election

WASHINGTON — Democrats have spent nearly two years trying to move past the 2024 presidential election. Now, Jill Biden’s new memoir is forcing them to relive it.

Her new book, “View from the East Wing,” which comes out Tuesday, is already drawing sharp rebukes from top Democrats, some of whom say it is a poorly timed and misleading account of the events that led to the demise of her husband’s presidency.

“Unhelpful … Ripping open a healing scab is never helpful,” John Morgan, a Florida trial attorney who was a major fundraiser for Biden’s 2024 campaign, told The Times. “In my opinion, she was the main problem. She loved the life and didn’t want it to end.”

Those type of frustrations erupted last week as the former first lady began promoting her book, including in a sit-down interview with CBS News airing Sunday, in which she said she thought the sitting president was having a stroke as she watched the 2024 presidential debate.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Biden said. The moment “scared me to death,” she added.

For Democrats who had a similar reaction in real time, but who spent months being told by the Biden campaign that their concerns were overblown, her remarks landed like a gut punch. With the midterms around the corner, some bemoaned that Biden was relitigating a sore subject — particularly the question of who knew what about Biden’s aging and cognitive decline.

“What I care about is what happens going forward,” Dan Pfeiffer, a host of “Pod Save America,” a popular progressive podcast, said on the show Thursday. “What bothers me the most is not the timeline of events, but whether Democratic leaders now will ever reckon with the massive breach of trust that came because of how all of that was handled.”

Meghan Hays, a former White House aide to Joe Biden, said on C-SPAN’s “Ceasefire” that although she understands that Jill Biden is trying to sell books, her efforts are not helping the party ahead of the midterm elections.

“We have a lot of momentum in our favor … and when we get pulled back into conversations about age and the election in ‘24, it’s never gonna be a good place for Democrats,” Hays said. “I think it is a tough place to be.”

The Democratic Party found itself trapped in a similar dynamic earlier this month, when the Democratic National Committee released a long-awaited, 192-page report dissecting the 2024 loss. The committee’s chairman, Ken Martin, shared the postelection autopsy after coming under intense pressure from Democratic operatives, and apologized for how he handled its release.

The report faulted Kamala Harris and Democrats’ focus on “identity politics” but did not address Biden’s decision to seek reelection amid health concerns and the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket.

In her book, the former first lady writes that her goal is to be able to “set the record straight” about what happened during the debate and the months that followed that led to President Trump’s return to the White House, according to the Atlantic, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its release.

At one point, she writes that she even suspected her husband may have been inadvertently impaired after taking cough syrup. In the CBS interview, Biden maintained that she never saw any signs of cognitive decline while he was the sitting president.

“He was the same, the essence of the same Joe Biden, but yeah, he was slowing down. He was getting older,” she said. “You know, it’s a very intense job. I think it ages you — quickly.”

Morgan, the former Biden fundraiser, said he does not believe the first lady is telling the truth in her memoir.

“If you like fiction it’s good,” Morgan said. He added that her claim that she had never witnessed her husband act in a similar way since the debate “defies the smell test.”

“His keys should have been taken long before that night,” Morgan said.

Michael LaRosa, a former press secretary for the first lady, called Democrats’ reaction to the new memoir “pretty grim.”

“There is a deep reservoir of frustration among ‘formers’ who believe she enables the culture around her and the President rather than challenging it,” LaRosa wrote. “So now they seem to be challenging her.”

Although many Democrats are publicly expressing their annoyance at the conversation Biden has resurfaced, others do not see the former first lady’s comments having an effect on the upcoming elections.

“This is not going to be part of a conversation in the election. It’s going to be part of a conversation in Washington because that is what Washington does, but this is not going to move the needle in New Hampshire or other states where it matters,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist who ran a pro-Biden super PAC during the 2020 election cycle.

Schale was blunt: “She is selling books.”

Even if that is the case, Republicans are taking notice.

In a Truth Social post on Friday, President Trump appeared gleeful to note that Biden was “finally admitting” that she did not know what was wrong with her husband during “our spectacular, and highly rated, 2024 Presidential Debate.”

The president lamented that the former first lady did not compliment his performance.

“In other words, as many have asked, did my strong performance in that debate cause him to plain and simple ‘choke,’ leading to his ignominious defeat, or were other reasons the cause? Nobody else knows the answer to that, BUT I DO!!!” Trump wrote.

May 29 (UPI) — Mexico’s Congress approved a constitutional reform that adds foreign intervention or interference in electoral processes as a new ground for annulling elections.

The measure, promoted by the ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement, or Morena, has sparked debate over national sovereignty, electoral security and the limits of legal interpretation in future elections.

The reform amends Article 41 of the Constitution to establish that an election may be annulled when acts of foreign intervention or interference that influence electoral results are proven.

The initiative was initially approved by the Chamber of Deputies and later received Senate approval. It must now be ratified by at least 17 state legislatures before it can take effect.

The proposal was introduced by Ricardo Monreal, Morena’s coordinator in the Chamber of Deputies, who argued that Mexican law had until now lacked a specific sanction for cases of foreign interference in elections.

“Currently there is no sanction for anyone who seeks to invade our country or interfere in electoral processes,” Monreal said during the legislative debate, according to El Universal.

The lawmaker said the annulment could only be applied when there is “full and conclusive evidence” that foreign governments or external agents intervened in an election.

The Chamber of Deputies approved the reform with 307 votes in favor, 128 against and one abstention.

The ruling coalition argues that the measure seeks to strengthen national sovereignty against possible attempts at external influence, including irregular financing, disinformation campaigns, digital operations or political pressure originating abroad.

President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly backed the initiative and said there is a “real risk” of foreign intervention in future Mexican electoral processes.

Several local media outlets reported that the government has linked the reform to an international environment marked by growing geopolitical disputes, digital influence campaigns and external pressure on Latin American governments.

However, opposition parties questioned both the substance of the reform and the speed with which it advanced through Congress.

Rubén Moreira, parliamentary leader of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, warned that the initiative was introduced only days before it was debated and argued that there was not enough time to thoroughly analyze the legal implications of concepts such as “interference” or “foreign intervention,” according to reports by El País.

Lawmakers from the National Action Party and the Citizens’ Movement party also warned of the risk that the new provision could be used discretionarily to challenge election results under broad interpretations of what constitutes foreign influence.

During the legislative debate, Morena rejected those accusations and said the reform is not intended to censor news media, social media platforms or individual expressions.

Monreal said that a news article, an interview or a social media post would not, by themselves, be sufficient grounds to justify the annulment of an election.

He also said secondary legislation will be needed to precisely define the legal circumstances under which foreign intervention occurred and which authorities will be empowered to determine it.

The debate comes amid growing political tensions between Mexico and United States over issues related to drug trafficking, border security and regional cooperation.

It also coincides with a broader debate across Latin America over the influence of foreign governments, transnational digital campaigns and mechanisms to protect electoral sovereignty.

On Sunday, voters in the South American country of Colombia are facing a choice.

Four years ago, they elected the first left-wing president in the country’s modern history, Gustavo Petro. Now, they must decide whether to continue with Petro’s leftist push — or restore the political right to power.

Fourteen candidates will be on the ballot for the first round of voting in Colombia’s presidential election.  The packed field includes contenders from the left, right and centre, who are slated to face off over issues like security and the cost of living.

But Petro will not be among them: Presidents in Colombia are limited to a single four-year term.

The right wing is expected to have the advantage, particularly if the race proceeds to a second round. Petro is struggling with low poll numbers, and voters have expressed frustration with crime and violence, driven in part by the country’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

But leftist candidate Ivan Cepeda has surprised observers, consistently placing at the top of the polls ahead of the first round.

When is the election, who are the candidates, and which issues are top of mind for voters? We look at those questions and more in this brief explainer.

When is the election?

The first round of voting is set to take place on May 31, 2026.

Will there be a second round of voting?

A candidate would need to win more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round to avoid a run-off.

If no single candidate meets that threshold, a run-off will be held between the top two finishers on June 21.

Why is this election important?

In recent years, across Latin America, long-entrenched left-wing governments have met defeat at the ballot box.

Last year alone, right-wing candidates have been elected to replace left-wing presidents in Bolivia, Chile and Honduras.

But Colombia does not have a long history of left-wing presidents. Petro was the first. That makes this race one to watch, according to Gimena Sanchez, a Colombia expert at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights nonprofit.

“This is the first election to be held after the first-ever leftist administration in Colombia’s 200-year history,” Sanchez explained.

Colombia now stands at a fork in the road. One of the dominant issues in the election is how to resolve the country’s internal conflict, which forced more than 235,619 individuals from their homes in 2025.

Another 87,069 people were caught up in mass displacement events due to the fighting, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Petro has embraced negotiation as a tool to end the conflict, which has seen government forces, criminal networks, left-wing rebels and right-wing paramilitaries all battling one another.

But the political right has advocated a return to the more militarised approach backed by the United States, according to Sanchez.

“The leading candidates fall into two camps: continuity with the leftist government of Petro and an approach to security that focuses on negotiations with armed groups, and right-wing candidates who very much want to go back to a hardline security model that Colombia had in the past,” Sanchez said.

“You have polar opposite visions for the country.”

Who is the main candidate on the left?

Senator Ivan Cepeda has emerged as the primary candidate of the political left, running as the head of the governing coalition, known as Historic Pact.

Cepeda has largely pledged continuity with Petro’s platform, including social and economic policies meant to reduce inequality.

He has also embraced Petro’s “Total Peace” approach, which aims to resolve the country’s internal fighting by negotiating with armed groups and criminal networks, as opposed to solely relying on military force.

Confronting state-backed violence has become a hallmark of Cepeda’s life and career.

His father, who was also a senator, is believed to have been assassinated by a government-backed paramilitary. For years, Cepeda was also embroiled in a legal battle for accusing former President Alvaro Uribe of connections to right-wing paramilitaries.

Who are the main candidates on the right?

While Cepeda has become the standard-bearer for the left, the political right has had to contend with a more fractured field of candidates.

Running on the far right is Abelardo de la Espriella, a lawyer for the Defenders of the Homeland Party who has generated comparisons with Salvadoran President Salvador Bukele and Argentina’s Javier Milei.

Like those leaders, de la Espriella has offered a hardline vision for his country’s security. If elected, he says he would end negotiations with armed groups, bomb rebel camps, and resume the aerial fumigation of coca ⁠crops, which produce the raw material for cocaine.

Senator Paloma Valencia, a candidate with the Democratic Centre Party, is running as a more moderate alternative to de la Espriella. She too has promised a stricter approach to crime. Her platform involves expanding the police and armed forces, while cutting taxes and promoting pro-business policies in the economic realm.

Their election-season competition has become a source of acrimony for Valencia and de la Espriella, who have accused each other of paving the way for a leftist election victory.

“There is a more familiar, establishment right, represented by Valencia, and a far right in the form of de la Espriella, who pitches himself as an outsider,” said Sanchez.

Valencia, for her part, has criticised de la Espriella as two-faced, defending criminals in his legal practice but advocating for tighter security on the campaign trail.

De la Espriella, meanwhile, has dismissed Valencia as a member of the country’s political establishment and chided her in a social media post, stating that the presidential election is “not for little games”.

What are the polls saying?

Polls generally show Cepeda ahead of his rivals, with de la Espriella in second place and Valencia in third.

A May 24 poll from the National Consulting Centre (CNC) and the publication Cambio suggested that Cepeda had drawn 33.4 percent of voter support, the most of any candidate.

But de la Espriella was on the upswing with 30.9 percent. Valencia, meanwhile, trailed with 12.6 percent.

The same surveys, however, suggest that Cepeda would struggle to win a run-off against either of the two right-wing candidates, with de la Espriella eking out about three points in a head-to-head contest, and Valencia coming within a percentage point of victory.

Undecided voters could play a key role in deciding the outcome, though. An analysis cited by the Spanish paper El Pais estimates that undecided voters could account for as much as 28 percent of the electorate.

Which issues are front and centre?

Concerns over crime, security and economic issues like unemployment and affordability have dominated the election.

In a poll from the firm Invamer, the highest proportion of voters — 37 percent — identified security as the top issue facing the country.

Basic needs and unemployment ranked second and third, with 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Eleven percent of voters, meanwhile, named corruption as a leading concern.

The threat of violence has lingered over the presidential campaign over the past year.

Two political staffers with de la Espriella’s campaign were killed by gunmen on motorbikes earlier this month. And in June 2025, presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot while leaving a campaign rally. The 39-year-old died two months later from his injuries.

Political violence is a serious concern in Colombia, and all of the frontrunners in the race travel with heavy security.

Well, I gave him a chance, offering my services.

I was willing to give the young novice a primer on what a mayor can and can’t do, and let him know City Hall is a reality show like no other he’s been on. But Spencer Pratt didn’t call me in response to my column last week.

I did, however, hear from a slew of his most ardent supporters.

Steven C. had this to say: “You’re a left-wing idiot, and … it’s time for you to retire. You’re a joke!!! You always have been!!! God bless Spencer Pratt and the 45th and 47th President of the United States Donald Trump!!!!!”

You may be onto something, Steven!!! I’ve been thinking about retiring!!!! But then a former reality TV star like Pratt comes along and tells Vanity Fair he had a chat with God, who told him He wants Pratt to be mayor of L.A!!!!! With people like this running for office, how can I retire?!!!!!

R.W. wrote to say: “You say Spencer has never done anything in his life…What credentials do you have? From what I’ve read about you, you are a lousy commie journalist who has never accomplished anything in your life!!”

Just recently, R.W., I replaced a broken toilet tank flush valve and I learned two Willie Nelson songs on the guitar. That’s not nothing.

Peter did not mince words: “Your piece on Pratt is a hit piece filled with bull— . You should go f— yourself before someone takes you out, which is the appropriate response to a s—bag like yourself. So please f— off and drop dead, which is exactly what you deserve.”

Peter, I did drop dead once. Cardiac arrest. While on the other side, I saw God, who told me to snap out of it because He was going to tell Spencer Pratt to run for mayor. Who knew God had a defibrillator?

All of these, by the way, were actual emails, and there were many more just like them. But it’s only fair to note that despite the fulminating knucklehead wing of Pratt’s posse, he’s tapped into a justifiable sense of frustration with City Hall, given homelessness, the Palisades inferno and budget issues that squeeze all manner of basic city services.

That’s why Mayor Karen Bass is paddling furiously, trying to keep her political career afloat. In the latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll, Bass is at 26%, Nithya Raman at 25% and Pratt at 22%. That’s so tight, it appears that no one will get the 50% needed to win outright, and if we get a top-two runoff, it’s not clear who will go to the dance.

So as we close out the primary, with the election on Tuesday, five talking points come to mind.

Which candidate knows the city best?

Los Angeles has 114 distinct neighborhoods spread across 470 square miles (that’s 10 times the size of San Francisco), with an estimated 220 languages spoken. Diversity is a defining characteristic, and roughly half the population is Latino, which makes it a shame there’s no Latino candidate for mayor, especially given the raids and roundups by President Trump.

A mayor doesn’t have to speak six languages and know every corner of the city, but residents want to be seen and heard, and feel like they’re understood and represented.

Raman is well-versed on homelessness policy, and she’s spot-on about the need for greater urgency in problem-solving, but as my colleague Noah Goldberg reported, constituents in her district complain that they haven’t seen enough of her.

As I said, Pratt has wisely targeted municipal failure. But in the realm of outsider candidates with Republican credentials, Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass last time, was comfortable whether he was in the Valley, South L.A. or anywhere in between. And he easily connected with people. Would Pratt be a tourist in his own city?

By virtue of her job the last four years, Bass — who raised a blended Black and Latino family — knows the city best, although her unfavorability rating is a big problem.

What about the other candidates?

In the aforementioned poll, minister and housing activist Rae Huang had 9% and former educational technology businessman Adam Miller had 5%. Virtual unknowns, neither had a legit chance of winning, but they could be spoilers for one of the top three candidates.

I spoke to both, and if you’re undecided, you should read up on them before voting. On Huang’s website, the first words are “Homes are for people, not profit.” Miller wants to bring his success in the business world to City Hall, and when you consider his policy agenda along with his nonprofit work with veterans and homelessness, he’s a better candidate than Pratt.

But he wasn’t on a reality TV show.

Democrats ruined L.A. and California, right?

If only I had a nickel for every time a reader suggested that.

By 101 measures, Los Angeles is one of the great cities of the world and California has built the world’s fourth-largest economy while leading on climate change, so apocalyptic diagnoses are a bit off the mark.

Also, local elections are nonpartisan. You don’t run for mayor as a D or an R.

And yet it’s true that Democrats and their policies and sensibilities rule the day, and they have a lot to answer for in Los Angeles and in California.

But would the same critics suggest that in conservative cities like Fresno and Bakersfield, which have their own homelessness and other problems, Republicans are to blame?

When it comes to housing, poverty, healthcare and streets occupied by people who are addicted or mentally ill, the failures go back decades, touch all levels of government, and cross party lines.

Have I given up on Los Angeles?

When I pointed out that Pratt seemed unaware of these complexities, and of the structural limits of mayoral power, readers suggested he was rising to the challenge while I was giving up on L.A.

Not at all. I care about L.A. enough to hold its leaders to a higher accountability, and to scrutinize posers and pretenders who think they can do a better job.

My advice for the next mayor.

Fix what’s broken, celebrate what works and take responsibility for what doesn’t.

Now let me try one more time:

Spencer, give me a call.

You can’t tell us you had a conversation with God about running for mayor and not share more details.

Did God scold you for referring to the mayor as Karen “Basura,” which means trash in Spanish?

Did He say we should pull out of the ‘28 Olympics, or have any advice on how to fill potholes and fix sidewalks?

If you’re having regular conversations about City Hall with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we’re dying to know:

On homelessness, what would Jesus do?

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Democratic and Republican candidates vying to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom have been sparring on televised debates and exchanging campaign attacks since April to garner the attention of voters statewide.

The candidates include a Riverside County sheriff, a former senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, a former Los Angeles mayor, a billionaire hedge fund founder and two former members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Recent polls showed that the leading Democratic candidate is Xavier Becerra, a former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services whose campaign is focusing on affordability and housing for what he calls “working Californians.” Vying for one of the top two spots in the June 2 primary are Republican contender Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who was endorsed by President Trump, and Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, a hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior.

Here is what the top candidates have said on important topics such as immigration, housing and homelessness, affordability and the entertainment industry.

Immigration and ICE

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that began in California last summer have been hotly debated by Democratic and Republican candidates.

Here is what the candidates said during a debate in May or stated on their websites, as well as some criticism they have faced during the campaign.

• Xavier Becerra vowed to protect and lead the state against the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants and marginalized communities. Becerra’s rivals have accused him of failing to protect migrant children when he served as Health and Human Services secretary under the Biden administration.
• Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco opposes “sanctuary city” laws that block local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents, calls for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants and says the border must be secured. But he has also faced criticism from fellow Republicans for supporting a pathway to citizenship for lawful, working undocumented people and telling his constituents that his deputies were not taking part in Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
• Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, who legally immigrated to the United States from the United Kingdom, opposes California’s state and local sanctuary policies, and said the state must cooperate with the federal government because the governor’s job is to enforce laws, whether the governor agrees with immigration enforcement activity or not.
• San José Mayor Matt Mahan plans to demand ICE officers be unmasked, vows to go after agents and immigration agency leadership when they violate the constitution and shield communities from unwarranted harassment.
• Former Congresswoman Katie Porter said California should enforce its sanctuary laws statewide, “so we don’t have crazy cowboys taking the law into their own hands.”
• Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer wants to strengthen California’s laws to ensure law enforcement agents can’t profile Californians based on their race, ethnicity, language, occupation or location. He also wants legislation that will grant the state attorney general the authority to hold ICE agents accountable for violent and illegal acts on the job. He supports abolishing ICE. But he has faced heat on the campaign trail for his former hedge fund’s investment in the Corrections Corp. of America, now known as CoreCivic, which operates private prisons around the nation that are housing people picked up by federal immigration agents. Steyer has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the company and said he personally ordered the divestment from private prisons before he sold his stake in the hedge fund.
• State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond says he plans to levy a new tax on companies that operate ICE detention centers, fight to abolish ICE, protect California’s sanctuary laws and work with Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship.
• Former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supports helping law-abiding immigrants and said violent criminals have been deported under the state’s sanctuary laws, despite claims to the contrary by Republican candidates.

Housing and homelessness

Here’s what each candidate said about the need to address the state’s housing shortage and its stubborn homeless problem:

• Becerra said he plans to cut “unnecessary red tape” and speed up “approvals for projects that meet affordability and environmental standards.” On homelessness, Becerra said he wants to establish a $150-million annual homelessness prevention fund to pay rents and fight eviction or foreclosure.
• Bianco said he wants to end “overregulation of our building industry” and eliminate the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Commission and the California Air Resources Board. On homelessness, he wants cities to clear encampments and prioritize mental health and substance abuse treatment. He wants to force people to accept drug treatment “when necessary.”
• Hilton proposes to reform the California Environmental Quality Act so that only government prosecutors can sue, preventing private individuals and organizations from stopping or delaying new housing projects. He also said he believes rent control measures reduce the incentive to build housing and wants to restructure or eliminate them. On homelessness, Hilton wants to build more low-cost group shelters instead of permanent housing.
• Mahan said he wants to lower developer fees and taxes for infill housing. Mahan also said more homes should be built off-site in California-based factories, making them cheaper than building them on site. On homelessness, Mahan wants to make the state’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant permanent and fund it at $1 billion a year.
• Porter said she would “greenlight innovative building strategies, shred unnecessary red tape and create incentives” to build needed housing. On homelessness, Porter wants more interim housing, emergency rental assistance and rapid rehousing programs.
• Steyer is pledging to make it harder for large corporations to buy up the state’s housing stock and wants to encourage cheaper methods of home construction. On homelessness, Steyer wants to expand interim housing options and homeless services.
• Thurmond said he wants to build 2 million new homes for “working Californians,” on 75,000 acres of surplus land that local school districts own. On homelessness, Thurmond wants to increase the number of housing units that include mental health and substance abuse services.
• Villaraigosa said he wants to cut development fees and reform CEQA to speed housing development, particularly for infill housing. On homelessness, Villaraigosa wants to double the state’s investment in Newsom’s Homekey program to build an additional 10,000 units of permanent supportive housing over five years.

A comprehensive guide on the candidate’s full views on housing and homelessness is here.

What the candidates have said about affordability

The candidates offered their ideas for making California more affordable during debates in April and May as well as on their websites.

• Becerra said he will stand up to price gouging and unjustified rate hikes and use the power of the state to lower prices “where the market has failed.”
• Bianco says he wants to cut taxes for working families and businesses, stop the “over-regulation on California’s economy,” support job growth and unleash the state’s energy resources to lower the price of gas and utilities.
• Hilton said he wants to eliminate income taxes on people who earn less than $100,000 and on the first $100,000 for Californians who earn more than that. He also wants to end California’s current tax on tips to ensure tipped workers keep more of their earnings.
• Mahan said he wants to enact a “Gas Tax Holiday” that ends or reduces the tax on gas. He also wants to remove barriers to building affordable housing by putting a cap on fees charged for new housing construction.
• Porter supports single-payer healthcare, providing free child care and college tuition and making wealthy corporations pay their “fair share” in taxes. To pay for it, Porter would impose a progressive corporate tax, meaning more profitable businesses and corporations would pay a higher rate. She also supports ending income taxes for those who earn less than $100,000.
• Steyer called himself the only candidate who is “willing to take on the corporate special interests” that drive up the cost of living in the state. He said he would like to lower gas prices as well as streamline permitting, reform zoning and enforce laws to build affordable homes faster. He also supports single-payer healthcare.
• Thurmond wants to provide a tax credit to make it easier for Californians to pay for the rising cost of gas, groceries and housing. He plans to establish a universal childcare program and provide low-cost loans to help small businesses make improvements at their firms.
• Villaraigosa plans to support a California Fuel Affordability Guarantee to cap gas prices for working families.

The entertainment industry

Here’s what some candidates have listed on their campaign websites about their ideas to support California’s entertainment industry.

• Becerra supports state requirements that mandate productions disclose how AI is being used, cutting the “bureaucratic friction” of getting a filming location permit and vows to uphold the state requirement that ensures digital platforms share meaningful performance data with the cast, writers and directors.
• Hilton wants to restore California’s competitive edge as a place for productions by creating financial incentives for film productions, cover the initial and technical costs associated with the development of a film or television project and reserve funding for independent and mid-budget projects.
• Mahan said he plans to expand and modernize production incentives, make them more competitive and ensure the protections are for everyone who works on a film or television project from the technical crew to writers, directors and actors.
• Steyer said he would like to block corporate mergers in entertainment, defend and expand film tax credits and eliminate the regulations and hurdles for permitting and logistics that “slow down productions.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta, Nicole Nixon and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Alabama on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a congressional map favoring Republicans in this year’s elections, despite a lower court’s ruling that the redistricting plan intentionally discriminates against Black people.

The state’s Republican leadership filed an emergency appeal with the justices a day after a three-judge court refused to let the state use a map it adopted three years ago that has a majority Black population in just one of its seven congressional districts.

The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map that was put in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall told the court that the state did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges.

The appeal is the latest development in the fallout from last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The Alabama cases stretches back several years. The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 19 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said it was standing behind its initial finding that there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination, a holding that was independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The use of the court-ordered map led to the 2024 election of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are seeking to use a map that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim the south Alabama seat.

The state is asking for Supreme Court action by Monday as it makes preparations for the special vote in August.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

PM Nikol Pashinyan, who deepened ties with US, faces challenge from pro-Russia parties in upcoming parliamentary polls.

Armenia has signed a strategic partnership agreement bolstering ties with the United States, as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faces a challenge from pro-Russia parties in the country’s upcoming election in June.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan also signed a framework on critical minerals and cooperation on a transit corridor in the Armenian capital of Yerevan on Tuesday.

“This agreement marks the biggest step to date on making this historic route a reality, on advancing peace, and on increasing prosperity in Armenia and frankly in the region,” Rubio said at a signing ceremony at the Yerevan airport.

The 43-km (27-mile) corridor, dubbed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), would traverse southern Armenia and provide Azerbaijan with a direct route to the exclave of Nakhchivan and into Turkiye, a close ally of Baku.

Pashinyan has sought closer ties with the US and Europe, drawing the ire of longtime ally Russia. Moscow has said that it could raise the price of gas Armenia receives from Russia if it continues to pursue greater integration with Western countries.

Armenia had historically been a close security and economic partner of Russia, but Yerevan started to turn towards the West for alliances after the 2023 conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

Russia, which is fighting its own war in Ukraine, did not intervene militarily when Azerbaijan launched a major military offensive Nagorno-Karabakh, which had a large Armenian population and had been de facto independent since the 1990s.

Last year, the US and Armenia held joint military drills for the first time.

“I wish to reaffirm that the comprehensive strategic relations between our two nations are stronger than ever,” Mirzoyan said of relations with the US on Tuesday.

The administration of US President Donald Trump, for its part, has cast its relationship with Yerevan in largely economic terms and sought concessions in areas such as critical minerals.

“We are laying the groundwork for the sort of economic engagement that allows Armenians to make money and find prosperity and Americans to do the same and to do it together, which is one of the strongest ways to bind nations with one another,” Rubio said on Tuesday.

A US State Department framework for the transportation corridor, part of a peace agreement signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan last August, also grants the US a 74 percent share in the “TRIPP Development Company”, with an explicit pledge to benefit US companies.

PHOENIX — As Sandra Ramirez watched footage of immigration officers cracking down on migrants over the past year, she knew her 2024 vote for Donald Trump was a mistake.

“There are a lot of people who are being harassed for the color of their skin, and that’s not right,” said Ramirez, who broke from her Democrat-voting family to cast a ballot for Trump.

“I’ll never go Republican again,” she said.

Trump made inroads with Latino voters like Ramirez during the 2024 elections, earning support that helped propel him to a second term in the White House.

As Republicans gear up for midterms this fall and look ahead to presidential elections in 2028, all eyes are on whether they can hold on to that key support or whether the administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown and an economy beset by high prices may drive Latino voters away.

In a sign of looming danger, recent polling from the Pew Research Center shows support for Trump falling fast among that electorate.

Support among Latino Trump voters shows signs of softening

Latino voters have historically been largely aligned with the Democratic Party but during the 2024 election, they shifted significantly toward Trump. A majority still supported Democrat Kamala Harris for president, but Trump made big gains: 43% of Latino voters nationally voted for him, compared with 35% in the 2020 presidential election, a change attributed in part to their concerns about the economy.

Trump returned to office pledging to crack down on immigration, a promise that prompted arrest sweeps, often against Latino migrants, in homes, workplaces and schools, among others. According to an AP-NORC poll, more than half of Latino adults report knowing someone impacted by the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.

More than a year into Trump’s second term, polling suggests a significant drop in support for the president among Latinos who voted for him in 2024, although a majority still supports him.

According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in April, support for the president fell among non-Latino voters from 95% to 79% between February of last year and April of 2026. But among Latino voters who cast their ballot for Trump, the drop-off was more dramatic: 66% approved of his job performance in April compared with 93% at the beginning of his second term.

That national drop could prove crucial in a tight election in swing counties like Maricopa, the largest battleground county in the nation, which encompasses Phoenix and its suburbs. A third of Maricopa County residents are Latino, and one in four of them is an immigrant, according to the Latino Data Hub at UCLA.

Arizona, which also saw a slight increase in Latino support for Trump in 2024, has been a flashpoint in the immigration debate for years. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio conducted high-profile raids in Latino communities and, later, the state saw large influxes of migrants during the Biden administration.

In outh Phoenix, opinions on Trump reflect deep divisions

On a warm afternoon in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of south Phoenix, a vendor at a street fair sold shirts imprinted with phrases like “Lowriders Sunday” while car club members polished their Chevrolets. The parking lot of the nearby Catholic church was full of parishioners attending Spanish-language Sunday Mass.

Albert Rodriguez, a Phoenix tattoo artist, said he once supported Trump. But then he saw how the administration was carrying out enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis and Los Angeles.

He said the president promised to go after immigrants who were criminals, but instead Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have been “hitting the paleta man,” referring to ordinary people trying to make a living from selling frozen treats.

“Big time, I regret it,” Rodriguez said of his 2024 vote for Trump.

Phoenix resident Ronnie Martinez, an Army veteran, backs Trump’s effort to stem crossings at the southern border.

“The border is only a hop, skip and a jump to our south. And I don’t want illegal alien criminals coming from Guatemala, Venezuela, Central America,” he said.

He didn’t like some of the images he’d seen of ICE arresting people in front of their children. But he was also sympathetic to ICE officers, who he said were doing the best they could in difficult situations, and he blamed Democratic officials who weren’t cooperating with immigration enforcement. He also cited economic initiatives as a reason for his continued support for the president, including the removal of taxes on tips and overtime.

Guadalupe Alaffa, another Phoenix resident, blamed President Biden’s policies for prompting Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“He left that damn border wide open,” said Alaffa.

Arizona battleground politics shaped by Latino voter influence

The growing influence of Latino voters is one of several factors that have eroded the GOP’s decades-long dominance in Arizona, putting the state at the center of congressional and presidential elections. Both of Arizona’s senators are now Democrats, along with the top three state officials.

Winning back some of the Latinos who shifted to Trump will be crucial to the reelection prospects of Gov. Katie Hobbs, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes, all Democrats first elected in 2022.

Democrats in Maricopa County have benefited from more than a decade of political organizing among Latinos mobilizing against hard-line immigration enforcement. The Republican-controlled Legislature in 2010 passed a state law known as SB1070, which required police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspected of being in the country illegally.

Around the same time, Arpaio was building a national profile on the right with immigration sweeps in largely Latino neighborhoods.

Some activists see the nationwide crackdown on immigrants as an extension of what Latinos in Arizona endured under Arpaio.

“We were the lab where they implemented a lot of this with Sheriff Joe and now it’s all over the United States,” said Salvador Reza, a longtime activist in Phoenix who advocates for the rights of day laborers.

For more than two decades, Arpaio was repeatedly elected while his department faced accusations of racially profiling Latino drivers and conducting sweeps in Latino neighborhoods and day labor areas. Deputies often stopped residents for traffic violations and turned noncitizens over to ICE, according to rights groups.

In 2013, a federal judge ruled his office had illegally profiled and detained Latinos, and a 2011 Justice Department report found widespread discrimination. After losing reelection in 2016, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt for defying court orders. He was later pardoned by Trump.

Rising prices and immigration enforcement erode Latino support

The GOP is at risk of losing some of the Latinos that Trump won over, said former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the controversial 2010 bill. She cited economic concerns as a possible reason for the drop in support.

“With the inflation and the cost of living and the gasoline and the wars, I don’t know if they can afford to be a Trump Republican,” Brewer said.

Earl Wilcox, a longtime activist and restaurant owner in Phoenix, said between affordability issues and immigration enforcement, he believes Latino support for Trump is waning. Wilcox’s restaurant hosted Biden in 2024 when he launched an initiative meant to rally Latino support for the Democratic ticket.

“I don’t think the Republican Party will have the support it did the second time around,” Wilcox said, “and I think it started with the raids.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Amelia Thomson DeVeaux contributed to this report.

May 19 (Asia Today) — More than 60% of young South Koreans and college students do not trust elections or political opinion polls, according to a survey released ahead of the June 3 local elections.

The Korean Law Consumers Federation, a legal advocacy group, released the results Monday after surveying 1,201 young people and college students from 119 universities nationwide. The respondents had an average age of 23.4.

The survey found that 60.37% of respondents said they do not trust elections or political opinion polls, while 38.80% said they do.

Despite the distrust, 59.95% said they would definitely vote in the local elections, and 35.89% said they would try to vote.

Asked whether one vote can have an important effect on election results, 75.27% agreed, while 24.56% disagreed.

On early voting, 53.54% said there is a possibility of election fraud, while 40.30% said such claims are completely false.

The survey also asked about possible constitutional revisions. A total of 62.28% supported including language related to the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement in the Constitution, while 35.97% opposed the idea.

However, 91.01% opposed removing the word “freedom” from the Constitution.

The survey included 53 questions and was conducted with the help of student volunteers. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.83 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260519010005434

DENVER — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Friday commuted the sentence of election conspiracy theorist Tina Peters following pressure from President Trump, the latest instance of the president using his influence to reward those who echoed his baseless claims of mass fraud as the cause of his 2020 election loss.

Trump has championed the case of Peters, a 70-year-old former county clerk who was sentenced to nine years behind bars after being convicted in a scheme to make a copy of her county’s election computer system. She will be released June 1.

In April, a Colorado appeals court upheld her conviction but ordered Peters to be resentenced because it said the judge who sent her to prison wrongly punished her for speaking out about election fraud, a decision that Polis praised.

In a letter to Peters, Polis wrote that she was convicted of serious crimes and deserved to spend time in prison. “However, this is an extremely unusual and lengthy sentence for a first time offender who committed nonviolent crimes,” the governor wrote.

He added that Peters’ application “demonstrates taking responsibility for your crimes, and a commitment to follow the law going forward.”

Trump posted around the time of the announcement on his social media platform: “FREE TINA!”

Jeany Rush, 76, wears a We the People pin along with numerous Free Tina Peters stickers during the Colorado Republican State Assembly on April 11 at Massari Arena on the Colorado State University Pueblo campus in Pueblo, Colo.

(Timothy Hurst/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

‘Affront to the rule of law’

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold criticized the decision by the governor — a fellow Democrat — saying that “it was a dark day for democracy” and that ”selling out our state’s justice system for Trump is an affront to the rule of law.”

“A clear message is being sent to those willing to break the law and attack democracy for the president — they will likely not face consequences for their actions,” Griswold said at a news conference.

Peters has been serving her sentence at a prison in Pueblo after being convicted in 2024 by jurors in Mesa County, a Republican stronghold that supported Trump.

Peters sneaked in an outside computer expert, an associate of MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell — a fellow election denier — to make a copy of her county’s Dominion Voting Systems election computer server as state officials updated it in 2021. Peters joined Lindell onstage at a “cybersymposium” that promised to reveal proof of election rigging, after which video and photos of the update, including passwords, were posted online.

After the commutation announcement, Peters issued a statement through her attorney thanking Polis and apologizing.

“Five years ago I misled the Secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment. That was wrong,” Peters said. “I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.”

She also condemned threats and violence against voters, county clerks and election workers.

Gubernatorial candidates weigh in

Polis is ineligible to seek reelection due to term limits, and the candidates running to succeed him weighed in on his decision.

Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat in the race, said that he vehemently disagreed with the commutation and that Peters knowingly broke the law, undermined elections and was convicted by a jury.

“Lawlessness only breeds more lawlessness,” Bennet said. “With President Trump continuing to attack Colorado, we must do everything we can to stand strong for our institutions and the rule of law.”

A Republican candidate, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, said she would have preferred that the trial judge revisit Peters’ sentence as ordered by the appeals court before the governor considered any commutation.

“A commutation or pardon by a governor should be reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances,” Kirkmeyer wrote in a statement. “The governor has a responsibility to apply justice fairly, consistently, and without bias.”

Trump’s influence

Peters was convicted of state, not federal, crimes, which put her beyond the reach of Trump’s pardon power, which he used to free those convicted of crimes for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. So the president championed her cause through the media.

Trump has lambasted both Polis, calling him a “Scumbag Governor,” and the Republican district attorney who prosecuted her, Daniel Rubinstein, for keeping Peters in prison. He has referred to Peters as “elderly” and “sick.” Earlier this year, Trump uninvited Polis from a White House meeting with governors over the case.

The president had said Colorado was “suffering a big price” for refusing to release her. His administration has been choking off funds, ending federal programs and denying disaster aid. It also announced the dismantling of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and relocated the U.S. Space Command from the state to Alabama.

Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Assn., said the commutation “signals that it is open season on our election and election officials.”

“Gov. Polis is bending the knee to the same political voices and conspiracy theories that are undermining belief in our democratic institutions,” Crane said. “This is now Gov. Polis’ legacy. He will not be able to run from it.”

Peters’ health

Peters’ lawyers have said her health has declined in prison. Peters, who had part of her right lung removed in 2017, started coughing frequently after the prison’s heating system was turned on for the winter and has had trouble sleeping due to chronic pain from fibromyalgia, her lawyers said.

In January, Peters was involved in a scuffle with another inmate but was found not guilty of assault following a prison disciplinary hearing, Colorado Department of Corrections spokesperson Alondra Gonzalez-Garcia said. Peters was found guilty of being in a location without authorization.

The federal Bureau of Prisons tried but failed to get Peters moved to a federal prison. In January, Polis said he was considering granting clemency for Peters, calling her sentence “unusual and harsh“ for a first-time, nonviolent offender. In March he repeated those arguments in a lengthy post on the social media platform X.

Polis defended his decision Friday in a social media post.

“I’ll always stand for free speech and to make sure that we live in a country that no matter what your viewpoints are, you are not incarcerated longer because of them,” Polis said.

In contrast to some other Democratic governors, Polis, who portrays himself as a political iconoclast, has at times taken an accommodating stance toward Trump. Though he criticized the president’s tariff and immigration policies, the governor praised earlier moves by Trump such as creating the Department of Government Efficiency, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk, and the choice of vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

Slevin and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. AP writers Ali Swenson in New York, Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix and Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu contributed to this report.

Right-wing challenger Flavio Bolsonaro faces new scrutiny over a film funding scandal, which could affect his race against incumbent Lula.

A new poll has reaffirmed the tight race for Brazil’s presidency this year, with both the left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his right-wing challenger, Flavio Bolsonaro, tied in a head-to-head contest.

On Saturday, Datafolha, the polling firm for the Grupo Folha media conglomerate, released its latest numbers, tracking the candidates’ progress in the run-up to October’s generation election.

Nearly 2,004 responded to the latest survey, which asked them to identify whom they would vote for if Lula and Bolsonaro progressed to a run-off.

Lula, now 80 years old, is angling for a fourth nonconsecutive term.

Brazil’s presidents are limited to two four-year terms at a time, and Lula first served as president from 2003 to 2011, championing social programmes to reduce hunger and increase federal assistance to the poor.

Bolsonaro, on the other hand, is hoping to continue his father’s far-right political legacy. The eldest son of imprisoned former President Jair Bolsonaro, Flavio — a senator representing Rio de Janeiro — has pledged to seek his father’s release should he be elected.

Jair Bolsonaro is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to plot a coup and subvert the election results in 2022, which saw an end to his term and the beginning to Lula’s latest.

Saturday’s poll results put Lula and the younger Bolsonaro in a dead heat.

Both candidates received 45 percent of the polled voter support, with an additional 9 percent indicating they would cast “null” ballots. The remaining 1 percent was undecided.

But the poll, conducted on May 12 and 13, was conducted before the latest scandal involving the younger Bolsonaro’s campaign gained public traction.

Controversy over film deal

On May 13, The Intercept Brasil, a news publication, printed a report containing leaked WhatsApp messages between Bolsonaro and a banker arrested for an alleged fraud scheme, Daniel Vorcaro.

Bolsonaro had reportedly approached Vorcaro to finance a film about his father’s life, called Dark Horse.

The Bolsonaro family has long maintained that Jair Bolsonaro is a victim of political persecution, and it had tapped US actor Jim Caviezel to play the ex-president.

According to The Intercept’s reporting, Flavio Bolsonaro and his brother Eduardo Bolsonaro had soliciting funding from Vorcaro, who ultimately pledged $24m, or 134 million Brazilian reals, to the film project.

In a statement, Flavio Bolsonaro acknowledged that he had reached out for financing, but he denied the exchange had anything to do with Vorcaro’s alleged fraud scheme.

“It is necessary to separate the innocent from the criminals,” the statement said. “In our case, what happened was a son seeking PRIVATE sponsorship for a PRIVATE film about his own father’s life.”

Left-wing lawmakers, however, have called for an investigation into the incident.

The controversy over the Dark Horse film is not the only scandal to have rocked Flavio Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign in recent months.

In December, the senator entered the presidential race with his imprisoned father’s blessing.

But shortly afterwards, he faced criticism for statements appearing to suggest he might withdraw from the race in exchange for his father’s freedom. He later clarified that his candidacy was “irreversible”.

In April, Brazil’s Supreme Court also gave the go-ahead for federal police to investigate whether Flavio Bolsonaro had made defamatory statements about Lula.

While Lula was the frontrunner by a wide margin in late 2025, Bolsonaro has since narrowed the gap, leading to the two candidates racing neck and neck before October’s election.

The former mayor of a conservative Kansas town was taken into custody by immigration authorities after acknowledging last year that he had voted in elections despite not being a U.S. citizen.

Joe Ceballos, who was born in Mexico and is a legal permanent U.S. resident, was detained Wednesday during a meeting at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Wichita, Kan., according to his attorney, Jess Hoeme. He said Ceballos now fears he could be deported.

The 55-year-old resigned as mayor of Coldwater in December while facing state charges over voting as a noncitizen. While seeking citizenship in 2025, Ceballos admitted during an interview that he had voted, not knowing that green card holders don’t qualify, Hoeme said.

Ceballos was charged with voting illegally but pleaded guilty in April to misdemeanors in a deal with the Kansas attorney general. His case has drawn attention from the Trump administration and inspired supporters in his community, some of whom held signs reading “We Support Mayor Joe” and “ICE Out” as Ceballos walked into the federal building in Wichita.

“Let Joe go!” the crowd yelled.

“Thinking what could happen — it’s just kind of crazy,” Ceballos told reporters. “Obviously nervous. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t know where they’re going to take me and what I can and can’t do inside there.”

An email seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately returned.

Trump and other Republicans have been warning of the dangers of noncitizens voting in elections since the beginning of the 2024 presidential election. Research, even by Republican election officials, show the problem is rare.

This year, Trump has been pushing Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which among other things would require documented proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote.

The administration also has significantly upgraded a program within Homeland Security that checks citizenship. At least 25 states, most of them controlled by Republicans, have used that system to check their voter rolls.

Ceballos was brought to the U.S. from Mexico by family when he was 4 years old. Hoeme said lawyers would next try to get an immigration judge to release him on bond.

He said Ceballos, at age 18, was encouraged to register to vote on the spot during a school field trip to the Comanche County courthouse. Ceballos has previously said in interviews with reporters that he voted for Republicans.

He was twice elected mayor of Coldwater, population 700, and also served on the city council. Ceballos won a new term in November but resigned after state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach charged him with voting without being qualified and election perjury.

Kobach’s office, however, reached a deal with Ceballos. He pleaded guilty to disorderly election conduct, which Hoeme described as a misdemeanor similar to disturbing the peace.

“He has not been convicted of any kind of voter fraud. It should not have impacted his immigration status,” Hoeme said. “The Trump administration and ICE have doubled down on nonsense that he is a criminal.”

Ceballos has been a popular figure in Coldwater, where an advertisement in the Western Star newspaper encouraged people to support him.

“He’s kind of got to live the American dream, to come from absolutely nothing and build up — I don’t know about wealth — but to build up a business and have a job and be a productive part of society,” longtime friend Ryan Swayze told Wichita station KAKE-TV.

White writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw which turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted prior to that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

The US state of Louisiana will hold several primary elections on Thursday, including for the United States Senate, the state’s Supreme Court, and a slate of local offices.

Notably absent will be the primary, in which members of the Democratic and Republican parties will select their candidates for the state’s six US House districts ahead of the general elections in November.

The primary vote has been paused by the state’s governor following a major Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to redrawing the state’s congressional district map, eliminating one of two majority-Black districts.

Rights groups have challenged the pause, saying it violates both the US and the state’s constitutions.

The situation comes amid a wider national redistricting battle, which has been shifting both parties’ electoral calculus ahead of consequential midterms that will determine control of the US House and Senate and, in turn, set the tone for the final two years of US President Donald Trump’s second term.

Here’s what to know.

What did the Supreme Court ruling do?

The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in late April undid a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 meant to protect Black voting power from being diluted.

That can be achieved by effectively carving up areas with large Black populations to diminish their electoral influence. Black voters in the US have historically heavily skewed Democratic.

The ruling said that congressional districts could only be challenged if there was evidence of racist motivation behind how they were drawn. Dissenting liberal justices and critics have said such motivations would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Specifically related to Louisiana, the court ruled that a congressional map drawn in January of 2024, which created a second Black-majority district in the state, was unconstitutional.

That map was created following a legal challenge claiming that Louisiana was in violation of the Voting Rights Act because it had only one Black majority district out of six, despite Black residents making up one-third of the state’s voters.

Why did Louisiana pause its primary?

The Supreme Court ruling on April 29 came about two weeks before Louisiana’s US House primary elections were scheduled.

That left Republicans in the state scrambling to draw new maps ahead of the vote.

“Allowing elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map would undermine the integrity of our system and violate the rights of our voters,” the state’s Governor Jeff Landry said in a statement on April 30.

He said his order suspending the vote “ensures we uphold the rule of law while giving the [state] legislature the time it needs to pass a fair and lawful congressional map”.

On Wednesday, Republicans in the Louisiana State Senate advanced an initial redrawn map.

What have rights groups said?

A coalition of voting and civil rights groups has challenged the suspension of the election, charging that some segments of voters, including those in the military or casting “absentee” ballots, may have already voted.

They further said the abrupt change in date would confuse and subsequently disenfranchise voters while undermining voter education groups already distributing information about the election.

“This illegal executive order threatens the integrity of our democratic system and disregards the voices of voters who have already participated in the May primary election in good faith,” the groups, which included the Legal Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters of Louisiana, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Harvard Law School Race and Law Clinic, said in a joint statement in early May.

“By attempting to suspend an ongoing election, state officials are creating confusion, undermining public trust, and placing partisan interests above the constitutional rights of Louisiana voters,” the statement said.

What is the wider context?

The standoff in the southern state comes amid a wider, and unorthodox, flurry of congressional redistricting in the US.

While redistricting has historically taken place every decade following the US census population count, President Trump called on Republicans in Texas last year to redraw their maps to create more Republican-leaning districts.

That kicked off a flurry of tit-for-tat redistricting efforts by Democratic- and Republican-controlled state legislatures alike. To date, the US states of California, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Utah, Tennessee and Florida have redrawn their maps ahead of the midterms.

Republicans are expected to net more seats than Democrats in the push. While that is expected to cut into the margin, Democrats are still tentatively favoured to retake the US House in November.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Presenting a utility bill as a valid form of identification at a voting precinct in West Virginia has gone the way of the tavern polling place and the punch-card ballot.

State lawmakers tightened an existing voter identification law by requiring photo ID at the polls, with some exceptions. The law was used for the first time in Tuesday’s primary election, and officials said they’ve seen very few glitches.

“The whole point of the law is just making sure you are who you say you are,” Secretary of State Kris Warner said Monday.

Voters will nominate candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and state legislature. They also will elect two new state Supreme Court justices.

During the in-person early voting period that ended Saturday, Warner said his office hadn’t heard of anyone who demanded to vote without a photo ID. He said the state had asked residents to use photo IDs for the past few elections, so “it was not a big shock that it was now law.”

During his statewide travels over the past two weeks, Warner said he was told of some instances where people returned to their vehicle to retrieve a photo ID after entering a polling place. Another voter used an exception to the law by filling out a form that was verified by a poll worker who has known them for at least six months. There also were exceptions for first-time voters.

Most states either require or request some form of ID for in-person voting at the polls.

Proponents say the West Virginia law will cut down on voter fraud and that a photo ID is already required for everyday tasks such as getting on an airplane or buying alcohol.

The bill sailed through the Republican-supermajority legislature last year. All votes against it were cast by Democrats, some who argued it would suppress access to the polls. State Democratic Party Chair Mike Pushkin said no credible evidence was shown during legislative debate that West Virginia had a widespread problem with ineligible voting. Pushkin said the legislation was “designed more for political messaging than solving actual problems.”

But Warner said it allows senior citizens to use expired driver’s licenses, as long as it was valid on their 65th birthday

“I wanted to make sure it didn’t prevent anyone from voting,” Warner said.

Forms of identification that are no longer accepted at polling places include utility bills, bank statements, hunting and fishing licenses, bank or debit cards, and concealed carry gun permits. Acceptable forms of photo IDs include a driver’s license, U.S. passport, military ID, employee ID issued by a government agency and a student ID from a high school or college.

Monongalia County Clerk Carye Blaney said for several years her county has used an electronic system to scan bar codes on the back of driver’s licenses to check in voters at polling places.

“I think that it makes voters feel more secure, or it confirms for the voters the security of our elections when we are verifying a photo to a person,” Blaney said.

Raby writes for the Associated Press.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Thousands of Louisiana voters have already cast early ballots for congressional candidates in what soon could be the wrong districts. Alabama’s primaries are a week away, but the state could force a do-over for voting on U.S. House races. A new congressional map in Tennessee upended races that had been underway for months.

Republicans’ rush to gerrymander congressional districts across several Southern states after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling hollowed out the Voting Rights Act is confusing voters and creating logistical headaches for local election officials. The changes are hitting while primary season is in progress.

The chaotic upheaval to an election season that could determine which party controls the U.S. House is the latest fallout from an intensely partisan gerrymandering battle initiated by President Trump last year to protect Republicans’ slim majority.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month severely weakening the Voting Rights Act required Louisiana to reconsider a map drawn in 2024 with two majority minority congressional districts that elected Black representatives. The GOP-controlled Legislature could eliminate one or both in a state where roughly 30% of the population is Black.

The ruling also encouraged Republicans in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee to consider eliminating four Democratic districts among them, three represented by Black lawmakers. Florida has a new map meant to cost Democrats four of their eight seats, out of 28.

In Louisiana, 66-year-old New Orleans resident Sallie Davis voted early last week. Her ballot allowed her to vote for Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, but a sign at her polling booth showed his race crossed off with a ballpoint pen. She was confused and frustrated — especially when a poll worker told her to go with what the sign seemed to convey. She’s now worried that her entire ballot will not be counted.

“I was supposed to believe a piece of paper with an X on it marking out the person I wanted to vote for,” she said, her voice breaking as she recounted her experience later. “I think I have been disenfranchised. I think my vote, that I just voted on, it’s not going to count or something. I think it’s illegal.”

Primaries postponed, deadlines compressed

Louisiana’s primary is on Saturday, and a week of early voting there began May 2, two days after the Republican governor declared an emergency and suspended congressional primaries to give lawmakers a chance to draw a new map.

Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry’s office said nearly 179,000 primary ballots had been cast as of Friday, including about 53,000 absentee ballots returned by mail. She said the ballots included U.S. House races, but votes in those contests won’t be counted.

In Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee, Republicans justified pursuing new maps by saying that electing more Republicans would better reflect their states’ conservative values. Alabama lawmakers passed legislation Friday allowing a do-over of congressional primaries.

Alabama’s primary is May 19, and voting in congressional races will occur then as planned, but with the old districts. Those votes would end up not counting if a court allows the switch to different districts.

Mississippi held its primaries in March, but a federal court has ordered it to redraw its state Supreme Court districts, and Trump is pushing Republicans to redraw the state’s four congressional districts.

A special session of its Legislature is set for May 20. Renovations of the House chamber will force members to meet at the Old State Capitol, where, decades ago, Mississippi lawmakers passed Jim Crow laws suppressing Black voting.

“Modern-day voter suppression relies on election administration errors and chaos, and that’s what we’re going to see play out in all of these states,” said Amir Badat, a Jackson, Mississippi, voting rights attorney and activist.

Tennessee continues yearlong fight

Tennessee was the first state to enact a new map since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but Trump’s push for redistricting started in Texas last year. Democrats countered in California and tried but ran afoul of the courts in Virginia.

Before Tennessee’s GOP-controlled Legislature passed a new map last week, the state’s elections coordinator told county officials in a memo what that would mean: reprogramming election systems, retraining poll workers and possibly adjusting precinct boundaries, meaning some voters’ polling places could change.

Tennessee’s congressional primaries still will be held Aug. 6 as planned, and candidates have until Friday to qualify for the ballot. Those who qualified previously will get a pass if they can run in a new district with the same number.

In South Carolina, lawmakers could move all the state’s June 9 primaries to August, or just the congressional races. While mail balloting is limited because the state requires an excuse to do it, more than 6,800 mail ballots already had been sent to voters — with 260 returned — as of Friday, according to the state Elections Commission.

Holding a separate election for congressional primaries would cost $3 million and the time for preparations would be compressed, Conway Belangia, the commission’s executive director, told lawmakers Friday.

“It will be difficult, but it will be possible,” he said.

Activists see problems ahead for voters

Michael McClanahan, president of the NAACP’s Louisiana State Conference, is hearing “total confusion” as voters call him and ask, “Is there an election?”

“People say, ’I ain’t going to vote because the governor’s suspended the election,’” he said. “But he didn’t, he only suspended one aspect of it.”

In Alabama, Senate Democratic leader Bobby Singleton said he has been fielding calls from public officials who also are confused.

“These are the people who are the head of elections,” he said. “They don’t know what to do.“

Voting rights activists see problems that arose in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2022, when Republican legislators divided the state’s capital city into three congressional districts to take a seat from Democrats, as a harbinger of what Memphis voters could face this year. A state report said more than 3,000 Nashville-area voters were assigned to incorrect districts and more than 430 cast ballots in the wrong races in the November 2022 election.

“It’s going to be really hard for the election commissions to be able to keep up with this short timeline,” Matia Powell, executive director of the voting rights nonprofit Civic TN, said during a conference call Friday with other voting rights activists in the South.

Some fear confusion will lead to distrust and apathy

Anneshia Hardy, executive director of Alabama Values, which provides support to voting and civil rights groups, said people will lose trust in elections if they believe the rules can change every two years.

“Once people stop believing that the process is stable and fair, disengagement is going to increase, and that’s one of the biggest dangers here,” she said. “Democracy doesn’t just depend on voting systems existing but really on people believing that their participation matters.”

At least a few Democratic voters who went to the Louisiana Capitol on Friday to protest the gerrymandering expressed doubt about whether they still have a political voice.

Davis came to the State Capitol in Baton Rouge and had a bullhorn with her for a protest in which she yelled, “Whose vote? Our vote!”

David Victorian, a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran from Baton Rouge, said: “I’m concerned for the survival of the democracy that we’re supposed to be living in.”

Hanna and Brook write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan. AP writers Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, S.C., and Kim Chandler, in Montgomery, Ala., contributed to this report.

A Labour MP said: “Not sure voters in Wigan, Wandsworth, Salford or Sunderland voted Reform because they thought we needed more advisers from a different era of Labour politics. I think this shows that Keir doesn’t even understand the problem, never mind the solution.”

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A national redistricting battle over U.S. House seats swung toward Republicans on Friday, as a Virginia court invalidated a Democratic gerrymandering effort and Republicans in Alabama approved plans for new primary elections if courts allow GOP-drawn House districts to be used in the November midterm elections.

The Alabama legislation, which was signed quickly into law by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, is part of an effort by Republicans in Southern states to capitalize quickly on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly weakened Voting Rights Act protections for minorities.

Tensions ran high in the Alabama Statehouse. And Republican lawmakers in Louisiana and South Carolina also faced staunch opposition from civil rights activists and Democrats as they presented plans Friday to redraw their congressional districts.

The action came just a day after Tennessee enacted new congressional districts that carve up a Democratic-held, Black-majority district in Memphis. The state Democratic Party sued on Friday, seeking to prevent the districts from being used until after this year’s elections because of the tight time frame

Even before last week’s Supreme Court ruling in a Louisiana case, Republicans and Democrats already were engaged in a fierce redistricting battle, each seeking an edge in the midterm elections that will determine control of the closely divided House. That battle tilted further toward Republicans when the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that Democratic lawmakers had violated constitutional requirements when placing a redistricting amendment on the ballot.

Since President Trump prodded Texas to redraw its congressional districts last summer, Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new districts in several states while Democrats think they could gain up to six seats. But the parties may not get everything they sought, because the gerrymandering could backfire in some highly competitive districts.

Alabama primaries could be in flux

Demonstrators outside the Alabama Statehouse on Friday shouted “fight for democracy” and “down with white supremacy.”

“I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing,” Betty White Boynton said.

During debate inside the statehouse, Black lawmakers sharply criticized the Republican legislation, saying it harks back to the state’s shameful Jim Crow history. The new law would ignore the May 19 primary results for some congressional seats and direct the governor to schedule a new primary under revised districts, if a court allows it. Lawmakers also approved a similar bill related to state Senate districts.

“What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction,” Democratic state Sen. Rodger Smitherman said after the vote.

Senate Democrats shouted “hell no” and “stop the steal” as the vote occurred in the Alabama Senate.

The special primary would happen only if the courts agree to lift an injunction that put a court-selected map in place until after the 2030 census. That order required a second district where Black voters are the majority or close to it, resulting in the 2024 election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, who is Black. If a court lifts the injunction, Republican officials want to put in place a map lawmakers drew in 2023 — which was rejected by a federal court — that could allow them to reclaim Figures’ district.

“With this special session successfully behind us, Alabama now stands ready to quickly act, should the courts issue favorable rulings in our ongoing redistricting cases,” Ivey said in a statement.

Virginia ruling centered on timing of election

Democrats had hoped to gain as many as four additional U.S. House seats under new districts narrowly approved by voters in April. But the state Supreme Court invalidated the measure because it said the Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements.

To place a constitutional amendment before voters, the Virginia Constitution requires lawmakers to approve it in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between. The legislature’s initial approval of the redistricting amendment occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January.

The Supreme Court said the initial legislative approval came too late, noting that more than 1.3 million ballots already had been cast in the general election, about 40% of the total votes ultimately cast.

Louisiana lawmakers look at map options

A Louisiana Senate committee considered several redistricting options Friday from Republican state Sen. John “Jay” Morris that would eliminate either both or one of the current Black-majority U.S. House districts.

“Every one of these maps reduces Black voting power in every one of the districts. And I think that’s a problem,” Democratic state Sen. Sam Jenkins told Morris.

Morris denied that the proposed redistricting maps were racially discriminatory. He said his goal was to be “respectful of the traditional boundaries” of the state’s six congressional districts.

“I don’t think we should care that much about race,” Morris said.

The only four Black congressmen who have represented Louisiana since the end of the Reconstruction era appealed to state senators to keep two majority-Black districts in a state where one-third of voters are Black.

Leona Tate, who as a 6-year-old girl was escorted by federal marshals through a racist white mob trying to prevent her from desegregating a New Orleans elementary school, told lawmakers she felt they were taking a step backward in time by reducing Black political power.

“You have a choice in front of you: You can draw a map that reflects what Louisiana actually is — a state where Black voices belong in the halls of Congress,” said Tate, 71. “Or you can draw a map that tells my grandchildren that their votes don’t count, that their faces don’t matter and that the progress I helped build with my own two feet as a 6-year-old can be erased at will.”

South Carolina considers a House map

A small group of South Carolina lawmakers held a rare Friday meeting to discuss a proposed new congressional map intended to allow Republicans a clean sweep of the state’s seven U.S. House seats.

The hearing was the first step in redistricting. But its future remains murky. The state Senate has yet to agree to consider new districts later this month, an action that would require a two-thirds vote.

The new map has some Republicans nervous. Breaking up the 6th District, represented by Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), makes the other six districts less Republican.

At Friday’s subcommittee meeting, lawmakers heard hours of testimony, almost all against the new map. The hearing included a consultant who reviewed the map, saying it appeared to be legal under the Supreme Court’s decision in the Louisiana case.

“I agree if the law allows us to do it, then we can do it,” Democratic state Rep. Justin Bamberg said. “But I can slap somebody’s mama and it’s not the right thing to do.”

Some absentee ballots already have been returned for the state’s June 9 primary elections. The legislative subcommittee advanced a plan to delay the congressional primaries to August and reopen a candidate filing period, if a new map is approved.

Chandler, Brook, Collins and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Collins reported from Columbia, S.C.; Brook from Baton Rouge, La.; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo.

“We’ve been so used to thinking about politics in terms of left and right, yet what Reform are able to do is to win in areas that have always been Conservative, but equally, we’re proving in a big way that we could win in areas that Labour has dominated since the end of World War I.”