Gavin Newsom

Reporting from Sacramento — It was an iconic image: Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, longtime partners and lesbian activists, embracing after being wed in San Francisco City Hall. The first same-sex couple in the country to receive a marriage license was joined by city officials and advocates choked with emotion — but not the man who set their nuptials in motion, Gavin Newsom.

Instead, the then-San Francisco mayor was purposefully absent, sitting in his office and anxiously awaiting word that the ceremony had been performed before a court could interfere.

Newsom’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — just a month into his term — was at once slapdash and choreographed. Almost immediately it spun out of his control. What was meant to be a short-lived act of civil disobedience on Feb. 12, 2004, turned into a 29-day saga during which more than 4,000 couples wed, catapulting Newsom into the national fray.

The move drew rebukes from social conservatives and prominent Democrats, including gay rights icons and Newsom’s political mentors. The fallout rippled into the 2004 presidential election and the successful 2008 campaign for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriages in California.

Now, five years since the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land, Newsom has made his decision a central selling point in his campaign for governor. In one television ad, he appears with Lyon — whose spouse died in 2008 — reminiscing with a photo album.

Would Newsom as governor take the same risks? “I hope so,” he said in an interview this month. “I’m an idealist … I embrace that.”

There was no hint that gay marriage would be anywhere on Newsom’s agenda when he ran for mayor in 2003. A county supervisor since 1997, he was seen as the conservative candidate — for San Francisco, at least.

Nationally, the issue was gaining prominence. A Massachusetts court case was laying the groundwork to force that state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. In his 2004 State of the Union, President George W. Bush lambasted “activist judges” for redefining marriage. He threatened to back a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Newsom, who listened to the address from the House of Representatives gallery as a guest of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), has said that was the moment he knew he had to do something.

Soon after he told his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, who is gay, that he intended to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a municipal quirk — as mayor of San Francisco, both a city and a county — he had authority to do so.

Kawa said his reaction was stunned silence. He and others among Newsom’s senior staff initially had reservations.

As lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom has had few duties — and he skipped many of them »

“People felt like this could really do him harm,” said Joyce Newstat, then Newsom’s policy director. “This could really hold back his own ability to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish as mayor. It would destroy his political career.”

The hesitation was shared by prominent gay rights activists. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said her first reaction was fear. In a call with Kawa, she said she appreciated Newsom’s support, but noted Bush’s speech. “We just barely won in Massachusetts. These wins are very fragile,” Kendell said she told the chief of staff. She ultimately came around.

In the course of days, the ceremony was carefully orchestrated. The officiant would be Mabel Teng, the assessor-recorder whose core job was to maintain marriage licenses. Newsom would not be present, to avoid accusations of injecting politics into the proceedings. And the first couple would be Martin and Lyon, who at the time had been together more than 50 years.

Newsom and his allies assumed the courts would shut them down immediately. California voters had passed Proposition 22 in 2000, which said only marriages between a man and a woman would be valid in the state.

But the courts declined to intervene for nearly a month. The image of Lyon and Martin soon gave way to the scene of a line of hopeful couples wrapped around San Francisco City Hall, undeterred by protesters.

Gay rights advocates said the pictures of relatable, ebullient couples instantly humanized the debate over marriage equality.

Newsom eventually officiated a handful of marriages, including Kawa’s and Newstat’s respective ceremonies with their partners.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said Newsom was flagrantly ignoring the will of Californians.

“Mayor Newsom lied when he swore to uphold the law,” Randy Thomasson, who runs Save California, a socially conservative group, said in an interview. “When he raised his right hand, it was almost like he was giving one finger, figuratively, to the people.”

High-stakes California governor’s race debate gets testy as personal and political attacks fly »

The California Supreme Court halted the weddings on March 11, and the court later nullified those marriages that had been performed. Newsom was chastised for not following the law as written; one justice said he had “created a mess.”

But by then Newsom had become an unlikely face for marriage equality; news stories from the time emphasized that he was straight and married. Kendell said it was precisely because Newsom did not have a reputation as an outspoken liberal that he was able to make his decision.

“This move by Newsom played against type,” she said. “People did not expect this Irish Catholic, straight … middle-of-the-road moderate to do something so audacious.”

The mayor’s growing national stature as a gay rights warrior irked some who long had worked for the cause.

“I really think he stood on the shoulders of a lot of people who had suffered and died,” said Tom Ammiano, a former supervisor and assemblyman who is gay. “It really wasn’t all about him, but he made it all about him.”

Republicans predictably made Newsom their foe, and Democrats cringed at how his move might energize social conservatives to vote against them in the 2004 presidential election.

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, said Newsom had imperiled the strategy in Massachusetts — to show that allowing same-sex marriage in one state would not be disruptive — before the right was pursued elsewhere.

“It troubled me as an example of the kind of politics that puts the interest of the political actor ahead of the cause,” Frank said.

Newsom now dismisses that criticism as “purely political arguments.”

“If they told me it was the wrong thing to do because it was the wrong thing to do, then I would’ve listened to that argument,” he said. “They never said that. They said it was too much, too soon, too fast. That’s not going to convince me.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a mentor of Newsom’s, said at the time he was partly to blame for John Kerry’s presidential loss. Newsom said the criticism was “heavy,” but he understood the thinking behind it. They repaired their relationship, he said, tongue slightly in cheek, “the old-fashioned way — by never discussing it.”

Now, Feinstein said, she believes “history has proven that Gavin Newsom made the right decision, a very bold decision, which paved the way for marriage equality.”

The California Supreme Court ultimately struck down the state’s gay marriage ban in 2008, prompting a triumphant Newsom to declare that marriage equality would happen “whether you like it or not.” The backers of Proposition 8, which sought to amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, capitalized on those comments in a campaign ad.

That ad and Proposition 8’s success once again put Newsom on the defensive for harming the cause he had so forcefully backed. The ban set in place by Proposition 8 remained in effect until 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it and, in a separate ruling, found that same-sex couples could marry nationwide.

Newsom said he has no regrets about his decision. But he said he sees the experience now “with a different set of eyes,” with more effort toward “thinking through the intended and the unintended.”

“On such an emotional issue — such a raw issue dividing families, not least my own, down the middle — it’s about what the system can absorb,” Newsom said. “I think about that now differently, absolutely.”

[email protected]

Follow @melmason on Twitter for the latest on California politics.

Emily Burgueno calls them “sovereign burns.”

It’s the subversive act of simply identifying a need in the landscape or the community — maybe the community garden could use some soil revitalization, or the oak trees plagued with weevil pests could use some fumigation — and tending to it with cultural fire. No need for permission.

California has made supporting Indigenous fire stewardship a priority in recent years to help address the state’s growing wildfire crisis. But burning freely across the landscape (with perhaps only a phone call to the local land manager or fire department to give them a heads up) is still a dream, a long way off.

California outlawed cultural burning practices at statehood in 1850 and in most cases, burning freely without permits and approvals is still illegal. Even recently, Burgueno, a cultural fire practitioner and citizen of the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel in San Diego County, has seen local authorities arrest an elder on arson charges for using cultural fire in tending the land.

It’s a practice far older than prescribed burning, the intentional fires typically set and managed by U.S. government fire personnel.

With the tradition comes wisdom: Through joint trainings and burns, fire officials versed in prescribed fire are often delighted by the detailed knowledge of fire’s role in an ecosystem that cultural fire practitioners can nonchalantly drop — for example, the benefits of burning after bees pollinate.

While prescription burns carried out by the Forest Service often focus on large-scale management goals, cultural burns are an elegant dance, deeply in tune with the individual species on the landscape and the relationships they have with each other and fire. Burning is one of many tools tribes have to shape the ecosystem and help it flourish through the years.

“It is grounded in our creation stories, our sacred beliefs and philosophy,” Burgueno said. “It helps us understand how to be a steward of the land, which requires us to be a steward within ourselves — to have a healthy body, mind, and spirit.”

For Don Hankins, a Miwok cultural fire practitioner and a geography and environmental studies professor at Chico State, it’s this fundamental tie to culture that makes the practice unique.

The way willows grow back after fire, for example, “they’re long; they’re slender. They’re more supple than if they were not tended to with fire,” Hankins said. “As a weaver, those are really important characteristics.”

The state now sees its prohibitions, enforced with violence, as wrong and has taken significant steps in recent years to address the barriers it created to sovereign burning. In order to freely practice, tribes need access to land, permission to set fire and the capacity to oversee the burn. But the solutions, so far, are still piecemeal. They only apply to certain land under certain conditions.

Hankins, who started practicing cultural burning with his family when he was about 4, has made a practice of pushing the state and federal government out of their comfort zones. He, too, dreams of a day when a burn is defined solely by the needs of the land and its life.

“The atmospheric river is coming in, and we know that once it dumps the rain and snow … we close out the fire season — but what if we went out ahead of that storm, and we lit fires and worked through the ecosystems regardless of ownership?” he said. “That’s the long-range goal I have. In order to get fire back in balance, first we have to take some pretty bold steps.”

More recent wildfire news

At an October town meeting in Topanga, a fire official with the Los Angeles County Fire Department told residents that, during a wildfire, the department may order them to ride out the blaze in their homes. It’s part of an ongoing debate in California about what to do when an evacuation could take hours, but a fire could reach a town in minutes.

The Los Angeles City Fire Department is requesting a 15% increase in its budget to support wildfire response, my colleague Noah Goldberg reports. The request includes funding for 179 new firefighter recruits and a second hand crew specializing in wildfire response. LAFD’s union is also proposing a ballot measure for a half-cent sales tax to raise funds for new fire stations and equipment.

The U.S. Forest Service completed prescribed burns on more than 127,000 acres during the government shutdown, the Hotshot Wake Up reports, despite fears the disruption would severely limit the Forest Service’s ability to burn during optimal fall weather conditions.

A few last things in climate news

A proposed pipeline could end California’s status as a “fuel island,” connecting the golden state’s isolated gasoline and diesel markets with the rest of the country, my colleague Hayley Smith reports. The state is grappling how to balance consumer affordability with the transition to clean energy, with the upcoming closure of two major refineries.

The Department of Energy is breaking up or rebranding several key offices that support the development of clean energy technologies, Alexander C. Kaufman reports for Heatmap News. It’s unclear how the restructuring will impact the Department’s work.

During the COP30 climate conference in Brazil — which produced a last-minute incremental deal that did not directly mention fossil fuels — the South American nation recognized 10 new Indigenous territories, the BBC’s Mallory Moench and Georgina Rannard report. The hundreds of thousands of acres they span will now have their culture and environment legally protected. Although, the protections are not always enforced.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Before I moved to L.A., I’d spent pretty much my entire professional life working for New York-based publications. One of the primary reasons I decided to take this job and transfer my life to the West Coast was because it seemed to me that California was at both the spear point of climate risk and the cutting edge of climate adaptation.

I didn’t expect the peril of climate change to rear its heads as quickly, and as close to my new home, as it did when the January fires became one of the biggest stories in the nation just a month after I started at The Times. I was less surprised to see how widespread a sophisticated understanding of climate issues was at the publication — an expertise borne out by the exemplary coverage of the fires and their aftermath.

The same, I think, can be said for most of the people I know or have recently met who live in L.A.: There is very little sanguinity about what’s happening here, climate-wise, among Angelenos, regardless of where they work or come from.

So maybe I should have expected that an exhibit of recent work by L.A. artists would be similarly, logically, oriented toward these same (largely home-grown) anxieties around our place in a world increasingly shaped by the developing climate crisis.

Nevertheless, it struck me how many of the artists centered the interface between the built and “natural” environments at the Hammer Museum’s biennial “Made in L.A.” exhibition when I visited last weekend.

Many of the artists seemed to be grappling with how we situate ourselves in a climate-changed world.

From Alake Shilling’s uncanny cartoon bears driving buggies and mowing down weeping, humanoid sunflowers to Kelly Wall’s installation of glass swatches painted the color of toxic L.A. sunsets displayed, for tourist consumption, on an erstwhile pharmacy rack, the exhibition communicates Los Angeles as a place of largely unresolved conflict between human beings and whatever we define as “nature.”

Part of Kelly Wall’s installation, “Something to Write Home About.”

(Elijah Wolfson / Los Angeles Times)

I thought that as a climate journalist, I might just be primed to see such things, but Essence Harden, who co-curated the biennial, noted that “concerns around the environment are historical, they’re rooted. They’re not ahistorical. They don’t come from nothing or nowhere. I think art produced in Los Angeles has a relationship to the site specificity and the dynamic of architecture and history which grounds it.”

Harden said that she and her co-curator, Paulina Pobocha, didn’t seek out artists grappling with climate specifically for the seventh edition of Made in L.A. But after scouring dozens of local galleries, they found that climate and environmental anxieties permeated the scene.

Much of this Anthropocene-angst is “rooted in a sort of longer history of capital,” Harden said. Indeed, as a relative outsider, I have always sort of felt that L.A. wears its supposed climate excellence a little too loudly on its sleeves — or maybe, on its postcards and souvenir T-shirts. The iconic palm trees, for example, are transplants, forced to live in neighborhoods that don’t want them.

“The idyllic palm trees sight line of Los Angeles comes from these neighborhoods that were historically Black and Japanese and Latinx,” Harden said. “They are rooted in these places that people who are buying the product of Los Angeles don’t want to go.”

There are no palm trees in the Hammer biennial. At least, none that I remember. What there are instead are painted cinder blocks and hunks of glass, graffiti and rutted acrylic paint, twisted tubes of neon and roughly formed clay.

Anthropocene Landscape 3 by Carl Cheng

(Hammer Museum)

It was refreshing to see a show that grappled with the environment but was not didactic. Describing her curatorial process, Harden said she is mostly attracted to “people who are more ethereal and capture dreams and sensation.” If they also happen to be engaging with climate change, all the better.

More recent news and ideas on climate and culture

Writing for The Guardian, Beth Mead — a star forward on England‘s national soccer team for nearly a decade, with the all-time most assists in the history of the Women’s Super League — shared how climate change has changed the game she loves over the last decade. For professionals on her level, yes, but more importantly, for the many kids around the world who are now less likely to be able to regularly play what she calls “the world’s most accessible sport” thanks to extreme heat, droughts and flooding.

A “milk apocalypse” is coming for your burrata, reports Motoko Rich for the New York Times. Cheesemakers and dairy farmers in Italy, which produces and exports some of the most popular cheeses in the world, report a declining supply of milk, thanks to rising temperatures.

And if you wanted to pair your favorite Oregon pinot with that cheese … well, better do it now. The Willamette Valley has long had a nearly perfect climate for growing pinot noir — to the point where “Oregon wine” is often shorthand for the varietal. But as Branden Andersen reports for the local outlet Newsberg, thanks to changes in temperature and humidity, the region may need to rethink what’s been practically a vineyard monoculture.

In Belém, Brazil, COP30 is coming to a close. I’ve always been drawn to the art and performance at past COPs, and was glad to see some examples from this year’s climate conference. But what was even more interesting to me was Spanish artist Josep Piñol’s performance piece, in which he was commissioned to produce a large-scale sculpture in Belém and then canceled, saving what he said would have been the emissions equivalent of 57,765 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The past week in broader climate news

Melody Gutierrez has been in Belém reporting on COP30 for The Times, and this week, she wrote about an image that has come to represent the socio-economics of this year’s events: two gigantic diesel-powered cruise ships, used as temporary housing for the global elite that comprise much of the COP delegations, docked at the mouth of the Amazon River, whose rainforests and people have felt much of the brunt of fossil fuel-driven climate change.

Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is expected to vote today on new measures to address methane leaks and underground fires at landfills which — unsurprisingly — are more likely to impact poorer Californians. As my colleague Tony Briscoe reports, landfills are a climate change and environmental health menace, and updates to the rules governing California’s are long overdue.

Earlier this week, a U.S. appeals court put a hold on a California law set to go into effect in January that would require any company that makes more than $500 million annually and does business in the state to report, every two years, the financial impact of climate change.

Finally, there was a lot of talk this week about how the build-out of data centers is driving up energy costs across the U.S. I found this Pew Research article to be a useful one-sheet to get a feel for what we know to be real when it comes to AI’s impact on the energy sector, what is hyperbole and what we still don’t fully understand.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — No agreements were made to phase out the global use of fossil fuels during the United Nations COP30 climate summit in Brazil that ended on Saturda, but discussions to draft one will begin.

Attending nations okayed a voluntary agreement to start discussions to create a plan seeking to gradually end the use of fossil fuels amid strong opposition from nations that produce oil and gas, according to The Guardian.

The climate change conference opened with a draft agreement to address the world’s changing climate, but it did not include a reference to fossil fuels.

In lieu of a fossil fuels deal, the conference produced an agreement from participating wealthy nations to allocate $120 billion to developing nations by 2035 to help them adapt to a changing climate.

The funds would count toward a $300 billion goal to finance climate change efforts in developing nations, the BBC reported.

Representatives from respective COP30 nations also agreed to create a Tropical Forest Forever Facility fund to counteract deforestation. The fund already has $6.6 billion.

Ahead of the climate change conference, many attendees had hoped to create a $1.3 trillion climate change fund, but that did not occur.

Many nations already have initiated measures to address climate change and its effects, but opposition has grown against the notion that a global consensus exists to end the use of fossil fuels to fend off a “climate crisis.”

President Donald Trump is among world leaders who want to expand the domestic use of fossil fuels and favor climate adaptation.

Trump earlier said the United States would not attend the COP30 conference that started on Nov. 10 and ran an extra day into Saturday in Belem, Brazil.

Some state-level representatives and others attended the conference, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who criticized Trump for not sending a U.S. delegation.

The 2026 U.N. COP30 conference will be held in Turkey.

Nov. 19 (UPI) — Billionaire activist Tom Steyer announced his run for California governor after the former presidential candidate claimed no plans existed for him to again run for political office.

Steyer, 68, pointed to his business experience in a candidate video vying to replace term-limited Gov, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and rumored 2028 presidential contender, saying he’s running because “Californians deserve a life they can afford.”

“Sacramento politicians are afraid to change this system. I’m not,” he added in a campaign launch video.

He joined the field with other gubernatorial candidates such as former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., ex-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

A 2020 presidential candidate, Steyer said that his long business background separates him from other candidates.

“I wanted to build a business here. Now it’s worth billions of dollars. And I walked away from it because I wanted to give back to California,” Steyer said.

In 2010, Steyer signed the Giving Pledge vowing to donate half his massive fortune to charity during his lifetime.

On Wednesday, he said California needs to “get back to basics,” which he says meant “making corporations pay their fair share again.”

“Californians deserve a top 10 education state,” he added. “They deserve to be able to afford to live in a decent house. I will launch the largest drive to build homes that you can afford in the history of California.”

He revealed plans targeting the state’s high utility bills with California’s massive energy infrastructure, noting the west coast state has the second highest electricity rates in the United States.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager and frequent Democratic donor in San Francisco, frequently crusades against big corporate money in politics. He later suspended his 2020 campaign in March after finishing third place in the South Carolina primary election won by Joe Biden.

“If we break up the monopolistic power of utilities, we’re going to unleash a complete wave of innovation and drop our sky-high energy prices,” Steyer continued in the video.

“This is about disrupting the way people think so we can get a completely different and much better outcome,” he said, adding it was “for the people of California.”

She’s a little bit country; he’s a little bit rock ‘n’ roll.

And me? I’m a little bit stunned. Two politicians have emerged, against all odds, to surprise and impress us this year: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

You’d be hard-pressed to find two Americans less similar — politically, culturally, geographically, maybe even molecularly. These two occupy opposite poles. She’s NASCAR and CrossFit. He’s electric vehicles and Pinot Noir. They shouldn’t have much in common, but lately, both have done the unthinkable: They’ve taken on President Trump and lived (politically) to tell about it.

Let’s start with Greene because, honestly, she’s more fun.

For years, MTG was seen as an embarrassment. The QAnon congresswoman. The “Jewish space laser” lady. The lawmaker who, just two years prior to winning her House seat, questioned whether a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

She harassed a then-teenage Parkland survivor and coined the immortal phrase “gazpacho police,” apparently confusing the soup with Nazi secret police.

But then, something strange happened: Greene started making sense. Not “agree with her at dinner” sense, but the “wait, that’s not totally insane” kind.

She blasted Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, which — if you take the “America First” philosophy literally and not just as performance art — is consistent with her beliefs. And in a time when selling out is perceived as being shrewder than standing for something, the mere act of holding a consistent position is a virtue.

MTG also called out her own party for blocking the Epstein files, and volunteered to walk “on the House floor and say every damn name that abused these women.”

And in an act of shocking populist coherence, she ripped into Republicans for letting Obamacare subsidies expire: “Health insurance premiums will DOUBLE,” she thundered on X, adding: “Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!”

Trump, naturally, took all this personally. “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said, recently. “Nice woman, but she’s lost her way.” To which Greene, never one to back down, fired back: “I haven’t lost my way. I’m 100% America First and only!”

The thing I’m liking about Greene isn’t just that she’s standing up to Trump — although, I admit, it’s fun to watch. But what’s really refreshing is that she’s a true believer who got elected, got famous and yet continues to believe.

Which brings us to Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has always been the poster boy for everything people hate about California — a man who looks like he was genetically engineered by a Napa Valley venture capitalist to play a slick politician.

The “important” coiffed hair. The smug grin. The French Laundry dinner during COVID-19, while the rest of us were holed up in our houses microwaving Lean Cuisines.

Once upon a time, he and his then-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posed on a rug for a Harper’s Bazaar spread where they were dubbed “The New Kennedys.”

Enough said.

If Greene is the quintessential MAGA mama, Newsom is the slick bro you want to throat punch. But somehow he has had a banner year.

Newsom stood firm against ICE raids and troop deployments in Los Angeles. Then, he trolled Trump with online memes that actually landed.

After Texas Republicans tried to grab five congressional seats for the GOP, Newsom shepherded Prop. 50 through California — an amendment to the state constitution aimed at mitigating Texas’ gerrymandering by redrawing maps to help Democrats even the score.

Then, he waltzed into Houston for a celebratory rally — some political end zone dancing on the opponents’ home turf, just to twist the knife.

Like Greene, the guy has moxie.

And here’s the thing I’m learning from the Trump era: Guts come from the most unlikely places, and looks can be deceiving.

You never know when some heroic-looking leader will fold like a cheap suit, just like you never know when some “heel” out of central casting for villains will turn “face” and rise to the occasion.

I don’t mean to sound naive. I’m not proposing a Newsom-Greene 2028 unity ticket. (Although … tell me you wouldn’t watch that convention.)

The odds are, both of these figures will disappoint me again, probably by next Thursday. Life is complicated, and it’s sometimes hard to disentangle heroism from opportunism.

Indeed, some have speculated that MTG’s sudden streak of independence is the result of Trump putting the kibosh on a “Greene for U.S. Senate” bid in Georgia. And as for Newsom — is his show of toughness an act of patriotism, or a prelude to his own presidential campaign?

Frankly, that’s a difference without a distinction.

For now, here’s what is clear: These two political figures have shown a flash — a glimmer — of something like backbone.

And in the year of our Lord 2025, that’s rarer, and more valuable, than almost any commodity in politics.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing California over its recently voter-approved congressional maps, alleging they are an unconstitutional “power grab.”

Earlier this month, Californians approved Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s redistricting initiative, introduced in direct response to Texas’ effort to create new congressional maps that favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

While Texas Republican lawmakers pursued an unprecedented mid-cycle redraw without voter approval, President Donald Trump and his allies have been critical of the California move. Democrats counter that they are trying to protect the state’s representation in Congress, accusing Trump — who pressured Texas to pursue the new maps — of undermining democratic norms.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed the lawsuit against Newsom over California’s redistricting plan, alleging that it racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Gov. Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

According to the lawsuit, federal prosecutors accuse California’s Democratic leaders of manipulating congressional maps to bolster “the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

“Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander,” the 17-page court document states.

“No one, let alone California, contends that its pre-existing map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of Race. Because the Proposition 50 map does, the United States respectfully requests this court enjoin defendants from using it in the 2026 election and future elections.”

Texas’ GOP-controlled legislature in August passed its new maps that are projected to give Republicans as many as five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats have criticized this move as Trump trying to create more red seats to keep control of the House, which the GOP now narrowly holds.

Texas has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 25 of which are filled by Republicans.

California, which has 52 House districts — 43 of them held by Democrats — responded with Proposition 50.

Republicans hold a 219-214 majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, with two seats vacant.

Several states — led by both Republicans and Democrats — have since announced efforts to redraw their maps, setting off a gerrymandering arms race ahead of 2026.

“These losers lost at the ballot box, and soon they will also lose in court,” Newsom’s office said in a statement in response to the Trump administration lawsuit.

During the last government shutdown six years ago, the main narrative when it came to public lands was the damage caused by unsupervised visitors. Trash cans and toilets overflowed with waste. Tourists reportedly mowed down Joshua trees to off-road in sensitive areas of Joshua Tree National Park.

This time around, national parks were directed to retain the staff needed to provide basic sanitation services, as I reported in a recent article with my colleague Lila Seidman. But meanwhile, something bigger and more coordinated was unfolding behind the scenes, said Chance Wilcox, California Desert program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.

“We’re not seeing Joshua trees getting knocked down, things getting stolen, damage to parks by the American people, but we are seeing damage to parks by this presidential administration on an even larger scale,” Wilcox told me last week before lawmakers struck a deal to reopen the government.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Wilcox and other public lands advocates allege that President Trump’s administration used the shutdown to expedite an agenda that prioritizes extraction while slashing resources dedicated to conservation and education. What’s more, they fear the staffing priorities that came into sharp relief over the past 43 days offer a preview of how these lands will be managed going forward, especially in the aftermath of another potential mass layoff that could see the Interior Department cut 2,000 more jobs.

When I asked the Interior Department about its actions during the shutdown, a spokesperson responded via email that the administration “made deliberate, lawful decisions” to protect operations that sustain energy security and economic stability. “Activities that continued were those necessary to preserve critical infrastructure, safeguard natural resources, and prevent disruption to key supply chains that millions of Americans rely on,” the spokesperson wrote.

As a resident of the Mojave Desert on the outskirts of Joshua Tree National Park, I’ve taken particular interest in this topic. Out here, summer days can top 110 degrees, a trip to the grocery store is an hours-long excursion and there are rattlesnakes. Lots of rattlesnakes. But one huge bonus is the proximity to public lands: We’re surrounded by the park, the Mojave National Preserve and hundreds of miles of Bureau of Land Management wilderness.

These spaces not only provide endless entertainment for residents like my 3-year-old daughter, who would rather be turned loose in a boulder field than a jungle gym, but they play a key role in drawing visitors from around the world who support the stores, restaurants and other establishments that underpin our local economy.

Sentinel Rock in Hidden Valley, Joshua Tree National Park.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In short, the health of our community depends on the health of these landscapes. Now, their future seems increasingly uncertain.

During the shutdown, roughly 64% of National Park Service employees were furloughed, according to a Department of the Interior contingency plan. At Joshua Tree National Park, those sidelined included Superintendent Jane Rodgers, along with most of the staff responsible for scientific research, resource management and educational and interpretive programs, according to a source at the park who asked not to be named out of fear of retaliation.

Over at the BLM, roughly 26% of staffers were furloughed. Among those who were allowed to keep working: employees responsible for processing oil, gas and coal permits and leases, along with items related to other energy and mineral resources, according to the contingency plan, which cited the president’s declared national energy emergency as rationale. As a result, the federal government issued 693 new oil and gas drilling permits and 52 new oil and gas leases on federal lands during the shutdown, according to tracking by the Center for Western Priorities.

Also during the shutdown, the BLM continued to move ahead with plans to consider the expansion of the Castle Mountain Mine, which is surrounded by California’s Castle Mountains National Monument. Already, the Interior Department had approved a different nearby mine, the Colosseum, ending a years-long dispute in which the National Park Service had alleged the mine was operating without authorization.

In Alaska, the Trump administration moved to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing and approved a long-disputed push to build a 211-mile industrial road through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve to allow for mining in a remote corner of the Northwest. The U.S. also took an equity stake in a company focused on mining exploration in that area, part of a growing trend that some experts have described as unusual.

And in Utah, the BLM is now reconsidering an application, which has been rejected seven times, to build a four-lane highway through desert tortoise habitats in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

There’s real fear among federal employees and advocates that this dynamic — an emphasis on developing public lands, as stewardship and research efforts languish — will become the new reality, said Jordan Marbury, communications manager for Friends of the Inyo. What’s more, he said, is that some worry the administration will point to the shutdown as proof that public lands never really needed all that staffing in the first place.

“It could get to the point where conservation is totally an afterthought,” he said.

More recent land news

Operators of the 1,000-acre Inglewood Oil Field must stop pumping by the end of the decade, if a state edict holds up in court. My L.A. Times colleague Doug Smith looks at what will become of one of the Los Angeles region’s last great pieces of undeveloped land, which offers a rare opportunity to address the pressing needs of open space and affordable housing in underserved neighborhoods.

Homes sit in the shadow of the Inglewood Oil Field.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Five California tribes have established an intertribal commission to co-manage Chuckwalla National Monument, marking a historic step toward tribal sovereignty over sacred desert lands. Times environment reporter Tyrone Beason examines how this will work — and why it’s a big deal.

President Trump has tapped former New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce to lead the BLM — which manages about 10% of land in the U.S. — after his first pick, oil and gas lobbyist Kathleen Sgamma, withdrew her name from consideration in the wake of reporting on comments she made criticizing Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Industry trade organizations are praising Pearce’s nomination, while environmental groups allege that the former Republican Party of New Mexico chair is a climate change denier with a record of supporting expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands and shrinking national monuments, the Santa Fe New Mexican reports.

Lawmakers have begun to use the Congressional Review Act, which enables Congress to overturn recent federal rules with a majority vote, in an unprecedented way: to revoke specific land management plans that limit mining and drilling in specific places, Inside Climate News reports. So far, lawmakers have rescinded BLM plans that ended new coal leasing in Montana’s Powder River Basin and that limited development in North Dakota and portions of Alaska. They are now seeking to do the same in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. That’s despite warnings from legal experts, environmental organizations and hunting and fishing groups that these precedents could paralyze the ability of agencies to manage public lands.

A few last things in climate news

Negotiators for seven Western states say they are making progress in ongoing talks over how to share the diminishing waters of the Colorado River, according to our water reporter Ian James. Still, a deadline set by the Trump administration came and went Tuesday without any regionwide agreement on water cutbacks, Ian reports.

The Trump administration plans to allow new oil and gas drilling off the California coast, but energy companies may not be interested in battling the state’s strict environmental rules to try and tap into limited petroleum reserves, our climate policy reporter Hayley Smith writes. Citing these obstacles, some experts told Hayley the move may be politically motivated: It’s likely to set up a fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has said that any such proposal will be dead on arrival.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters at the COP30 Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, on Tuesday.

(Alessandro Falco)

Speaking of Newsom and Trump, the California governor is in Belém, Brazil, for the annual United Nations climate policy summit, which the Trump administration is sitting out. My colleague Melody Gutierrez, who’s also there, looks at how California hopes it can fill in the gap left by America’s absence as Newsom positions himself for a 2028 presidential run.

Meanwhile, diplomats have accused top U.S. officials of threatening and bullying leaders from poorer or small countries to defeat a historic deal to slash pollution from cargo ships that was slated by be approved by more than 100 nations, according to a bombshell New York Times report. Federal representatives denied that officials made threats but “acknowledged derailing the deal and repeated their opposition to international efforts to address climate change,” the paper reported.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

When I tell people what I cover for the Los Angeles Times, they’re delighted. A typical response is, “Sounds like fun!”

My beat is focused on wildlife and the outdoors. And in this world of fierce contention, over seemingly everything, it sounds downright peachy.

This is plenty of joy and wonder in the work. I’ve reported on the rehabilitation of a fuzzy baby sea otter by a surrogate mom and the resurgence of a rare songbird along the L.A. River.

However, there is also plenty of strife, messy politics and difficult decisions. (My inbox reflects the high emotion. I get hate and love mail, just like other reporters.)

Take a saga I’ve been writing about for more than a year concerning a plan by federal wildlife officials to shoot up to nearly half a million barred owls over three decades to save spotted owls in California, Washington and Oregon. Even someone who knows nothing about the matter can guess it’s controversial.

Since the strategy was approved last year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights groups have fought to stop it, gaining traction with some U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan legislators signed onto letters urging the Trump administration to cancel it, citing costs they said could top $1 billion. Then, this summer, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced resolutions that, if successful, would overturn the plan for good.

It was a nightmare scenario for environmental nonprofits, which acknowledge the moral quandary involved with killing so many animals, but say the barred owl population must be kept in check to prevent the extinction of the northern spotted owl, which is being muscled out of its native territory by its larger, more aggressive cousin. They also dispute that ten-figure price tag.

Then, at the eleventh hour, there was an upset in alliances. Logging advocates said canceling the plan could hinder timber sales in Oregon, and threaten production goals set by the Trump administration. That’s right: Loggers were now on the same side as conservationists, while right-wing politicians were aligned with animal welfare activists. Talk about unlikely, uncomfortable political bedfellows.

The loggers’ plea may have tipped the scales. Louisiana Republican John Kennedy, who spearheaded the Senate resolution, said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum — whose portfolio includes timber — personally asked him to abandon the effort. Kennedy, in colorful terms, declined to back down. He called the planned cull “DEI for owls” and said Burgum “loves it like the devil loves sin.” The resolution didn’t pass, splitting the Republican vote almost down the middle.

You don’t have to go to Washington, D.C., to find epic battles over wildlife management.

In California, there’s been much discussion in recent years about the best way to live alongside large predators such as mountain lions and wolves.

Wolves in California were wiped out by people about a century ago, and they started to recolonize the state only 14 years ago. The native species’ resurgence is celebrated by conservationists but derided by many ranchers who say the animals are hurting their bottom line when they eat their cattle.

State wildlife officials recently euthanized four gray wolves in the northern part of the state that were responsible for 70 livestock losses in less than six months, my colleague Clara Harter reported, marking the latest flashpoint in the effort to manage them.

“Wolves are one of the state’s most iconic species and coexistence is our collective future,” said Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “But that comes with tremendous responsibility and sometimes hard decisions.”

Even hulking herbivores such as wild horses stir passionate disagreement.

In the Eastern Sierra last month, I walked among dozens of multi-colored equines with members of local Native American tribes, who told me of their deep connection to the animals — and their heartbreak over U.S. government plans to send them away.

Federal officials say the herd has surged to more than three times what the landscape can support, and pose a safety hazard on highways, while also damaging Mono Lake’s unique geologic formations. Under a plan approved earlier this year, hundreds are slated to be rounded up and removed.

A coalition that includes local tribes — which have cultural ties to the animals that go back generations — disputes many of these claims and argues that the removal plan is inhumane.

“I wish I had a magic wand and could solve it all,” Beth Pratt, of the National Wildlife Federation, told me after my article on the horses was published.

Stay tuned. I’ll be writing this newsletter about once a month to dig into important wildlife stories in the Golden State and beyond. Send me feedback, tips and cute cat photos at [email protected].

More recent wildlife news

Speaking of wolves: The Trump administration ordered Colorado to stop importing gray wolves from Canada as part of the state’s efforts to restore the predators, a shift that could hinder plans for more reintroductions this winter, according to the Associated Press’ Mead Gruver. The state has been releasing wolves west of the Continental Divide since 2023.

More than 17,000 acres of ancestral lands were returned to the Tule River Indian Tribe, which will allow for the reintroduction of Tule elk and the protection of habitat for California condors, among other conservation projects, my colleague Jessica Garrison reports.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called it “the largest ancestral land return in the history of the region and a major step in addressing historical wrongs against California Native American tribes.”

One year after the discovery of golden mussels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, dense colonies cling to boats and piers, threatening water for cities and farms — and there’s no help on the way, reports CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. State agencies have prioritized protecting other areas in the state from the infested Delta, the hub of the state’s water supply.

Will traditional holiday fare such as crab cakes be on the menu this year? As fellow Times reporter Susanne Rust writes, the need to protect humpback whales in California’s coastal waters, combined with widespread domoic acid contamination along the northern coast, has once again put the brakes on the Dungeness crab commercial fishery and parts of the recreational fishery this fall.

A few last things in climate news

My colleague Ian James wrote about a big shift in where L.A. will get its water: The city will double the size of a project to transform wastewater into purified drinking water, producing enough for 500,000 people. The recycled water will allow L.A. to stop taking water from creeks that feed Mono Lake, promising to resolve a long-running environmental conflict.

California’s proposed Zone Zero regulations, which would force homeowners to create an ember-resistant area around their houses, have stirred backlash. One provision causing consternation may require the removal of healthy plants from within five feet of their homes, which some say isn’t backed by science. Those in favor of the rules say they’re key to protecting dwellings from wildfires. Now, as The Times’ Noah Haggerty explains, state officials appear poised to miss a Dec. 31 deadline to finalize the regulations.

Clean energy stocks have surged 50% this year, significantly outpacing broader market gains despite Trump administration policies targeting the sector, Bloomberg reports. Demand for renewable power to fuel artificial intelligence data centers and China’s aggressive clean-tech expansion are driving the rally.

Park rangers furloughed by the federal shutdown are teaching preschoolers and elementary school students about nature, earning some extra income, my colleague Jenny Gold reports.

One more thing

If you’re not quite ready to let go of the Halloween mood, I have good news. November generally marks the end of tarantula mating season. As I reported, male tarantulas strike out every year from their burrows in search of a lover. Finding one can be fatal, whether she’s in the mood or not. Females are known to snack on their suitors. Gulp.

While the arachnids inhabit areas such as the Angeles National Forest and Santa Monica Mountains year-round, mating season — when the males are on the move — offers the best opportunity to spot one. Through the month of November, you can also gaze at them at the Natural History Museum’s spider pavilion.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky and @lila_seidman on X.

California Republicans in Congress are vastly outnumbered by their Democratic counterparts in the state — and it may get worse.

Five of the nine GOP seats are at risk after California voters passed Proposition 50 in Tuesday’s special election. The measure, put on the ballot by the Democratic-led state Legislature, reshaped California congressional districts in a way that was specifically designed to unseat Republican incumbents.

The new maps target areas held by Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert, Young Kim and Darrell Issa in Southern California. The radical reconfiguration not only put Republicans in danger, but probably protects vulnerable Democratic officeholders by adding more voters from their own party into their reconfigured districts.

Already, California’s Republican members hold just nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats have 43.

Proposition 50’s passage also sets off an intraparty fight for a newly created Republican seat in Riverside and Orange counties, which will pit two GOP incumbents against one another — Calvert of Corona and Kim of Anaheim Hills — knocking one of them out of office. Calvert and Kim on Wednesday announced they planned to run for that seat.

“With the passage of Prop. 50, Californians were sold a bill of goods, allowing [Gov.] Gavin Newsom and his radical allies in Sacramento an unprecedented power grab to redraw the Congressional map and silence those who disagree with his extreme policies,” Calvert said in a statement.

Newsom and other Democratic leaders argue that redistricting, which normally happens once a decade by an independent commission, was necessary after GOP leaders in Texas redrew their own congressional districts — at the request of President Trump — in a bid to add more seats for their party and retain Republican control of the House.

The passage of Proposition 50 will boost Democratic efforts to win control of the House after the 2026 election, a victory that likely would stifle parts of Trump’s agenda and open the president and his administration to a litany of congressional investigations.

Proposition 50 is expected to exacerbate the political isolation that millions of Republicans in California already feel, especially in the state’s vast northern and inland territories, and conservative suburban enclaves.

Trump won 38% of the presidential vote in California last year. About a quarter of the state’s registered voters are Republicans. Yet, Democrats have held every statewide office since 2011, and have an iron grip on the California congressional delegation.

Some California Republicans may be left asking: “Who in Congress is representing our views and who do we turn to?” said Mark Baldassare, survey director of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Cook Political Report, which tracks elections, changed 11 California congressional district race ratings Tuesday, with all but one district moving in Democrats’ favor.

Political consultant Rob Stutzman remains skeptical that Democrats will win all five congressional seats targeted by Newsom in the 2026 midterm elections. Some of the GOP representatives have deep roots in the community and have survived past challenges by Democrats, Stutzman said.

Newsom and others “may have overpromised what Prop. 50 could do,” Stutzman said.

Here are the top six Republicans whose districts were changed by Proposition 50 and who may find their political future at risk.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale)

In Northern California, LaMalfa appears likely to run in one of two redesigned districts: One that stretches toward Mendocino National Forest and south toward Santa Rosa, or another that runs along the Oregon border and down the coast to the San Francisco Bay Area.

His current district, which spreads across the deeply conservative northeast corner of California to the Sacramento suburbs, was carved up by Proposition 50 and replaced with three districts that favor Democrats.

“They’re not going to kidnap my district here without a battle,” LaMalfa, 65, said Tuesday.

Democrats running for Congressional District 1’s seat — the seat that includes Mendocino National Forest — include Audrey Denney, an education director who unsuccessfully challenged LaMalfa in 2018 and 2020.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin)

Kiley’s new district takes in neighborhoods in and around Sacramento, pulling in Democratic voters and losing former Republican communities along the Nevada border.

He hasn’t said which district he’ll seek.

“My current district is split six different ways,” Kiley, 40, said Wednesday. “In that sense, I have a lot of options.”

On Tuesday night, he promised to “work across party lines to find a national solution to the age-old plague of gerrymandering, and in particular, to the more recent affliction of mid-decade gerrymandering.”

Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford)

Valadao’s predominantly Latino district in the Central Valley extends north post-Proposition 50, gaining more registered Democrats.

Still, more Democratic voters doesn’t necessarily translate to a Democratic victory, given the conservative attitudes in the region. A dairy farmer, Valadao, 48, has survived past challenges, in part due to poor turnout among Democrats and his popularity among moderate voters in the Central Valley.

Among those who have announced their intention to challenge Valadao is Visalia school board trustee Randy Villegas, a Democrat.

Valadao was among the few Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, increasing his appeal to Democratic voters. But he could also be vulnerable because of his support for Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which cut medical benefits for roughly two-thirds of his constituents. The representative argued his district will get concessions for rural hospitals, water infrastructure and agricultural investments in the legislation.

A Valadao spokesperson didn’t immediately respond for a request for comment Tuesday night.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills)

Nearly all of Calvert’s district was moved north, and now takes in the Los Angeles County communities of Pomona, Ontario and Fontana.

However, Calvert, 72, announced he would run for the newly formed 40th Congressional District, which includes western Riverside County and eastern Orange County, including his hometown of Corona, as well as Murrieta and Mission Viejo. It’s a strongly Republican district now shared by Republican colleague Kim of Anaheim Hills.

“Californians in the newly drawn 40th District deserve a proven conservative they can trust and a fighter who has delivered results for Riverside and Orange County for decades,” Calvert said in a statement Wednesday. “No one else comes close to my record of service to the new 40th. I’ve lived here my entire life and already represent the majority of this district in Congress.”

Calvert praised Trump’s economic record and efforts to “secure our borders,” a direct appeal to the president’s MAGA base living in the region.

Michael Moodian, public policy researcher at Chapman University, expects Calvert will face a “tough fight” with Kim in the 2026 election.

Calvert is the longest-serving Republican member of California’s congressional delegation and is well known among voters in the area, while Kim is a strong fundraiser and has a moderate tone given that her current district is politically divided, Moodian said.

Kim, 63, one of the first Korean American women elected to Congress, last year won a third term.

Kim on Wednesday boasted that she was one of the most prominent Republican fundraisers in Congress and had a proven record of winning tough races.

“I’m running because California needs proven fighters who will stand with President Trump to advance a bold America First agenda that restores law and order in our communities, strengthens our national security, and protects the American Dream for future generations,” Kim said in a statement.

Calvert has survived previous redistricting rounds, including in 2021, when the overwhelmingly liberal Palm Springs — the first city in the nation to elect an all-LGBTQ+ city council — was added to his district and the Republican-heavy Temecula was taken out.

In 2024, Calvert fended off former federal prosecutor Will Rollins, besting the young Democrat 51.7% to 48.3%.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall)

Post-Proposition 50, Issa’s Republican stronghold in Southern California becomes more narrowly divided among Democrats and Republicans and gets a larger share of Latino voters. Like Calvert and Kim, Issa may decide to run in the new Republican-majority seat in Riverside and Orange counties.

“California is my home,” Issa said Tuesday night. “And it’s worth fighting for,”

He called Proposition 50 “the worst gerrymander in history” and vowed to continue to represent “the people of California — regardless of their party or where they live.”

Issa, 72, lost a legal challenge last week over the new maps, which he sought to block.

According to the complaint filed in federal court, Issa claimed he would be harmed because he would lose “seniority advantages in committee proceedings” and have “reduced influence over legislative priorities and committee work affecting my constituents,” NBC7 in San Diego reported.

Democratic San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert and perennial candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar are among those challenging Issa in his new seat.

Nov. 4 (UPI) — As voters across the country headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats running in high-profile races are on track to be sent to governor’s mansions in New Jersey and Virginia and the mayor’s office in New York City.

New York City

Zohran Mamdani was poised Tuesday night to be the next mayor of New York City, besting former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a race that was closely watched nationwide, including by President Donald Trump.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old state lawmaker who ran as a democratic socialist, was projected to win the mayoral contest against Cuomo, who ran as an independent and with the last-minute backing of Trump, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the volunteer Guardian Angels crime prevention organization.

According to preliminary results from the city’s board of elections, Mamdani held 50.3% of the vote, representing more than 972,000 ballots cast. Cuomo was in second with 41.6% and Sliwa at third with 7.1%.

Mamdani claimed victory in a short video posted to X of a subway car coming to a stop at City Hall.

The race was largely a rematch of June’s Democratic primary where Mamdani beat Cuomo for the party’s nomination in a contest that was seen as a fight between the party’s progressive and establishment wings.

Mamdani’s platform included implementing a rent freeze, making bus transit free, offering free childcare for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years and raising the corporate tax rate while taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers at a flat 2%.

Cuomo ran on his extensive experience as a former governor of the state and prioritized improving public safety, including surging subway transit police. In contrast to Mamdani, Cuomo presented himself as a business-friendly centrist who could work with Trump, who injected himself late into the race.

Trump, who endorsed Cuomo Monday, has repeatedly called Mamdani a “communist” and said if he wins, “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds, other than the very minimum required, to my beloved first home.”

Virginia

Former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, claimed victory Tuesday night over Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears to become the commonwealth’s 75th governor and first woman to hold its highest office.

Speaking to supporters during an election night watch party in Richmond, Spanberger vowed to serve all Virginians, including those who did not vote for her.

“And that means I will listen to you, work for you and with you,” she said.

“That is the approach I have taken throughout my entire career. I have worked with anyone and everyone regardless of political party to deliver results to the people that I serve. And that is because I believe in this idea that there is so much more that unites us as Virginians and as Americans than divides us,” she said.

“And I know — I know in my heart — we can unite for Virginia’s future and we can set an example for the rest of the nation.”

According to preliminary state results, Spanberger received 56.3% of the vote share for 1.2 million ballots compared to Earle-Sears’ 43.2%, or roughly 968,100 votes, with 107 out of 133 localities reporting.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, was among the first to comment on Spanberger’s victory, telling Virginians that she “won’t let you down.”

“Tonight, Virginians came together to send a resounding message that folks are ready to stand up for our freedoms and fight for our future,” he said in a statement on X.

“In the face of all the chaos from Washington and the attacks on our democracy, Abigail Spanberger brought people together around a vision for a better, more affordable future for Virginia.”

Polls closed at 7 p.m. EST.

She will replace Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who was barred by Virginia’s unusual constitutional limit on governors being elected to consecutive terms.

Democrats are hoping a win by Spanberger will further cement Virginia’s blue state status ahead of next year’s midterm elections, ABC News reported.

“It is only in Virginia and New Jersey that we have statewide elections where we can prove to the rest of the country — when given, when we have an opportunity to make a change at home in our state, we will take it,” Spanberger said at a recent campaign rally.

“We know the stakes of this election, and we know what we are for. We are for a governor focused relentlessly on lower costs on housing, healthcare and energy.”

Trump, meanwhile, did not officially endorse Earle-Sears, but on Monday he urged Virginia Republicans to show up to the polls, according to The Washington Post.

“Get out and vote for these unbelievably great Republican candidates up and down the line,” he said in a telephone call with supporters.

If elected, Earle-Sears would have been the first Black woman to serve as governor in any state.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, claimed victory in a race against Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who ran in his third bid for governor.

Sherrill, speaking to supporters in East Brunswick, said her opponent conceded defeat.

“This was a tough fight and this is a tough state, but I know you, New Jersey, and I love you,” she said during her victory speech.

“I fought for you, I’ve spoken with thousands of you over the last year. I know your struggles, your hopes, I know your dreams. So serving you is worth any tough fight I have to take on and I’m incredibly honored to be your next governor.”

The traditionally blue state had a larger share of red voters than typical in the 2024 election, and Trump lost the state by 6 points, down significantly from the nearly 16 points he lost by in 2020.

Trump endorsed Ciattarelli, but didn’t campaign for him in person. Trump did take part in a telephone rally on Monday night, MSNBC reported. He also put his weight behind the Republican in multiple Truth Social posts, including one geared toward Lakewood, N.J.’s Orthodox Jewish population on Sunday.

“Your votes in this Election will save New Jersey, a State that is near and dear to my heart,” Trump wrote, saying they “will rue the day” they voted for Sherrill.

Hours into voting Tuesday, officials shut down polling stations throughout New Jersey and moved voting to new election sites after receiving bomb threats via email. Law enforcement said the threats involving polling places in Bergen, Essex, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Passaic Counties were not credible.

Former President Barack Obama, meanwhile, campaigned in support of Sherrill, speaking at a rally in Newark on Saturday.

“If you meet this moment, if you believe change can happen, you will not just elect Mikie Sherrill as your next governor, you will not just put New Jersey on a brighter path, you will set a glorious example for this nation,” he said, according to the New Jersey Monitor.

Ballot measures

On the West Coast, Californians voted for what could be the most consequential ballot measure this year as they decide whether to adopt a new congressional map that is designed to give Democrats an edge in the midterm election. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed the redistricting in retaliation to a new electoral map in Texas that favors Republicans.

Proposition 50 would redraw the congressional map to make five districts more Democratic-leaning, potentially neutralizing the effects of the new Texas map. Democrats across the country, including Obama, have supported Newsom’s plan as a way to counter Republican gerrymandering in predominantly red states.

“We have a chance at least to create a level playing field in the upcoming midterm elections,” Obama told Prop 50 supporters on a campaign call.

California Republicans, however, accused Democrats, themselves, of gerrymandering, with U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley calling it a “plague on democracy,” according to ABC News.

“I think it takes power away from voters, undermines the fairness of elections and degrades representative government,” he said.

Other key races

Pennsylvania voters will vote on whether to retain three Democratic justices on the state supreme court for new 10-year terms. The court’s 5-2 Democratic majority could be at stake.

Voters in the Houston area will vote in a special election to fill the U.S. House seat for Texas’ 18th Congressional District. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee died in 2024 and the winner of the seat in the 2024 general election, former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, died three months into office.

Tuesday’s race is a primary, which will eventually go into a runoff.

California voters went to the polls Tuesday to decide on a radical redistricting plan with national implications, but the campaign is shaping up to be a referendum on President Trump.

Proposition 50, a ballot measure about redrawing the state’s congressional districts, was crafted by Democrats in response to Trump urging Texas and other GOP-majority states to modify their congressional maps to favor Republicans, a move that was designed to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Opponents have said Proposition 50 is a power grab by Democrats that would blatantly disenfranchise Republican voters.

But supporters, fueled by a huge war chest in deep blue California, managed to make the vote about Trump and what they say are his efforts to erode democracy. The president has never been popular in California, but unprecedented months of immigration raids, tariffs and environmental rollbacks have only heightened the conflict.

“Trump is such a polarizing figure,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “He commands great loyalty from one group of people and great animosity from others. … It’s not surprising that this measure has been portrayed as sticking it to Donald Trump or [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom.”

Proposition 50 underscores how hyperpartisan California politics have become. A UC Berkeley poll last week conducted in conjunction with The Times found more than 9 out of 10 Democrats supported Proposition 50 and a similar proportion of Republicans opposed it.

California voters had been bombarded with television ads, mailers and social media posts for weeks about the high-stakes special election, so much so that only 2% of likely voters were undecided, according to the poll.

As if on cue, Trump weighed in on Proposition 50 on Tuesday morning just as voting was getting underway.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened across California.

The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

At a White House briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, without providing examples, that California was receiving ballots in the name of undocumented immigrants who could not legally vote.

California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

“The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

More than 6.3 million Californians — 28% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots as of Monday, according to a voting tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell. Ballots submitted by Democrats were outpacing votes by Republicans on Monday, though GOP voters were believed to be more likely to vote in person on election day.

Disabled Army veteran Micah Corpe, 50, had some choice words for Newsom outside a Twentynine Palms church that served as a polling place, calling the politician a “greasy used car salesman.”

Corpe, a Republican, described Proposition 50 as an effort by the governor to “do whatever he wants because he doesn’t like Trump.” At the same time, he said Texas’ decision to redraw its congressional districts was a necessity because of the influx of people moving there from California and other blue states.

“He fights [Trump] on everything,” Corpe said of Newsom. “Just give in a little to get a little. That’s all he’s got to do.”

Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said the seeds of Proposition 50 were sowed when it became clear that Republicans in Congress were not going to challenge Trump in an investigatory way or provide serious oversight.

“One of the benefits of our system is that there are checks designed in there and we haven’t exercised those checks in a good long time, so I think this is a Hail Mary for potentially doing that,” he said.

Bob Rowell, 72, said that in an ideal world Proposition 50 wouldn’t be necessary. But the Trump administration’s push to redraw lines in red states has created a “distinct danger of creating a never-ending Republican domination in Congress,” he said. So Rowell, a Green Party member, voted yes.

“I hope there’s some way to bring us back into balance,” he said.

Robert Hamilton, 35, an architectural drafter who lives in Twentynine Palms, sees Proposition 50 as a necessary step to push back on Trump’s policies, which he said are impinging on people’s rights. He’s proud of the role California is playing in this political moment.

“I think as a state we’re doing an excellent job of trying to push back against some of the more egregious oversteps of our liberties,” Hamilton said outside a church where he’d just cast his ballot in favor of the measure. “I do hope that if this measure is successful that other states will follow suit — not necessarily taking the same steps to redistrict but finding ways to at least hold the line while hopefully we get things sorted out.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Katie King contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped to the microphone at the state Democratic headquarters in mid-August with the conviction of a man certain he was on the right side of history, bluntly saying California has a moral obligation to thwart President Trump’s attempt to tilt the balance of Congress.

Over the next 2½ months, Newsom became the public face of Proposition 50, a measure designed to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives by temporarily redrawing California’s congressional districts.

Newsom took that leap despite tepid support for a gerrymandering measure in early polls.

With Tuesday’s election, the fate of Proposition 50 arrives at a pivotal moment for Newsom, who last week acknowledged publicly that he’s weighing a 2028 presidential run. The outcome will test not only his political instincts but also his ability to deliver on a measure that has national attention fixed squarely on him.

From the outset, Newsom paired his conviction with caution.

“I’m mindful of the hard work ahead,” Newsom said in August, shortly after lawmakers placed Proposition 50 on the ballot.

It was familiar territory for a governor who has built a career on high-stakes political bets. As San Francisco mayor, his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004 made him a progressive icon. It also drew accusations he’d energized conservative turnout that year in the presidential election that ended with George W. Bush winning a second term.

As the state’s newly elected governor, he suspended the death penalty in 2019 despite voters having twice rejected measures to do so, calling it a costly and biased system that “fails to deliver justice” — a move that drew fury from law enforcement groups and victims’ families. His decision to take on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a 2023 prime-time debate hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News was intended to showcase his command of policy and political agility, but instead fell flat amid an onslaught of insults.

With Proposition 50, Newsom placed himself at the center of another potentially career-defining gamble before knowing how it would land. Ahead of Tuesday’s special election, polling suggests he may have played his cards right. Six out of 10 likely voters support Proposition 50, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times.

“You know, not everybody would have done it,” veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman said. “He saw the risk and he took it.”

If approved by voters, the ballot measure would redraw California’s congressional maps to favor Democrats beginning with the 2026 midterm elections in hopes of discounting Republican efforts to gerrymander more seats for themselves. California introduced the measure in response to Trump and his political team leaning on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines to help Republicans retain control of the House.

The balance of power in the closely divided House will determine whether Trump can advance his agenda during his final two years in office — or face an emboldened Democratic majority that could move to challenge, or even investigate, his administration.

And while critics of the governor see a power-craving politician chasing headlines and influence, supporters say this is classic Newsom: confident, risk-tolerant and willing to stand alone when he believes he’s right. He faced intense backlash from his political allies when he had conservative personality Charlie Kirk as his inaugural guest on his podcast this year, on which Newsom said he believed it was “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. After Kirk was killed, Newsom regularly brought up that interview as a point of pride, noting the backlash he received from his own party over hosting a Trump ally.

In recent months Newsom struck a deal to stabilize struggling oil refineries, pushed cities to ban homeless encampments and proposed walking back healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants — a series of moves that have tested his standing with progressives. Supporters say the moves show his pragmatic streak, while critics argue they reflect a shift to the center ahead of a possible presidential run.

“In so many ways, he is not a cautious politician,” said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “His brand is big, bold decisions.”

With Proposition 50, Newsom has cast the redistricting counterpunch as a moral imperative, arguing that Democrat-led states must “fight fire with fire,” even if it means pausing a state independent redistricting process largely considered the gold standard. The measure upends a system Californians overwhelmingly endorsed to keep politics out of the map-drawing process.

Levinson said Newsom’s profile has been rising along with the polling numbers for Proposition 50 as he has booked national television shows like ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and appeared in an ad in favor of the ballot measure with former President Obama, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats that ran during the World Series.

“We are talking about Proposition 50 on a nationwide scale,” Levinson said. “And it’s really hard to talk about Proposition 50 without saying the words ‘Gov. Newsom of California spearheading the effort to pass.’”

California Republicans have called the effort misguided, arguing that the retaliatory response creates a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box.

“When you fight fire with fire, the whole world burns,” said California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose district is among those that would be overhauled under Proposition 50. “Newsom is trying to claim that Texas did a bad gerrymandering, but what California is doing is a good gerrymander because somehow it’s canceling it out … I just think gerrymandering is wrong. It’s wrong in Texas and it’s wrong in California.”

Kiley said Newsom never has been one to shy away from national attention “and for pursing explicitly partisan goals.”

“He’s certainly used this as an opportunity to do both of those things,” Kiley said.

Out of the gate, the redistricting plan had lackluster support. Then came the flood of ads by proponents peppered with talking points about Trump rigging the election.

Supporters of Proposition 50 took in more than four times the amount that opponents raised in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure. Supporters of Proposition 50 raised so much money that Newsom told them “you can stop donating.”

Political analysts said the redistricting fight has given Newsom what every ambitious politician craves: a narrative. It’s allowed him to cast himself as a defender of democracy while reenergizing donors. That message sharpened when Trump administration officials said they’d monitor polling sites in several California counties at the state GOP’s request, prompting Newsom to accuse the Trump administration of “voter intimidation.”

Republican strategist Rob Stutzman said the campaign gave Newsom something he’d struggled to find: “an authentic confrontation” with Trump that resonates beyond California.

“And I think it’s worked well for him nationally,” Stutzman said. “I think it’s been great for him in some ways, regardless of what happens, but if it does lose, it’ll hurt the brand that he can win and there will be a lot of disgruntled donors.”

While Newsom has framed the measure as good for the country, Stutzman said it’s clear that Proposition 50 has been particularly good for the governor.

“He’s used it for his own purposes very, very effectively,” Stutzman said. “If he becomes the [presidential] nominee, you could look back and say this was an important part of him getting there.”

Nov. 2 (UPI) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday renewed his call for support of a ballot initiative that would redraw congressional voting maps in the state.

Proposition 50 would change district boundaries to potentially favor Democrats, a reaction, Newsom has said, to a similar move by Texas Republicans that would benefit the GOP.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press, Newsom said “the rules of the game have changed,” criticizing President Donald Trump for pushing the Texas initiative and accused him of “rigging” the 2026 midterm elections.

Newsom said he is “deeply confident” that California voters will approve Proposition 50 at the polls in a Nov. special election.

Democrats have moved away from a pledge by former first lady Michelle Obama, who said in 2016 that “when they go low, we go high,” in response to aggressive campaign rhetoric by then presidential candidate Donald Trump that leveled personal attacks against Democrats.

“I would love to go back to that,” Newsom said in the interview. “But politics has changed. The world has changed. The rules of the game have changed.”

“We want to go back to some semblance of normalcy, but you have to deal with the crisis at hand,” he said.

Newsom, who has said he is considering a bid for the White House in 2028, has also been critical of Trump’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in big cities across the country, including in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Portland.

Trump has claimed illegal immigration is responsible for rampant crime in those cities, despite a lack of evidence to back up his assertions.

Newsom signed on to an Oregon lawsuit to stop National Guard troops from patrolling Portland and has described the deployments as a “breathtaking abuse of power.”

He has also predicted the outcome of the Proposition 50 vote could shape the 2026 midterm elections.