rating sinks.

Chancellor ⁠Friedrich Merz has hit out at what he called political “extremism” in Germany after recent stinging defeats in local elections to far-right and far-left parties.

“This is a task for ⁠our society as ⁠a whole, and it is ⁠one I intend ⁠to play ⁠my part in,” he said on Wednesday at an ‌event in Berlin.

Merz said “extremism” was forcefully making its way into the country’s parliaments, a day after a member of the far-right Alternative for ‌Germany (AfD) was elected president of the state parliament in Saxony-Anhalt and the Left Party won out in Berlin’s state election last month.

“Anyone who casts their vote for ⁠the AfD is ⁠playing the extremists’ game and undermining credibility,” ⁠Merz said. “In ⁠any case, this is incompatible with the values of ‌my party, the CDU [Christian Democratic Union of Germany].”

Despite winning the vote in the September 6 election in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD fell three seats short of the absolute majority it had had sought. AfD lawmaker Tobias Rausch won the presidency of the parliament in the eastern German state Tuesday, backed by the left-populists in a secret ballot.

Founded in 2013 as a Eurosceptic movement, the AfD won over voters with an increasingly hardline opposition to immigration after about a million people fled to Germany in 2015, many of them from war-torn Syria.

The party has since become a dominant political force in much of eastern Germany, especially among voters disillusioned with mainstream parties, though most traditional parties have pledged not to enter coalitions with the AfD.

Berlin election

Merz’s comments followed the far-left Left Party’s victory in the Berlin state election on September 20, in another defeat for the chancellor’s ruling Christian Democrats.

Lead ‌candidate Elif Eralp campaigned on the soaring cost of housing in the German capital and immediately promised to follow through with a pledge to nationalise private housing associations that account for a large share of the city’s housing stock.

The result, which roughly doubled the party’s previous score, could see her become the first mayor of Berlin from the Left Party, which grew out of the former East German communist party following the reunification of the country 36 years ago.

Eralp, the 45-year-old daughter of left-wing Turkish parents who fled a coup in 1980, said the increasingly difficult rental situation was the biggest social problem in the capital.

She promised to proceed with nationalising the housing associations she said drove property speculation, in accordance with a referendum from 2021 in which 58 percent of voters backed a proposal to promulgate the move.

While the AfD has attracted most attention, the ⁠Left Party has also benefitted from a general turn against the mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties.

Meanwhile, Merz has received a record low approval rating. Earlier this month, a survey by Germany’s public broadcaster ARD found that only one in 10 respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with his performance, the lowest figure for any chancellor since the survey began in 1997.

Another major election test will come in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, where voters are set to elect a new parliament in April.

Parti Quebecois returns to power, promising a third referendum on Quebec’s independence from Canada.

The secessionist Parti Quebecois has won the most seats in Quebec’s election and will form the next government in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province, according to media reports.

The result on Monday revives the question of whether the province should leave Canada, testing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s message of national unity.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the party’s leader, is set to become premier.

During the campaign, he promised a third referendum on leaving Canada during his first term, although he said he would wait until US President Donald Trump leaves office in January 2029.

It was not yet clear whether the party had reached the 64 seats needed for a majority in the 127-seat National Assembly.

If it falls short, it would lead a minority government and need support from opposition lawmakers to pass major legislation and survive confidence votes.

The Parti Quebecois, or PQ, last governed the province from 2012 to 2014.

Monday’s victory marks a sharp recovery for the PQ, which won just three seats in the 2022 provincial election.

Its return also ends eight years in power for the Coalition Avenir Quebec, or CAQ, a centre-right Quebec nationalist party that does not support independence.

Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, told The Associated Press news agency that the victory reflects Quebec’s multiparty system, where support is divided among several parties, rather than a surge in secessionist sentiment.

Support for independence remains at about 30 percent, low by historical standards, he said.

Still, Beland said a secessionist government in Quebec represents a new national-unity challenge for Carney, particularly with another independence-related vote approaching in Alberta.

“Seeing that a pro-independence party won in Quebec barely two weeks before an independence-related referendum takes place in Alberta might suggest to the Trump administration that national unity remains a major issue in Canada despite the popularity of Mark Carney,” Beland said.

Quebec held two previous referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995, and voters rejected secession both times.

The second vote was decided by a narrow margin, but there has been no further referendum in the three decades since.