gender

SACRAMENTO — You haven’t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I’m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I’ve figured them all out at last.

I’ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I’ll share here. Heads up: I’m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.

Anyway, here’s my thinking:

Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond

The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.

But it’s an expensive item — costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.

This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I’m a “no” vote.

Proposition 2: Doubles the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund

It requires the Legislature to pour money into the state savings account until it reaches 20% of general fund tax revenue, rather than the current 10%. The fund can be tapped when the economy sours and revenue falls.

Sure, save away if you can. Yes.

Proposition 3: Makes high tax rates permanent

This would cement the nation’s highest state income tax rates into the California Constitution — up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.

The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.

My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, “temporary” shouldn’t be translated into “permanent.” And there’s no rush. The rates don’t expire for five years. No.

Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns

This would allow the state and local governments to create partial public financing systems for political candidates. “Charter” cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already can.

Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.

Proposition 5: Changes recall elections

Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal, only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.

This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes

Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers

Middle-income buyers could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They’d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.

This makes sense. Easy yes.

Proposition 38: Medical research bond

The state would borrow $8.4 billion to fund research into cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other ailments. The state cost: at least $500 million annually for 20 years.

My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition’s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.

Proposition 39: Voter ID

This would force everyone to show a government ID before being allowed to vote. Those casting mail ballots would need to write a four-digit PIN on the back of the return envelope.

There’s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.

Proposition 40: The billionaire tax

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ worth, probably raising tens of billions of dollars. Ninety percent would go to healthcare to replace federal funding cutbacks.

This is nutty. There’s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn’t have a one-time tax anyway. It’s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who’s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.

Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills

Ignore their superficial intents, the sole purpose of both measures is to invalidate the billionaires tax.

I don’t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.

Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes

Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.

It’s ridiculously confusing. But I don’t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That’s undemocratic. No.

The low-profile measure would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.

This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they’d need to close shop. No.

Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects

This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.

It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.

Happy voting. I’m glad I didn’t vote early so there’d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal”: Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth-tax supporters
Against the wind: Hope and despair simmer among California Republicans ahead of election day
CA vs. Trump: ‘This is not normal’: Feds demand California counties set aside ‘likely’ noncitizen ballots

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SAN FRANCISCO — Nancy Pelosi is, beyond doubt, a figure who will long endure, her name forever pressed into the pages of the nation’s history books.

She is the first — and, so far, only — woman to wield the gavel as speaker of the House. She was indispensable to passage of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Working with presidents of both parties, she twice helped keep the American economy from tanking.

She played political field marshal through numerous election cycles, raising astronomical sums to help push Democrats into the majority. When a doddering Joe Biden threatened the party’s hold on the White House and foreshadowed a 2024 congressional wipeout, Pelosi used her considerable influence to not so gently ease the president aside as Democrats’ nominee for the White House.

Why, then, with so much at stake in November, would one of Pelosi‘s last acts before retirement be mucking about in the elbow-throwing, bone-crunching race between the two San Francisco Democrats vying to succeed her in January?

Is it a grudge she holds against Scott Wiener, the prolific and prolifically ambitious state senator, who boldly launched his candidacy last fall before Pelosi had even announced her plans to retire?

Is it resentment that Wiener’s years-long maneuvering blocked the ascension of Pelosi’s daughter, Christine, who’d been widely talked about as her mom’s name-brand successor? (Instead, she’s running for Wiener’s seat in 2028, or sooner if he makes it to Congress.)

Is it Pelosi once more leaning into her long-standing role as a champion of women and women in politics, which drew her to support Supervisor Connie Chan?

Perhaps it’s a bit of all three.

Pelosi, for her part, told reporters that “nobody knows Congress better than I do” and she believes, simply enough, that Chan “would be the best member of Congress.”

But maybe there’s something more elemental.

“Pelosi is the daughter of a machine politician,” said Eric Jaye, a strategist who’s spent decades working in and around San Francisco politics. “She moves from Baltimore” — where her father was a congressman and mayor — “and becomes initially a lieutenant in the political machine here and, ultimately, the general of it.

“She’s playing by the classic rules of machine politics,” Jaye said, “which is the machine has the prerogative of choosing the line of succession…. Nancy Pelosi wanted to be able to make that choice.”

Peas in a pod

Chan, a leader of the city’s progressive wing and a favorite of organized labor, was languishing until Pelosi delivered her endorsement in the final stretch of the primary campaign. Her imprimatur sent Chan surging past tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti to place second behind Wiener.

With less than two weeks until election day, the November runoff appears too close to call, though many give Wiener the edge.

There is little that substantively divides the two candidates, both liberals in good standing. Wiener is considered the more moderate of the two, graded on San Francisco’s very-left curve.

“Connie Chan and Scott Wiener are going to vote the same way 99.9% of the time,” said Jim Ross, another longtime San Francisco political strategist. Further, he noted, it’s going to be years before either acquires the clout needed to be a significant force on Capitol Hill. “That’s just the reality of how Congress works.”

Which makes Pelosi’s heavy involvement in their fratricidal fight all the more striking.

She’s put her hefty fundraising muscle behind Chan, helping narrow Wiener’s financial advantage. She’s appeared in pro-Chan advertising — striding in her trademark stilettos — and lent her Washington communications director to the campaign.

She’s also collared Chan a list of glossy endorsements, including Sen. Adam Schiff, former Sen. Barbara Boxer and San José Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the chair of California’s Democratic congressional delegation. Wiener has Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and several Democratic House members in his corner.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a former San Francisco mayor and longtime Pelosi ally, has not endorsed either candidate.

A house divided

San Francisco politics have long been personal, nasty and brutish. The city’s close quarters and intraparty rivalries help make it so, and Pelosi’s intervention has further frayed old ties and strained deep-seated alliances.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a San Francisco philanthropist and one of the Democratic Party’s most influential donors, told Politico she couldn’t understand why Pelosi would use her final months in office to torpedo Wiener’s campaign. She’s spoken to other prominent Democrats, Buell said, who felt pressured to endorse Chan because the speaker emerita hit them up.

“All you do is say, ‘Why, why is this happening?’ ” Buell wondered aloud.

It’s been nearly 40 years — going back to when Pelosi was first elected in 1987 — since San Francisco had an open congressional seat. Winning here is tantamount to a lifetime appointment; since 1964, just three people have held the seat Pelosi is vacating.

Both Wiener, who is gay, and Chan, who immigrated to San Francisco from Hong Kong, are bidding to write their own bit of history. Wiener, 56, would be the first out LGBTQ+ person to represent San Francisco in Congress. Chan, 48, would be the first Asian American.

As for Pelosi, her aggressive intervention in the contest won’t even merit “a footnote in her biography,” Jaye said.

Her place in posterity is sealed, regardless of who wins or loses Nov. 3.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Becerra’s muted gubernatorial campaign comes to life in home stretch
The deep dive: In tight Texas Senate race, Trump’s immigration crackdown tests Republicans’ hold on voters
The L.A. Times Special: California residents accused by feds of voter fraud react with shock, confusion and anger

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO —  When does positive reform become negative regression? That’s what Californians need to answer before voting on Proposition 45, which would substantially change the state’s landmark environmental protection law.

The business-backed ballot measure would make it much easier and less costly to build loads of projects — not just housing, but also water works, clean energy and transportation facilities.

It also, however, would give citizens much less time and fewer tools to assess and oppose projects they deem unfit for their area — like freeway expansions or giant warehouses.

“It tips the scale from favoring the public and the environment to favoring developers and polluting projects,” asserts state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas), chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

“It’s an overreach.”

“We streamline the building process for billionaires to erect stadiums. Why don’t we do it for middle-class homebuyers?” declares Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., a major backer of Proposition 45.

It’s a bitter, high-stakes fight that’s too close to call. Polling has indicated the outcome could be decided in the final days before the Nov. 3 election.

Proposition 45 would be the most significant overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act since Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it in 1970.

CEQA — as it’s commonly called and used as a four-letter obscenity by developers — is justifiably credited with keeping California air less polluted, water relatively clean, urban traffic from being worse and more outdoors open to the public.

It requires developers — private and public — to undergo a lengthy process of analyzing a project’s environmental effects and reducing their negative impacts.

But over the years CEQA became blatantly abused.

Union blackmailers — ”greenmailers” — threatened frivolous CEQA lawsuits unless developers caved to labor demands. Business rivals drove off potential competitors by filing protracted suits that wore down investors. NIMBYs — ”not in my backyard” — fought local projects that crowded their spaces or blocked views.

As a CEQA battle dragged on, the developers’ costs soared and many cut their losses by abandoning the project. Home building plummeted in California and the law of supply and demand ruled. Housing costs skyrocketed.

Project opponents legitimately concerned about environmental impacts also filed lawsuits, but they weren’t the developer’s big problem — not like the CEQA abusers.

Finally, prodded by Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers have been responding in recent years to the developers’ frustration. They’ve been pecking away at CEQA with meaningful reforms for most types of housing, especially urban apartment projects near transit hubs.

“You’ve got to just move things,” Newsom exclaimed at an economic summit in Long Beach last week. “I’m just done with the [CEQA] litigation…. Years and years of B.S…. Eight years to develop something? Give me a break.”

But the nearly termed-out governor still hadn’t taken a position on Proposition 45.

Money and power, of course, have always had their privileges in the state Capitol. Billionaire sports team owners have had no trouble securing CEQA exemptions for construction of new stadiums or arenas. The exemptions are handed out like free bobbleheads.

In fact, Newsom recently signed legislation essentially granting a CEQA exemption in San Diego for a 16,000-seat sports arena and housing project led by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

Dunmoyer says that lawmakers “have done quite a bit” to expedite housing, “although not quite enough. It has been limited in scope and size — limited to urban infill and close to transit. It doesn’t address the overwhelming amount of housing needs in California.

“It doesn’t help the first-time middle-class homebuyers or address market rate rentals.”

He pegs the cost of a CEQA battle at $75,000 per new home, noting that’s added to the selling price — if the dwelling ever gets built.

Opponents of Proposition 45 argue that the measure’s backers wish to return California home building to 1960s sprawl when the state’s population was half its current size and there was more usable open space to pave over with roads and subdivisions — more orchards to rip up and wetlands to drain. And that led to longer smog-spewing car commutes to city jobs.

“Sprawl housing is not affordable housing,” Blakespear says. “There are costs to build new infrastructure like utility lines and water facilities, and high insurance costs. Then taxpayers have to clean up the pollution.

“Do we really want new sprawl housing developments in wildfire areas? We need to incentivize [urban] infill housing, instead of in the middle of the forest or the desert.”

Proposition 45 — generated by the state Chamber of Commerce — would streamline the CEQA approval process for several types of construction projects the measure deems “essential.” They include housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, jails, fire stations, wildfire reduction, broadband access and transportation.

Two very controversial projects were excluded — the bullet train and delta tunnel —
and so was nuclear power.

Opponents insist that the proposition eases the way for construction of massive data centers. But backers adamantly deny it, and they make sense. The anti-45 campaign is trying to scare voters with a Halloween bogeyman.

But there’s plenty of other ugly and smelly potential projects that could benefit.

If this were solely about housing, it wouldn’t ring so many alarms.

Here’s how I see it: We elect a governor and Legislature to handle such complex issues. Let them — especially the new governor, presumably Xavier Becerra — consider enacting new CEQA reforms, holding months of public hearings and ultimately compromising on a deal.

OK, maybe that’s dreaming. But it beats voters trying to wrap their heads around this in a few days.

Unlike regular legislation, if the ballot measure did pass and flaws emerged, it would be very hard for lawmakers to amend, requiring a two-thirds vote.

Proposition 45 rolls back CEQA protections too far — especially with a dangerous anti-environment California abuser in the Oval Office.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘He’s everywhere’: This California Republican wants to make his party relevant again
CA vs. Trump: Big assertions, sharp exchanges, little clarity define DOJ election battle with California
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nearly 40 years have passed since a Californian was president.

Several have pursued the White House in the decades since Ronald Reagan ambled into retirement, in January 1989. But not a one succeeded. Kamala Harris, who was saved from political purgatory when Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, came closest — though not close — in 2024.

The 2028 race could bring at least three more California contestants, none of whom seem likely to end the state’s presidential dry spell.

Some of that speaks to the individual flaws and political frailties of those who are, at the least, eyeing a 2028 bid: Harris, outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom and five-term Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna.

The problem they all face is their return address.

“There was a cliche that dates to the ‘60s or ‘70s, or maybe before that,” said Matthew Dallek, who was born and raised in Los Angeles and now teaches political management at George Washington University. “‘As California goes, so goes the nation.’ I don’t think that world exists anymore.”

Or as Jim Newton, a former L.A. Times reporter and editor and now a biographer and California historian, bluntly put it, the state has migrated in the minds of many beyond its golden confines “from a kind of serious west of the West place to a kind of hippy-dippy silly place.”

Not necessarily an accurate assessment on the part of those naysayers, but a damning perception nonetheless.

Political bookends

In many ways, Reagan and Harris serve as ideal exemplars of their home state and how it’s changed — along with attitudes toward California — in the decades between Reagan’s 1980 election as president and what would be, in 2028, Harris’ third try.

(The former vice president hasn’t ruled in or out another White House bid. Newsom has said he won’t run if Harris does. Khanna is in limbo until after November’s midterm election.)

Reagan was a product of the nation’s heartland and a California transplant. The state that launched him to the White House was predominantly white and Republican, an arsenal of the Cold War and the birthplace of a grass-roots anti-tax movement that swept the nation. His conservatism was seen by many as an antidote to the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.

“California was in some ways on the cutting edge of American politics because it was signaling the direction in which our national politics were trending,” said Dallek, who wrote a book about Reagan’s first electoral victory, in the 1966 gubernatorial race. “Reagan was kind of the tip of the spear.”

Although leaning to the right, especially in presidential races, California was a robust two-party state until the mid-1990s, with several Democrats holding statewide office and long periods when Democrats controlled one or both houses of the Legislature. That competitiveness, along with California’s sizable cache of electoral votes, helped boost Reagan’s political standing nationally.

Harris was born in Oakland, the daughter of a father from Jamaica and a mother from India. By the time the Democrat left for Washington in 2017, to serve as a U.S. senator, then vice president, California had turned as blue as a cloudless desert sky.

California had more brown than white residents. The military was no longer the all-mighty economic engine it had been. And with Democrats in hegemonic control of Sacramento, the state had become the country’s preeminent bastion of liberal values and policies.

Many see that progressivism as overly obsessed with identity politics, personal pronouns and the like, ignoring practicalities and the day-to-day concerns of most voters.

California “has sort of gone off the deep end,” said Ken Khachigian, a longtime conservative strategist in Orange County, who worked for both Reagan and Richard M. Nixon.

(Between the two, California had a seat in the White House for more than half a roughly 40-year stretch. Nixon served two terms as vice president before winning the presidency in 1968. His second term was cut short when the Watergate scandal drove him from office.)

Khachigian noted that Republicans rule over states that are just as politically lopsided as California: Indiana, Mississippi, Idaho and Utah, for instance. “But they don’t seem crazed like California,” he said.

That’s obviously one partisan’s perspective.

‘Far left … ungovernable’

But Dallek agreed it’s no longer a political asset to come from California, which much of the country sees as “pretty far to the left.”

“And somewhat ungovernable at this point,” he added. “You have incredible, insane amounts of wealth concentrated in places like Silicon Valley and parts of Los Angeles and then you have incredible amounts of poverty and homelessness…. There’s not a sense that what’s happening in California really resonates across the country.”

There is a case to be made that California is great and good in so many ways, beyond just its incredible natural splendor.

It has the world’s fourth-largest economy, as Newsom and others never tire of pointing out. It remains on the cutting edge of culture, research and technology. It’s still a place that offers fertile ground for the imagination, for reinvention and for second chances.

Newcomers, from other states and abroad, are welcomed like in few other places. The unofficial California credo — live and let live — makes it possible to be one’s authentic self without fear of shame, ostracism or constraint.

Harris, Newsom, Khanna or any Democrat hailing from California will doubtless argue those virtues are what makes the state truly shine, convinced it’s a model they can sell the rest of America.

Good luck with that.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Is there a doctor in the House? Backlash to Trump, RFK Jr. may boost their political ranks
The deep dive: Republican Steve Hilton leans on cheeky ads, voter discontent in long-shot campaign for governor
The L.A. Times Special:Take a breath. Educate yourself. Then vote.

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — The California Secretary of State has mailed a thick “Official Voter Information Guide” to every registered voter. It’s jam-packed with helpful material. But one bit should be totally ignored.

It tells voters to fill out their ballot immediately — ”today” — and return it right now. Don’t take any time, in other words, to think about what you’re voting on.

Here’s what it says in bold ink on the cover of the 173-page guide: “Don’t Delay, Vote Today! Return your ballot as soon as you receive it.”

That’s not just a throwaway line. It’s repeated throughout the guide.

Under “Quick Facts” for the Nov. 3 election: “Return your ballot by mail as soon as you receive it.”

Who’s writing this stuff? Officially it’s from Secretary of State Shirley Weber. But is some high school freshman who hasn’t taken a civics course the actual author? Isn’t Weber or anyone in the vast bureaucracy proofreading with raised eyebrows?

Doesn’t anyone realize there are 14 complex propositions on the state ballot that voters may want to mull over for more than two seconds? They aren’t all what they seem. Some require reading between the lines.

Proposition 1, for example, is an expensive $11.25-billion bond issue for affordable housing — mostly rentals — requiring at least $500 million in annual state costs for 25 years. That cuts into spending for other services such as education and healthcare. Is the new borrowing actually worth it?

Proposition 39 is relatively easy but needs some thought. It would require everyone to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote. Is that really needed when there is scant evidence of voter fraud? And it would invariably slow vote counting even more.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth. Should we set the precedent of taxing people’s wealth? Who’s next? We’ve already got the nation’s highest state income tax.

Proposition 45 would substantially alter the landmark California Environmental Quality Act. It has been terribly abused, stymying housing development. But the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently have streamlined CEQA to expedite home construction. This business-backed proposition is geared more toward easing infrastructure projects. Does it go too far?

Then there are some low-profile propositions that are just mind-numbing.

Not to mention some crucial congressional races that may determine control of the U.S. House.

We’re at the peak of campaign season. TV ads are running practically nonstop. Mailboxes are overflowing with political pitches. There are local candidate debates. And newspaper endorsements.

Let the election season play out. Don’t interfere with the political process.

I intend to do what I’ve always done: Wait until the last minute to vote. Something could happen to change my mind on an issue. I’ll take the filled-out ballot to a post office — or maybe a secure official drop box — a couple of days before the election.

Maybe I shouldn’t take the Secretary of State so literally. But since her “give me your vote now” admonition is featured in an official government publication, some voters are likely to accept it and obey.

This is what Weber apparently really means, as also stated in the guide: “Mail your ballot back as soon as possible. … To be counted, [it] must be postmarked no later than election day. We recommend mailing it at least seven days before election day.”

OK, that’s all she should say. End of lecture.

Still, I resent being urged to mail back my ballot a full week before the election. I’ll take my own sweet time that’s allowed by the law, thank you.

I queried the Secretary of State’s press office about the “vote now” edict but didn’t get a straight answer.

“Of course we absolutely encourage voters to carefully review the [guide] contents … and other trusted sources to make a decision that is best for them,” some unnamed spokesperson emailed. The top cause for ballots being rejected is their late arrival, the aide added.

The Postal Service has slowed its deliveries of all mail, especially in rural areas. Plus, President Trump tried to inject mail voting with crippling rules, but the Supreme Court stopped him.

The secretary’s office also emailed me that “when voters return their ballots early, it ensures more time for the ballot [counting] process.”

“It’s not good policy for the SOS to urge voters to vote the minute they get their ballot,” veteran Democratic strategist Garry South told me. “A lot can happen in the last month. And with a ballot that seems like it’s several feet long, I suspect it’s being done to deal with the criticism of how long it takes to count the votes in California.

“But the goal should be for voters to make considered and informed choices, not just to rush into marking their ballots.”

Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley, said: “Weber is under fire for taking too long to count votes. …. But the answer is for her to count faster, not to push voters to rush their decisions.”

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, points out that vote counting, in fact, has sped up during recent elections. And this year, the Legislature appropriated $29 million to speed up counting much more.

But “I don’t agree with the message” in the voting guide, Alexander said. “It’s a long ballot. People need to take some time to decide.”

Voting is a very personal exercise. It’s my duty not only to vote, but to try to get it right.

It’s not my duty to make vote-counting easier for election officials. It’s their duty to count — more swiftly.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: What Steve Hilton doesn’t get about Xavier Becerra’s parents
CA vs. Trump: FBI whistleblower alleges Trump ordered investigations of L.A.-area immigration protesters.
The L.A. Times Special: Hilton warm on tax cuts, tepid on Trump, cold on offshore wind during gubernatorial town hall

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Over the last week, gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has created the exact kind of media kerfuffle he loves best by attacking his rival Xavier Becerra for Becerra’s description of his parents as “immigrants.”

Although Becerra’s mother, Maria, was born in Mexico, his father, Manuel, came into the world in Sacramento, in 1928. Soon after, Becerra’s grandparents moved their young family back to Mexico, where Manuel was raised until he returned to the U.S. as a young man to work.

As my colleague Gustavo Arellano said in a must-read column, this border back-and-forth has been more the norm than the exception for California’s Mexican American population for decades, if not centuries. Manuel Becerra’s luck at being born on U.S. soil may have given him an advantage, but it didn’t make him any less of an immigrant, Arellano explained, especially in an era when Sacramento’s Mexican population was below 2,500 and racism remained openly practiced and disturbingly accepted.

Hilton, however, has seized on Manuel Becerra’s U.S. citizenship to brand the younger Becerra a liar, allegedly falsely framing himself as the son of immigrants to gain identity-politics points in a state of immigrants. Whether one or both of Becerra’s parents qualifies as an immigrant might seem like minutiae to most voters, but Hilton’s accusation has thumped on the nerves on both the left and right — including my own, as the daughter of a South Asian immigrant.

Dog-whistle politics

Scratch the surface of Hilton’s attack and it becomes about something far more than Manuel Becerra’s citizenship — it’s a thinly veiled dog whistle about how a “good” immigrant behaves and how we should handle the “bad” ones. Here’s where all that gets messy for me: I agree with Hilton that being born in the U.S. is a big deal, and being a citizen is a point of pride. It does matter. I also agree with Arellano that Hilton’s attack is despicable.

Somewhere between those points are truths about immigration in America at this fraught and ugly moment, and just how different California is from the rest of the country when it comes to understanding the issue — and why that matters.

California’s Latinos, through numbers, history and hard work, have built political and social power on a scale that few, if any, other immigrant groups anywhere in the U.S. have managed. That unique position in the Golden State has allowed for what I call the magical realism of immigration myths to flourish, a wonderful gift to generations past and present that does not have the same widespread acceptance in other parts of this great country.

I firmly believe there is no such thing as a “true” immigration story.

Many, if not most, immigrants are leaving something painful behind — maybe it’s family, maybe it’s war or abuse. But carrying that burden forward with nothing more than hope to balance it, passing it on to future generations, explaining it to strangers, is too much. So immigration stories get softened over time, with trauma turning into adventure and hard facts blurred into entertaining myths.

That doesn’t make the tellers liars. It makes them human.

In the case of my father’s myth, he would have told you that his journey to America started with Humphrey Bogart. As a teen, he’d cut school to watch black-and-white movies like “Casablanca” in a theater in Ahmedabad in northern India, so long ago that there was an intermission to change the film reels. Enamored of white tuxedos and cool blondes, he started applying to scholarships for college in America — eventually winning a full-ride at a Utah school for his skiing acumen, a sport for which he claimed great skill but in reality had never tried.

My aunts and uncles variously dispute or embrace this tale, which my father loved to tell. I don’t know how true it is, but I do know this. My father’s journey to the U.S. did not begin with Bogart. It began in the city of Karachi, which was in India until the British drew a line on the map and created Pakistan. War broke out, with Hindus killing Muslims and Muslims killing Hindus. My father, a kid, got lost in a crowd with his grandfather. He watched as a mob killed his grandpa, then escaped by himself walking hundreds of miles to safety. He was eventually reunited with his family in a refugee camp, but his India was gone forever.

In its place, he dreamed of Bogart’s America. And when he finally got here, he buried his past under the Utah snow, became such a good skier he was on ski patrol, and didn’t mention his grandpa for nearly 35 years.

Like nearly every child of an immigrant, I love both the truth and the myth of my dad because combined they are the story of my family and of America. But my father was Indian and eventually settled in Ohio, much different than California. There was no larger Indian community back then (though it’s grown significantly, including dozens of family members who followed my father), and little tolerance for anything but assimilation. That was fine by my father. He wanted nothing more than to be American — though he would remain a green card holder for decades, until fear under the first Trump administration pushed him to get citizenship.

Hilton’s audience

Just like for Becerra’s dad, being an immigrant was a state of mind for mine, an experience, not an official status. Had my dad been in California, maybe he would have kept more of his Indian identity. Had Becerra’s dad been in Ohio, maybe he would have kept less of his past.

Neither viewpoint made either man more or less American — but the different myths these two men told about who they were define the difference between California and the rest of the country.

Hilton’s attack on Becerra’s dad was never meant for a California audience, where the Latino experience of fluidity in geography and identity holds center stage. It was always meant for places such as Ohio, and Fox News, where the expectation of assimilation still reigns supreme (just ask the Haitians of Springfield) and where Hilton’s media audience — and his future — resides after he loses in November, which he almost certainly will. Hilton, after all, was the host of his own conservative television show for years.

What seems like an out-of-touch attack by Hilton on brown immigrants in California is actually thoughtful pandering to his people — the right-wing Americans who prefer “good,” deferential, grateful immigrants (like Hilton himself) over the confident California Latinos who take pride in every part of their identity.

Sorry, California Latinos, but this MAGA moment in immigration has nothing to do with criminal records or even legal status. It’s all about attitude, and MAGA hates that you have so much of it. Hilton’s attack hits the target with his right-wing crowd because, to them, not centering his father’s U.S. citizenship is a rejection of the United States, a treachery they not-so-secretly fear all immigrants share.

And here’s the twist — MAGA is right, immigrants are complicated.

My dad may have been one of the “good” immigrants, embracing all things American and quiet about his past. But he always held deep pride in his family and his origins, and he passed that on — as do so many of the other “good” immigrants.

It’s possible, common even, to fully embrace being American while also valuing the myths and truths of immigration. It’s possible to to love this country while also keeping another one in your heart, loudly or quietly. There is no one immigrant experience, no one way to be a real American. Hilton, an immigrant and the son of immigrants, surely knows this.

But where immigrants see complexity, MAGA followers see only perfidy, disloyalty, and that makes them afraid and angry — and ripe for the exploitation of those emotions by someone who can sugarcoat it, twist it, just enough to seem reasonable.

And Hilton is excellent at seeming reasonable.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: California wine glut sends premium bottles to Costco, Aldi and Kroger at bargain prices
The California angle: Denise Brown recalls her sister Nicole’s abuse by O.J. Simpson: ‘We were there’
The L.A. Times Special: The LAPD busted a secret network of brothels — but hasn’t arrested the owner
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Let’s pretend for a moment you’re a Republican running for governor in the blue, blue state of California.

Your prospect of winning is small. So small, you could peer through a microscope, blink and miss it. How, then do you draw voters to your candidacy and boost your chances?

Actually, let’s not pretend. A very real flesh-and-blood Republican, Steve Hilton, is running for California governor and if your idea for grabbing attention doesn’t involve a make-believe lesbian couple, double entendre and a soft-core porn vibe, you’re very clearly lacking in imagination.

Hilton ran an ad featuring just such elements, garnering coast-to-coast notice, millions of views and ensuring the tagline — “Now lick it” — while not as resonant as, say, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” will forever live in political infamy.

What the spot tries to do, convince folks in this left-leaning redoubt to be venturesome and vote for Hilton, is not the least offensive, though your friendly political columnist, hardly a prude, found the execution a bit, well, icky.

Being a cis white male of a certain age, however, means perhaps we shouldn’t be the one to judge. We’re certainly not the target audience. So we turned to two of the youngish, hippest people we know, Daughters No. 1 & 2, who are both well-accomplished 30-somethings and truly upstanding citizens.

What follows is their spontaneous reaction.

Daughter No. 1: “Stupid, infantilizing.”

Daughter No. 2: “Wtf is this fake woke AI ad? Ew.”

(For the record, Hilton said the ad was not AI generated. He apologized, sort of, to those who took offense.)

We also asked the Fabulous Mrs Z. — who has impeccable judgment, notwithstanding all the years she’s stayed married to your friendly political columnist — for her response. “It’s just so strange and stupid,” she said. “Why would he approve this ad? It makes me question his judgment.”

What do the pros say?

Of course, that’s just four people — one of whom doesn’t even live in California — so it’s not much of a sample.

For more insight, we turned to some political professionals.

And who better to weigh in than Fred Davis, the madcap genius behind another infamous California campaign spot, the so-called Demon Sheep ad he concocted for Carly Fiorina’s 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. The Felliniesque production included lightning bolts, a Roman column and a man covered in sheepskin crawling on all fours and leering with a glowing red eye — the point being that Fiorina’s rival, Tom Campbell, was supposedly a profligate wolf in fiscal-conservative sheep clothing.

Strange, yes, but definitely more memorable than an accountant in green eyeshade laboring over the books.

Anyway, Davis — who’s featured Paris Hilton, bad hair and a giant rat in a crown as part of his out-there oeuvre — loved the new Hilton campaign spot, calling it “super attention-getting, super interesting.” (Which is not the least surprising from a man whose chosen epitaph is, “If you don’t notice it, why bother?”)

“I think it’s a brilliantly done ad,” Davis said, “wonderfully written.” And, he added, “I can’t imagine it gaining him one vote.”

Which was sort of the point, no?

Kevin Spillane also appreciates Hilton’s effort, given his own Sisyphean struggles as a Republican strategist in California.

A screen grab from Steve Hilton’s “Just Try It” ad. Columnist Mark Z. Barabak found execution of the spot a bit, well, icky.

(Steve Hilton for Governor)

“They’re doing something out there and on the edge. I don’t fault them for that,” said Spillane, who supports Hilton and has contributed to his campaign. “It’s a clever concept of trying to get people to do something that they’re not used to doing.”

Which is to say vote for a Republican for statewide office in California.

But Spillane, too, questioned the execution. “I actually was fine with the ad until they got to the ‘lick it’ line,” he said, insisting he is also no prude. “That’s just a little too explicitly sexual.”

Running, not advancing

To his credit, Hilton has been running hard for governor. Much harder than his Democratic rival and the prohibitive front-runner, Xavier Becerra. Hilton has issued an abundance of policy proposals and spoken before pretty much any group or microphone-wielding reporter or podcaster who’ll have him.

None of which has garnered Hilton anywhere near the publicity captured by his racy “Just Try It, California” ad.

Even before the spot aired, Hilton broke new ground during last week’s gubernatorial debate when he noted a former member of the Biden administration had referred to Becerra as a “bitch-ass” — apparently the first time that compound adjective had been used in such a high-falutin’ setting. Hilton shortly followed with a website, “Bitch-Ass” Becerra,” that outlines the alleged failures of the Democrat as President Biden’s Health secretary and during his time as California’s attorney general.

(For the record, Susan Rice, who used the epithet and was accused of creating an “abusive and dehumanizing workplace” as head of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, responded by stating her support for Becerra’s gubernatorial candidacy.)

It’s hard to see Hilton’s name-calling winning him a great many votes, any more than his risque campaign commercial, but maybe that’s beside the point. Maybe, as my columnizing colleague Gustavo Arellano suggested in his debate review, Hilton is merely auditioning for a return to his old commentator position on Fox News.

Hilton’s edgy attitude and pugnacious put-downs would place him right at home among the network’s collection of trolls, provocateurs and Democrat-bashing gargoyles.

But Hilton should leave the advertising to someone else.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Meet the Fox News correspondent leading the fight for press freedom at the White House
The deep dive: Trump calls it a war, then a ‘military conflict.’ Why the Iran fighting keeps changing names
The L.A. Times Special: What’s going to happen in the midterm election? Find out here. (Maybe)

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO —  Look, Xavier Becerra could cruise to a South Pacific island and bask on the beach until election day and Californians would still choose him as their next governor.

So, last week’s televised CNN debate between Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton really had no election significance, although it was important for the Democratic frontrunner in other ways.

Who won the debate? Becerra, because he came across as calm, collected and capable of governing this troubled state — certainly very few voters’ ideal candidate, but the only real choice for most Californians.

There’s simply no way Becerra can lose on Nov. 3 because his only opponent is a Republican. Californians will not elect a Republican governor in this polarized era, particularly one endorsed by the reviled President Trump.

Moreover, Hilton’s only previous political experience was as an advisor to a British prime minister and his sole claim to U.S. notoriety was as a Fox News TV host–not exactly resume boosters in California.

Becerra — with public office experience spanning more than three decades — held a growing 25-point lead in a recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

He’s a shoo-in simply because he has a “D” beside his name in this state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1 and despise the GOP president.

Californians haven’t elected a Republican to statewide office in 20 years — and that’s Hilton’s main pitch to voters.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result,” the GOP candidate asserted during the debate, as he does several times a day.

Turning to Becerra, Hilton said:

“You’re the candidate who is supported by the machine in Sacramento — the unions, big business, all these people that for 16 years have given us the highest cost of living in the country, made it impossible to build anything, given us the highest unemployment rate, the highest poverty rate….

“And that’s why we’ve got to try something different this time instead of voting for more of the same.”

OK, fair point. But try what exactly? That’s where Hilton stalls or veers erratically.

He’d build “10 new cities.” Build them where exactly? He doesn’t say.

He definitely doesn’t want to construct new apartment buildings in the suburbs “when we have got so much space that we could be building on in California.”

Like out in Southern California deserts or Central Valley farm fields — requiring two-hour commutes to urban jobs?

And where does the water come from for these 10 new cities as the West scrambles for what’s left of diminishing supplies? But unfortunately there was no discussion of that during the debate.

One debate exchange that caught my attention was about vaccines. Hilton seemed to be carrying the torch for whacko anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Becerra’s successor as U.S. health secretary in the Trump administration.

Debate co-moderator Dana Bash recalled what Hilton said previously about children’s vaccinations: “The government should have nothing to do with these fundamental and vital decisions.” And she asked whether he’d push to eliminate California’s vaccine requirements.

“No,” Hilton replied. “I’m pro vaccine.” But then he seemed to wander all over the stage looking to have it both ways.

It’s a “very, very emotional issue for a lot of parents,” he said, adding there’s “data around the world” showing that where vaccine “mandates are lower… you actually have higher [vaccination] compliance, where parents don’t feel that they’re being bullied into doing something that they don’t want to do. And that’s what I want to see here.”

But he ultimately said,“I’d follow the law.”

In California, the law requires all children without medical exemptions to be vaccinated for several diseases — including polio, measles, mumps, chickenpox, hepatitis B and whooping cough — before they’re admitted to school.

That’s a blessing. When I grew up, practically every kid at some point was bedridden with one or more of those dangerous ailments. Then some saviors invented vaccines.

“We had nearly eradicated measles,” Becerra said, responding to Hilton. “When I left HHS, you rarely heard of a case of measles…. Today, children are dying of measles. Today, the spread of measles has reached a proportion we haven’t seen since the 1960s.

“That’s what happens when vaccine deniers take over.”

Becerra achieved all he needed to in the debate. He didn’t screw up. He kept cool and actually was fairly quick on his feet in replying to Hilton’s attacks, while planting a MAGA hat firmly on the Republican’s head.

He missed an opportunity to accomplish more, however — like making Californians feel really good about voting for him, rather than merely because he’s the only Democrat left standing in the contest to replace the termed out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Voters might like to hear what Becerra’s vision is — if he has one — for the California he wants to build.

What does he have in mind besides just defending California against Trump? That’s a given. How’s he going to lower our living costs? Upgrade public education? Prevent wildfires? Details, not platitudes.

Rather than relaxing on his lead, Becerra should be constantly moving around the state, introducing himself to Californians and — more importantly — listening to their problems and ideas. To his credit, he’s doing that this week.

“The debate was boring and uneventful, but Becerra won it,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “He is perfectly vanilla and that makes it really hard to pin him down in an attack.”

“We got the genuine Xavier Becerra. That’s exactly who he is,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry Sragow, a longtime political ally. “Thoughtful, committed and very decent, but does not go very high on the charisma meter.”

In California right now, a candidate’s charisma rates much lower than a simple “D.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Voter ID proponents accuse California Democrats of lying about Trump’s support for Prop. 39
Eyes of the World: Will or won’t they? Newsom and Harris weigh 2028 contest — and possible collision
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been using taxpayer dollars — your money and mine — to pay for a series of cringy, self-glorifying advertisements that feature, you guessed it, President Trump himself.

In one particularly needy spot, the lyrics “love me, love me” are repeated continuously over fast-cut clips of Trump. The White House claims it’s a call to love America, but if someone I knew posted this, I’d be asking if they were OK. Like, teenage-style, “Are you OK?”

But I’d be missing the point if I went down that path of laughing off these regrettable commercials as just more Trump self-adulation.

Taken with two other recent developments — the banning of certain press from the White House and a further purge of military leadership — some experts on authoritarianism told me what we’re really watching is a further collapse of democracy into an authoritarian cult of personality in which Trump is the state and the state is Trump.

“In authoritarian countries, all leaders, they try to completely blur the line between themselves and the state function,” said Konstantin Sonin, an expert in authoritarianism and a professor at the University of Chicago. “So basically, being ‘anti-me’ is being anti-state. In this Trump advertisement, there is this authoritarian scent.”

State propaganda

Jason Stanley, a former Yale professor who moved to the University of Toronto in part over concerns about the far-right political shift in the U.S., put it even more succinctly.

“Trump is trying to tell you, you live in an authoritarian society now, and that he is the state,” Stanley said. “This is pure, pure state propaganda.”

State propaganda matters because it serves not just as a message, but also a warning, said Federico Finchelstein, a history professor at the New School for Social Research and author of “The Wannabe Fascists,” about dudes who try to destroy democracy from the inside. It tells citizens that being against Trump is being against America, he said — a chilling prospect for those who would oppose him.

Finchelstein points out that painting opponents as communists or socialists — an incessant refrain from Trump and the core of the commercials — is a common practice in non-democracies, turning enemies of the dictator into enemies of the state, and perhaps even criminalizing them.

“This should not be seen as just another outburst or just another ridiculed dimension of a kind of ‘original personality,’” he said of the ads. “This is more of a structural pattern of authoritarianism.”

The press ban

Finchelstein points to the recent White House press ban as another part of that pattern, and another way Trump is removing that line between himself and the state.

Recently, CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House on Trump’s orders. The outlets sued, a judge issued a restraining order, and as of now, it mostly has blown over — though it shouldn’t.

For days, Trump made it clear that the ban was because he didn’t like coverage that made him look bad — and if it made him look bad, it was bad for America.

“Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country! No matter how GREAT my Achievements, they trivialize and demean,” Trump ranted on social media.

Then Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who has made loyalty to Trump his brand, took that a step further, arguing that “after years and years and years of one-sided media coverage of the president from certain outlets, the president finally said it’s not fair to the American people,” and constituted a national security risk.

Trump “tries to blur this line about negative stories about [himself] and negative stories about America,” a classic authoritarian tactic, said Sonin, the University of Chicago professor.

Finchelstein said that that kind of crackdown on dissent comes most often in moments of crisis for the person in power — such as when, say, his approval ratings are at an all-time low, gas prices are soaring because of an unpopular war and an election is looming.

The military concern

But what happens if propaganda and intimidation aren’t enough?

Stanley said that faced with plummeting popularity, Trump seems to have stopped trying to win our approval — instead focusing on consolidating power while he still has time.

“Trump is in a race to be a dictator,” Stanley said. “That’s why he doesn’t try to persuade you anymore. He’s not in the business of persuading. He’s in the business of hard propaganda, of just expressing his power. He’s saying public opinion doesn’t matter anymore.”

Finchelstein, Stanley and others warn that the most dangerous moment for democracies can be when a wanna-be dictator loses momentum.

“We’re in a situation where it matters whether the military will violate the Constitution,” Stanley said.

Make of this what you will, but this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth continued his purge of seasoned military leaders by confirming the department is firing 20% of top officers.

“The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in,” Hegseth said of the unprecedented hollowing of experienced leadership.

Hegseth also announced that billionaire right-wingers Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey are going to help guide the future of the military, which doesn’t sound terrifying at all. I mean, DOGE went so well.

Sonin, the University of Chicago professor, said despite all this, he has hope — because Trump is “old and unpopular” and support of him may have found a “floor.”

Or as Stanley puts it, Trump can conflate himself with the state all he wants, but it works only if we believe him — and even his supporters seem tired of the lies.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Legal Immigrants Lose Medicaid Coverage Under Trump’s Bill
The California angle: Sean Combs’ release date is pushed up, as new report details pampered prison lifestyle
The L.A. Times Special: What the ‘Taco Stand Karen’ fiasco says about right-wing Latinos
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The fraught relationship between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris is the stuff of reality TV.

With their Hollywood looks and unbridled ambition, the two San Francisco-spawned Democrats have spent decades in tacit competition, ascending to the heights of California politics while still managing to avoid direct confrontation.

That could change in 2028, should Newsom and Harris jump their parallel tracks and face each other — and possibly dozens of other candidates — in a bid for their party’s presidential nomination.

California’s departing governor, who has spent the better part of his second and final term auditioning for the White House, recently said he wouldn’t run if Harris chooses to do so. “Mutual assured destruction,” Newsom called a he-she contest between the two Left Coast rivals, and a “waste of everyone’s time.”

Some took that disavowal not as deference but jujitsu, or a form of political psy-ops directed at the governor’s longtime frenemy.

On the one hand …

In the same interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Newsom allowed as how the case against Harris — she’s a two-time loser at the presidential level and has had her shot — is “a pretty good one, actually.”

“That’s objectively true,” Newsom added, driving the knife a little deeper.

But rather than forcing Harris’ hand, Newsom’s professed willingness to stand aside may have simply invited the former vice president to take her sweet time deciding whether or not to run, waiting until the Democratic contest is well underway.

And leaving Newsom in an odd sort of limbo.

The former vice president, lips largely sealed, has done and said just enough to keep the door open to a 2028 run, without firmly committing to the contest. There’s a good chance that Harris — always careful, ever deliberate — doesn’t know what she’ll do. Or, at least, isn’t 100% certain.

She can afford to wait.

Time is on her side

After four years in the White House and her abbreviated 2024 White House bid, Harris has universal name recognition, a nationwide fundraising base and continued support among a significant number of Black women, who just happen to form the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Harris won’t freeze the presidential campaign the way she did the race for California governor. That contest was stalled and the field incomplete until Harris announced, after months of consideration, she’d take a pass. That’s not to say, by any stretch, Harris is the favorite to win the presidential nomination. The criticism Newsom expressed — just a fella jawing away, as he and Tapper cast their fly rods — is a view that is widely held among Democrats.

But the 2028 contest, which unofficially starts the instant the final polls close Nov. 3 — won’t be firmly fixed until it’s clear whether Harris is in or out.

Newsom doesn’t have that luxury of biding time, especially when so many other Democrats are poised to enter the race.

The governor has his own formidable national fundraising base — thanks in good part to his online trolling and anti-Trump hijinks — and a not-small degree of name recognition across the country. But Newsom has yet to fully engage in the see me, feel me aspect of presidential campaigning, which typically requires a candidate’s persistent physical presence and is particularly important in the earliest-voting states.

So his only option is to campaign full bore once he leaves the governor’s office in January, as though he’s running without hesitation or qualification. Then, if Harris jumps into the contest, Newsom can sulk his way back to California, or break his pledge and run against her after saying he wouldn’t.

That, as Newsom suggested to Tapper, would be a gift to the rest of the Democratic field.

Not too long ago, Newsom and Harris were carping over whether he was sufficiently supportive of her hurried-up 2024 presidential bid.

In her account of the campaign, Harris said she reached out to the governor shortly after President Biden announced he was standing aside in favor of his vice president. When she called, Harris wrote, Newsom texted that he was out hiking and would call her back. But, she said, he never did.

Much backing and forthing ensued — Newsom pointing out he didn’t hesitate to endorse Harris once he returned to civilization — with both insisting all the while things are fine between them, really.

Now the two are once more entwined, their fates tied up in mutual ambition and a shared hunger for the White House.

Was Newsom’s CNN interview a feint? Was he just faking respect for Harris as a way to keep in the good graces of Black women voters, all the while hoping against hope she won’t run — and planning to reverse himself if she does?

Will Harris put off her decision, knowing that every day and month that passes deepens the suspense and leaves Newsom twisting?

Will the two finally collide head-on, settling once and for all their intense, if unspoken, competition?

So much drama!

Stay tuned. There’s a reality TV show in there somewhere.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: With bans and taunts, Trump escalates his assault on the media
The deep dive: No electric shock gloves, face coverings: Newsom pushes back on Trump’s ‘Orwellian’ immigration agenda
The L.A. Times Special: War games and draft lawsuits: Democrats work to Trump-proof November election
Question for you: What would you want to ask of California’s two gubernatorial candidates? Fill out our survey!

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — What’s so wrong about requiring every Californian to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote? That’s what Proposition 39 backers ask. And it’s a fair question.

Here are some valid answers:

• It would make California’s already notoriously slow vote count even more pokey.
• It would be an added hassle for citizens attempting to exercise their voting right.
• It would cost taxpayers a bundle, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• It’s another solution by politicians to a problem that really doesn’t exist.

Practically everyone, regardless of political affiliation, must understand by now that there simply is no evidence of widespread — significant, meaningful — voter cheating in California or anywhere else in America. This despite conspiracy-theorists’ fruitless searching and President Trump’s lies about “rigged” elections.

It’s my belief that the main reason Republicans placed Proposition 39 on the California ballot was to boost GOP voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. And recent independent polling shows that the measure does appeal strongly to Republicans — but not Democrats, who are united in opposition.

The proposition appears to be headed for defeat, largely because Democratic voters in this deep blue state equate it with the discredited president. Trump has turned into poison for Republican candidates in competitive races and any cause that reminds people of him.

That’s why the Proposition 39 campaign last week released a new major TV ad that essentially asks voters to ignore the president.

This is how conservative consultant Jon Fleischman summarized the ad’s message to Democrats in his blog: “You can hate Trump and still back Voter ID.”

Proposition 39 would mainly do two things:

• Require voters to show some government-issued identification each time they vote in person, such as a driver’s license or passport. Don’t have one? The state would issue a free ID card to any voter who asked.
• Californians who cast mail ballots — more than 80% of voters — would be required to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the return envelope. The number would be determined when initially registering to vote.

The measure also would impose some basically noncontroversial mandates that make sense separately. It would require election officials to maintain accurate voter registration files, weeding out people who have moved or died and verifying citizenship. But counties already do that pretty well.

The contrived bogeyman for election fraud scaremongers is the undocumented immigrant community. But these people, living on the edge and hiding from the government, aren’t going to risk deportation by trying to vote in an election they couldn’t care less about. And political candidates aren’t going to waste their time and money on them. Their targets are the large numbers of apathetic legal voters who sit out elections.

Currently, Californians must provide identification when registering and swear under penalty of perjury — a felony — that they are U.S. citizens. And they must record their signatures when registering and scribble it on the back of the ballot envelope when voting by mail.

Requiring me to add a four-digit number on the back of my “absentee” ballot envelope means I’d have to register all over again to record the PIN. And then remember it every election. A pointless pain.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, instigated and authored Proposition 39. “I do believe that voter fraud is a real problem. Absolutely,” he told me.

But he said the proposition has two main goals: 1, to clean up voter files and make sure ballots are properly validated and counted. 2, to increase public confidence in the voting process. “We have a perception problem,” he says. “Voters have low trust” in the election system.

Republicans mistrust a lot; Democrats not so much.

A California poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 84% of Republican voters had a “major concern” about voter fraud. Only 21% of Democrats did.

Can anyone doubt who’s driving the Republicans’ anxiety? The bellicose president. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump has reiterated. “It’s terrible what’s going on.”

This from the hypocrite who mails in his ballots.

Fortunately, Proposition 39’s crafters left mail ballots pretty much alone, except for requiring a nuisance PIN on the ballot envelope.

That “absolutely” will slow down vote counting, says Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee and was the longtime chief elections official of Santa Cruz County. Under Proposition 39, officials not only would need to check voters’ signatures against those on file, but also their PINs.

And voting in person would drag while people dug for an ID and an official checked it, Pellerin says. Some people are bound to be denied their voting right by mistake, she asserts.

Tony Quinn, formerly a GOP redistricting consultant and a longtime political analyst, points out that a disproportionately high portion of in-person voters are Republicans. Proposition 39 is “imposing a burden on them,” he says. “I don’t think the authors realize who’s voting in person these days. They sense illegal aliens.”

The UC institute poll showed Proposition 39 being supported by 39% of likely voters and opposed by 52%. It was backed by 92% of Republicans, but Democrats were 80% against. And they outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in California.

The proposition also trailed in a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California: 43% yes, 55% no.

In the PPIC poll, Republicans said 39 was by far the most interesting proposition on the ballot.

Trump’s influence? Among the paltry 27% of voters who approve of his job performance, 88% support Proposition 39. But of the 72% who disapprove of the president, 73% oppose the measure.

Trump is toxic.

Proposition 39 is more government regulation for no good reason.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Tax the rich? California voters are divided, according to new poll
Law & Order: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The L.A. Times Special: High cost of living tops voter concerns, Becerra remains front-runner in governor’s race, new poll shows

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Lovely Professional University in Punjab suspends classes for 10 days due to campus unrest over rape allegations that university officials deny.

A university in the Indian state of Punjab has suspended classes for 10 days after protests on campus over an alleged rape last week, a claim that university officials have denied.

In an announcement on Monday, Lovely Professional University in Phagwara also postponed midterm examinations due to the demonstrations, which turned violent.

“Students may, in consultation with their parents/guardians, travel to their hometowns during this 10-day period, if they wish to do so,” it said in a statement.

“Students who stay back are advised to stay inside their hostels/places of residence and avoid unnecessary movement or involvement in any unrest-related activities in the interest of their own safety.”

According to posts on social media, a female student was raped on campus. Some claimed the student committed suicide. Police said they were investigating the alleged incident, adding that the identity of the student had not been established, the news magazine India Today reported.

The protests escalated on Sunday as demonstrators clashed with police, and reports in local media said there were incidents of vandalism inside the university.

Protesters allegedly threw stones, smashed windows and set fire to vehicles on campus as well as damaging police vehicles, according to reports. Students also reportedly blocked a nearby highway.

University registrar Monica Gulati denied the rape had taken place, saying on Sunday that there was “no truth” to the allegations.

“The manner in which such false and misleading information is being systematically circulated appears to be a deliberate and concerted attempt to malign the reputation of the university and tarnish its image,” The Times of India, the country’s largest English newspaper, reported.

Meanwhile, three female students residing in the same building where the alleged rape took place appeared in a video featuring Gulati and backing the registrar’s claims that no rape had taken place.

However, according to the news channel NDTV, a separate video emerged later in which the same three students said they were instructed on what statements to make.

Ongoing concerns around sexual violence

The incident comes as the Supreme Court on Monday ⁠⁠pushed for ⁠⁠accountability over a recent spate of rape cases in the national capital and neighbouring districts, saying ⁠⁠they reflected a “failure of law enforcement”.

Hundreds of students protested in Delhi ⁠⁠last week to demand better safety for women after a teenager said she was raped by three men at a park in the city.

Last month, a 17-year-old ‌‌girl was allegedly raped in a moving bus by the driver and conductor, local media reported.

Sexual violence ⁠⁠is a major problem across ⁠⁠India with more than 80 rapes reported to police every day, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. Activists said that number is a major undercount and many victims do not report rapes because of social stigma or coercion.