governor

WASHINGTON — President Trump has once again mocked Gov. Gavin Newsom’s dyslexia as “disqualifying” for leadership, marking at least the fourth time in a week that the president has targeted the California Democrat for being open about his diagnosis.

In remarks Monday in the Oval Office, Trump said Newsom was “dumb” and should never be allowed to be president because he has “admitted that he has learning disabilities, dyslexia.”

“That’s how crazy it’s gotten with a low-IQ person,” Trump said. “Honestly, I’m all for people with learning disabilities but not for my president. … And I know it’s highly controversial to say such a horrible thing.”

But in the course of his needling, Trump mistakenly elevated his political rival to the rank of commander in chief — repeatedly referring to Newsom as “the president of the United States.” Newsom took the opportunity to turn the tables on the president.

“I, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, AM OFFICIALLY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (THANK YOU DONALD!)” he wrote on X Monday.

The clash is the latest in a storied contest of chest-beating between Trump and Newsom, who have made sport of bad-mouthing one another across campaign rallies, interviews and social media.

A model stealth bomber sits in front of President Trump during an executive order signing in the Oval Office Monday.

(Aaron Schwartz / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The president has frequently cast Newsom as a symbol of the liberal governance he opposes, while the governor has leaned into the confrontations, often using them to elevate his national profile and position himself as a leading Democratic counterweight. His sparring with the president appears to be part of an aggressive strategy to amplify his own messaging as he weighs a potential run for president in 2028. This time, Newsom used the spotlight to support young people with dyslexia.

“To every kid with a learning disability: don’t let anyone — not even the President of the United States — bully you,” Newsom wrote on X. “Dyslexia isn’t a weakness. It’s your strength.”

The insults first materialized when a video went viral of Newsom speaking at a book tour appearance with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens during which he discussed his lifelong struggle with the learning disability. Since then, the president has repeatedly poked at the vulnerability.

Trump has brought up the governor’s dyslexia at least four times in the last week. He mentioned it at a political rally in Kentucky last week, where he equated dyslexia with a “mental lack of ability,” and again during a Fox News Radio interview on Friday, in which he reiterated that “presidents can’t have a learning disability.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump labeled Newsom’s admission a “politically suicidal act,” calling him “dumb” and “A Cognitive Mess!”

After the Kentucky rally, Newsom responded to Trump.

“I spoke about my dyslexia, I know that’s hard for a brain-dead moron who bombs children and protects pedophiles to understand,” he said.

Dyslexia affects as much as 20% of the population, according to the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity. Despite affecting a such a wide portion of the population, the condition is widely misunderstood, according to dyslexia researcher Dr. Helen Taylor of the University of Cambridge.

“In some ways, Trump’s awful comments are just a cruder version of assumptions that already run through our culture,” she said. “If anything, [it’s] the opposite. There is evidence of an overrepresentation of people with dyslexia in business leadership roles.”

According to Taylor, there is a link between dyslexia and “enhanced abilities” in areas such as discovery, invention and creativity.

“The same cognitive trade-offs that can make routine tasks like reading more difficult support strengths in navigating complexity and guiding groups toward better future outcomes,” she said.

Newsom often describes his early experiences with dyslexia as a source of insecurity when he was growing up. In his memoir, the governor writes about his mother, Tessa Newsom, attempting to help him with homework. The lessons ended with him “running out of the room screaming that I didn’t know what was wrong with my brain.”

Back when Newsom was a boy in the 1970s, dyslexia was recognized but still not fully understood. He recalls a day when his mother grew so concerned that she took a deep breath and told him, “It’s OK to be average, Gavin.”

“I understood even back then that this, too, came from her deep reservoir of love for me,” Newsom writes in his book “Young Man in a Hurry.” “But I don’t recall crueler words ever said about me.”

The challenges from his learning disorder persist in his work at the state Capitol. Newsom finds reading off a teleprompter challenging. His aides describe days of painstaking preparation before major addresses to live audiences. Late edits to a speech, and the resulting changes to the words on the screen, threaten to throw off his delivery.

All memos in the governor’s office are written in 12 point Century Gothic font with specific spacing between lines, formatting that his aides say helps him with his disability.

The governor reads his daily briefings a few times in the morning, underlines sentences and writes down notes to retain the information on yellow cards he keeps in his suit pockets.

The ritual, he has said, helps him compensate for his dyslexia and feel confident communicating. But it also adds to the public perception of Newsom as a smooth-talking, and at times rehearsed, politician. His excessive preparation has become a trait he considers a “super power.”

His effort to thoroughly absorb reading material and desire to understand issues before he speaks about them means he’s often well-prepared. In his perception, the learning disorder has brought out his grit and resilience, and helped him hone other skills, such as quickly reading a crowd.

It has also sharpened his memory.

At a news conference revealing his budget proposal in 2020, a reporter asked the governor what he would do to address 500,000 housing units that had been approved by developers in California, but hadn’t been constructed.

Without missing a beat, Newsom directed the journalist to the exact page in his 246-page budget that touched on the issue.

“While people with dyslexia are slow readers, they often, paradoxically, are very fast and creative thinkers with strong reasoning abilities,” according to the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity.

The governor’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, discussed the president’s attacks Tuesday in a video on X in which she emphasized that “learning differences do not determine someone’s potential.” She listed a number of qualities she considered disqualifying for the presidency, including being a convicted felon, bankrupting businesses, having numerous associations with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and sending “masked extremists to terrorize Black and brown communities and rip kids away from their families.”

“Everything that Donald Trump represents is frankly beyond disqualifying,” she said. “Day in and day out, Trump says things that make him unfit for office. He degrades our vulnerable communities, our institutions, even the Constitution itself.”

Two of the Newsoms’ four children have also been diagnosed with dyslexia.

Quinton reported from Washington, D.C., and Luna from Sacramento.

SACRAMENTO — As gas prices surge in California and nationally due to the war in Iran, two Democrats running for California governor are calling for the state to temporarily suspend its fuel tax or ease refinery regulations in an effort to lower costs.

Standing in front of a gas pump in a video posted to social media, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the costs are “becoming an emergency for working families, and I think we ought to act like it.”

The moderate Democrat called on state lawmakers to suspend California’s gas tax, which at 61 cents per gallon is the highest in the nation.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for an “immediate moratorium” on regulations that he blamed for “overburdening” California refineries and working families.

“These failed policies are not only hurting tens of millions of Californians, they are terrible for the environment because they have forced California to depend on imported foreign oil from the Middle East,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The cost of living in California, including the price at the pump, remains a pivotal issue for voters in the state, and has become central to the moderate-leaning campaigns of Mahan and Villaraigosa as they attempt to distinguish themselves in the tightly contested race for governor.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California on Monday was $5.52, the highest in the nation and more than 50 cents higher than any other state. The national average was $3.71, up from the previous month’s average of $2.92.

Gasoline prices in California are often among the highest in the country for a number of reasons, including environmental rules that require a unique blend of cleaner-burning fuel.

The state also relies mostly on crude oil imported from other countries including Brazil, Iraq and Guyana and processed at in-state refineries. In 2025, 61% of oil processed at California refineries was imported, compared with 23% that was produced in the state, according to data from the California Energy Commission.

A greater reliance on foreign oil has made California more susceptible to price spikes during global conflicts and other disruptions.

Republicans have long supported suspending the gas tax and cutting regulations in order to lower prices at the pump.

Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor and former Fox News host, outlined a plan to lower California gas prices to $3 per gallon by slashing regulations including the low-carbon fuel standard, the rule that requires cleaner-burning gas in order to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The other major Republican in the race, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, supports suspending the gas tax, according to his website.

The current price spike echoes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted global oil markets.

As prices eventually fell around the rest of the country that year, they remained high for months in California, leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to wage war against oil and gas companies. He accused them of price-gouging drivers and backed laws requiring companies to report their profit margins and keep a supply of fuel on hand to prevent shortages and price spikes.

The governor backed off his battle with the oil companies last year after two refineries announced plans to close. In September, he signed legislation to permit 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County, reflecting an acknowledgement that his war on oil companies threatened to send California’s gas market spiraling.

Republican state lawmakers in 2022 pushed for a temporary suspension of California’s excise tax on gasoline, arguing that it would provide immediate relief to California drivers. That effort was rebuffed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, but they later approved $9.5 billion in tax refunds to Californians, providing as much as $1,050 to families as financial relief from record-high gasoline prices and other rising costs.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

California voters remain conflicted on the state’s regulation of the oil industry, according to an August survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that more than 60% of adults support goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate electricity from renewable energy sources.

But majorities also said the costs of gasoline and utility bills is a major problem for them personally, according to the poll.

Mahan and Villaraigosa are the only two Democrats who have publicly called to roll back regulations on the state’s oil and gas market, illustrating the political murkiness at the nexus of California’s climate and affordability challenges.

Still, Democratic lawmakers – who hold supermajorities in the state Senate and Assembly – continue to shut down proposals to pause the gas tax, arguing that the state would lose out on much-needed money for roads.

“If anyone has a proposal about how to backfill (transportation) revenues, I’m up for that conversation, but so far, it’s just a bulls— political talking point,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine).

Petrie-Norris chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and has helped lead legislative efforts to stabilize California’s fuels market without retreating from goals to achieve carbon neutrality.

”When I ask people, ‘Do you want affordable gas, clean air or safe roads?’ they say yes. So they want us to do all three of these things,” she said. “We’ve got to be honest with Californians about trade-offs so that we can have real conversations.”

Mahan pushed back on the importance of collecting gas tax revenue.

“The truth is we have the highest taxes in the country and a $350-billion budget, and we ought to be able to pave our roads and enable working families to put food on the table,” he said in an interview. “I just reject the notion that the sky is going to fall if we provide temporary relief to working families who are being pushed to the brink by a war that they didn’t ask for.”

The San José mayor said the state should suspend the fuel tax “for the duration of the war” in Iran “or as long as gas prices are over $5 a gallon” in the state. He also called for “massive regulatory overhaul that brings down costs across the board,” including rules on refineries.

If elected governor, Villaraigosa said he would “reform and overhaul” the California Air Resources Board, which enacts many of the state’s environmental laws — including the low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-invest program.

“We can no longer allow bureaucrats who live in a bubble — with no accountability for the harm they are causing our economy and our people — to have so much power over the lives of every Californian,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

Former L.A. mayor and current candidate for governor Antonio Villaraigosa wants voters to know that he navigated billion-dollar budgets, cracked down on violent crime and championed the expansion of bus and rail lines.

The onetime state Assembly speaker argues he’s the only Democratic candidate with the experience to do the complicated job of running California.

But Villaraigosa left City Hall in 2013 — eons ago in the world of politics. President Obama was still in office, singer Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” was atop the charts and Apple Watches weren’t yet a thing.

Because of his distance from elected office, combined with a decent but overshadowed fundraising effort, Villaraigosa lacks a high-profile platform to attract attention in today’s fractured media universe, an essential ingredient he needs to remind voters about his experience and accomplishments as mayor and a state lawmaker.

Antonio Villaraigosa gets his photo taken with students from Hazeltine Avenue Elementary School while visiting Placita Olvera in 2013.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Recent polls show Villaraigosa, 73, wallowing at the bottom of the field, though none of the major Democratic candidates have an overwhelming edge.

Villaraigosa also ran for governor in 2018, coming in third in the primary election behind Democratic rival Gavin Newsom, who went on to win and is now serving his second term, and little-known Republican businessman John Cox.

Political strategist Mike Madrid, who worked for Villaraigosa on that campaign, said the former mayor’s absence from politics in recent years is a major liability in this race.

“He’s a dogged, determined candidate,” Madrid said. “But there are pretty stiff headwinds.”

Villaraigosa got a boost last week when the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California pledged $1 million to an outside committee supporting him.

His allies argue voters aren’t paying attention to the governor’s race because eyes are on President Trump, immigration raids and the Iran war.

But the new funding is a pittance compared to some of his rivals. Billionaire Tom Steyer is tapping tens of millions of his own money to pump out ads. Tech companies and billionaire Rick Caruso are supporting Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José, with millions.

Another contender, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), has the power of incumbency. Swalwell launched his campaign on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and is a regular on cable news shows, while former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, who is also running, recently served in Congress and campaigned for the U.S. Senate two years ago.

With the June primary looming, Villaraigosa’s campaign risks sputtering out.

Angeleno Celine Mares holds a copy of Newsweek featuring newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as he is sworn into office on the steps of City Hall July 1, 2005.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Leaving a Compton church earlier this month, he reacted to Mahan’s support from technology companies, and the billionaire money in the race.

“When you have overwhelming sums of money influencing elections, there’s a great deal of concern for those of us who care about our democracy,” said Villaraigosa. “As much as they say it’s about free speech, it actually drowns out speech.”

(During his 2018 bid for governor, though, Villaraigosa was a major beneficiary of Californians using their wealth to wield political influence. Charter school backers, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings and philanthropist Eli Broad, spent around $23 million on efforts to boost his campaign. )

Earlier in the morning, he rallied runners at a 10K road race in L.A.’s Chinatown, lighting firecrackers, posing for photos and looking as energetic as when he was mayor and would dart into the street to personally fill potholes.

Villaraigosa flitted around the racers’ VIP tent, spotted a bowl of fortune cookies and made a beeline. “You have an active mind and a keen imagination,” he read aloud.

“Antonio V.!” a middle-aged man called out as the former mayor passed.

Minutes later, Villaraigosa swapped his black and white Veja sneakers and jeans for dress shoes and a suit for the church service in Compton, at which an overwhelmingly Black audience gave him a warm reception.

Building a coalition of Black and Latino voters helped him win the 2005 L.A. mayor’s race in a dramatic upset of then-Mayor Jim Hahn, and brought wide attention to the one-time high school dropout, who was raised by a single mother on Los Angeles’ eastside.

Newsweek magazine featured Villaraigosa on its cover with the headline, “Latino Power: L.A.’s New Mayor and How Hispanics will change American Politics.”

But national acclaim can be fleeting. Today, voters aren’t as interested in identity-based politics, said Fernando Guerra, a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University who has known Villaraigosa for decades.

Guerra said Villaraigosa is struggling to differentiate himself in the race because his pitch to voters is not unlike the moderate path taken by Mahan. Another contender, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, overlaps with Villaraigosa when it comes to biographical details: Both are from the L.A. area, Latino and relatively close in age.

“What’s made it so difficult is that [Villaraigosa said], ‘Here’s my path,’” said Guerra. “Well, guess what, there are one to two more candidates who are also on that path.”

Strategist Madrid questioned whether voters even want to hear about a candidate’s experience at a time when anti-Trump messages rally Californians. “They want a fighter,” he said.

Since leaving the mayor’s office, Villaraigosa has enjoyed success in the lucrative private sector. He purchased a $3.3 million home in the L.A. neighborhood of Beverly Hills Post Office in 2020. . A recent campaign filing shows he’s spent the last few years advising companies including the health company AltaMed, financial lender Change Company and crypto currency exchange Coinbase Global.

Then mayor Antonio Villaraigosa holds a news conference at the Department of Water and Power on Hope Street July 22, 2005, urging all of Los Angeles to conserve energy in an effort to ensure Southern California avoids blackouts.

(Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times)

He also worked for a few years for consulting firm Actum and briefly advised the Newsom administration on infrastructure projects.

“It’s not that I didn’t like the public sector,” said Villaraigosa, explaining his decision to run again. As he talked about his desire to serve, he cast a gauzy image of the aughts in Los Angeles, taking credit for the downtown resurgence, skyline full of construction cranes and fewer homeless people on the streets during that period.

“Most people look back on those years and say they were some of the best years we’ve had in the last 25 — at least,” said Villaraigosa.

Stuart Waldman, president of the business group Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., argues Villaraigosa’s experience in the private sector and distance from elected office is a good thing.

“Look at what the economy was like, look at what the city was like” under Villaraigosa, said Waldman. “That’s what he’s going to be judged on.”

Villaraigosa started his career working for labor and civil rights groups before entering politics. Elected to the state Assembly in 1994, he pushed legislation that banned assault weapons and created healthcare coverage for children. His outgoing personality established him as a coveted fundraiser for Democrats in Sacramento and paved the way for him to be chosen as Assembly speaker.

As L.A. mayor, he brought down gang crime through a program that used former gang members to broker truces. Voters backed his ballot measure to expand L.A.’s transit system through new sales tax money in the middle of the Great Recession. He drove down pension costs after a bruising battle with city unions. At the same time, he established himself as a national leader on climate issues and education.

His reputation took a hit after an affair with a television reporter led to the breakup of his marriage.

The media scene that covered Villaraigosa back then is vastly diminished, with young people now getting news from TikTok videos, message boards or Instagram posts.

Weighing in on recent TV news layoffs in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa called himself “lucky” that there were plenty of newspaper and television reporters covering him as mayor, recalling that he’d get a dozen cameras to his press conferences.

Asked to compare his 2018 campaign for governor with this one, he said, “I didn’t have to reintroduce myself last time in quite the way I’ve had to this time.”

Villaraigosa spent a significant time in Mexico in recent years to see his now ex-wife Patricia Govea, a clothing designer. “She was in Mexico 80% of the time, the last six years. So I` went to Mexico a lot.” The pair’s divorce was finalized last year.

During a debate in front of Jewish voters on L.A.’s westside last month, Villaraigosa appeared to seize on the fact that he was the sole Angeleno on the stage, introducing himself by saying, “It’s good to be home.”

He told the crowd about his work as president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and criticized UCLA — his alma matter — for its handling of incidents targeting Jewish students on its campus.

It remains to be seen if he’ll have a hometown advantage. In the 2018 race for governor, Newsom won more votes than Villaraigosa in Los Angeles County. While Villaraigosa did well in Latino communities in central L.A. and on the Eastside, Newsom captured more votes in wealthier, whiter areas.

But at the Compton church, a security guard approached Villaraigosa and told him she’d worked on his 2005 campaign, while others promised to vote for him.

“I know he has a track record,” said Valerie Bland, a 63-year-old former port worker from Long Beach, as she watched Villaraigosa work the pews. “I haven’t even looked at anyone else.”

Former Assembly speaker Fabian Núñez, a longtime friend of Villaraigosa and managing partner at Actum, hopes voters dig into Villaraigosa’s record.

“We have short-term memories in this country,” said Núñez.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, left state service with two things: a federal corruption investigation and more than $50,000 in pay for vacation time she accrued but never took.

State payroll records reviewed by The Times show Williamson used approximately $30,000 in unused vacation time to remain on California’s payroll through Jan. 31 — seven weeks after Newsom’s office indicated she had departed — before collecting an additional $22,000 lump-sum payout for the hours she had left.

Large cash-outs for departing state workers with hundreds of hours of time off on the books have been a recurring issue in California. The state’s unfunded liability for vacation and other leave owed to employees has ballooned in recent years to $5.6 billion, fueled by generous time-off provisions and a long-standing failure to enforce policies that cap most employees’ vacation balances at 640 hours.

Many state workers accumulate large balances of unused vacation after decades of being on the government payroll. The typical public employee retires with more than two decades in public service, according the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Their unused time off is paid when they leave state employment at their final rate of pay.

Williamson, however, amassed 462 hours of unused leave in less than two years on the job. She earned $19,612 a month as the governor’s chief of staff.

John Moorlach, director at the conservative think tank the Center for Public Accountability at the California Policy Center, said that a job like Williamson had probably involved incredibly long workdays but that the pace in which employees accumulate days off is a major financial burden.

“A normal blue-collar worker would say, ‘Really? Really?“” said Moorlach, a former Republican state senator from Orange County. “You don’t find this perk in the private sector.”

Williamson notified Newsom in November 2024 that she was under federal investigation and was put on paid administrative leave through Dec. 16, the governor’s office said.

Federal charges against Williamson, which were filed in November 2025, allege she siphoned $225,000 out of a dormant state campaign account belonging to gubernatorial hopeful Xavier Becerra and illegally claimed $1 million in luxury handbags and travel as business expenses on her tax returns. She pleaded not guilty to the charges.

A status conference in Williamson’s case was moved to April 16 after she recently underwent a successful liver transplant and due to the large volume of discovery — more than 280,000 pages so far — according to court records filed last month.

Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott, did not respond to a request for comment.

State payroll records show Williamson earned $40,000 in regular pay in 2025, which the state controller’s office said included her December 2024 and January 2025 paychecks. The governor’s office said Williamson’s December 2024 paycheck included 11 days of paid administrative leave, and the remainder of both paychecks was covered by her unused leave.

With her final cash-out of $22,000 in remaining time off, she made a total of $62,000 last year — all tied to administrative leave and unused vacation time rather than time worked.

“That’s shocking, honestly,” said Assemblyman Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), adding that stockpiled vacation time overall is something the state Legislature should look into.

The state paid $453 million in unused leave benefits to state workers in 2025. That was an average of more than $20,000 to the 21,000 employees who received a lump-sum check. The amount paid to departing or retiring state workers has steadily increased each year. In 2024, the state paid $413 million for unused time off.

“Obviously, employees are an important part of our state and they accrue vacation time,” Hoover said. “But, if this is something being used to pad people’s salaries … we need to look into that and possibly reform that.”

Last year, 80 state employees took home at least $250,000 in unused time off, and 1,081 employees were paid more than $100,000. Those numbers have been increasing each year. For example, the state paid 16 state workers more than $250,000 for unused time off in 2010, and 309 employees were paid more than $100,000.

In 2024, the state paid out a record $1.2 million to a prison supervising dentist for unused time off. Last year, the top amount paid for unused leave was about $650,000 to an assistant fire chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The state owed nearly $5.6 billion to state workers for unused vacation and other leave benefits in 2024, according to the most recent financial accounting report issued by the state controller’s office. Although that unfunded liability held steady when compared with 2023, it has risen sharply from pre-pandemic amounts.

In 2019, the state owed $3.9 billion for employees’ unused time off before COVID-19 curtailed travel and work-from-home policies resulted in fewer workers taking time off. State employees have argued that under-staffing at state agencies can make it difficult to take vacations.

Nick Schroeder, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state has plans to reduce unfunded liabilities for pensions and retiree healthcare, but that isn’t the case with unused time off.

“There isn’t a plan to address it,” Schroeder said.

When an employee retires with a large leave balance, the department where that person worked last is on the hook for the amount.

“It can be a big effect on that individual department’s budget,” Schroeder said.

During budget deficits — including in the current fiscal year — the state has cut employee pay or deferred annual raises in exchange for additional days off, a strategy that helps balance budgets but also adds to workers’ growing vacation balances.

In Newsom’s January budget proposal, which estimated a $3-billion deficit, the governor recommended providing $91 million in ongoing funding to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to help the prison system pay departing employees for their unused time off. The department said that from 2020 to 2025, it paid about $130 million annually on average to employees leaving state service, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.

When employees cash out banked leave, the state pays them not only for the hours they have accumulated, but also for the additional vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken that time off.

That means a person with 640 hours of vacation would also be paid for all of the vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken those 80 days off. Each hour of leave is paid based on an employee’s final salary — not what they were earning when the time was accrued.

Most private-sector employers cap vacation accrual between 40 and 400 hours and stop employees from earning additional time once they reach those limits. Some companies have moved in the opposite direction, adopting “unlimited paid time off” policies. Under those systems, employees do not accumulate vacation days that can be banked or cashed out, but critics say the policies can lead to workers taking less time off because there is no guaranteed number of days and employees may feel pressure not to appear absent.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said there appears to be little appetite in the state Capitol to address California’s burgeoning vacation liability.

“This problem is systemic within California government and no one seems willing to take it on,” Coupal said. “At the same time, they are clamoring that there is a budget crisis. I suspect they will continue to kick the can down the road.”

As anxiety mounts among California Democrats about the potential of a Republican being elected governor, the state party will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling to assess the viability of the sprawling field of candidates hoping to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to plans released Tuesday.

The move comes after nearly every Democratic candidate refused party leaders’ call last week to withdraw from the race to avoid splitting the vote in the June primary — an outcome that could lead to a Republican being elected to statewide office for the first time in two decades.

“Candidates have filed, and now they’ve got the opportunity to showcase their viability, their path to win. I want to simply ensure that everybody has information to fully understand the current state of the race,” said Rusty Hicks, the leader of the California Democratic Party.

As campaign season ramps up, the series of six polls will allow “candidates, supporters, the media, voters, anyone and everyone to have a clear understanding of what is or is not happening in this particular race,” he said.

The filing deadline to appear on the June 2 ballot was Friday. Three days earlier, Hicks released an open letter urging candidates who did not have a path to victory to withdraw from the race. Of the nine prominent Democrats who had announced runs for governor, only one heeded his call: former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

That means the eight other candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, regardless of whether they decide to later drop out. And that creates the possibility of a Republican winning the race because of how California elections are decided.

The state has a voter-approved top-two primary system, under which the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

Two prominent Republicans will appear on the ballot: former conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Even though Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, and the state’s electorate last elevated Republicans to statewide office in 2006, it is mathematically possible for Democrats to splinter the vote, allowing the two GOP candidates to advance.

Under such a scenario, not only would Republicans be guaranteed the leadership of the nation’s most-populous state, but Democratic voter turnout also would probably be depressed in November, potentially affecting down-ballot races such as those that could determine control of Congress.

Hicks’ call last week prompted concerns among candidates of color, including former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, that the effort was aimed at every nonwhite candidate in the race.

The state party chairman responded that his letter was not aimed at any specific candidate.

“It’s not something I lose sleep over,” Hicks said when asked about the racial claims. But he added that the voter surveys will be conducted by Los Angeles-based Evitarus, the state’s only Black- and Latino-led full-service polling firm, and will oversample historically underrepresented communities: Latino, Black and Asian American voters.

Hicks said the polling will cost “multiple six figures” but did not specify the exact amount.

The first poll will be released on March 24, and then five additional surveys will come out every seven to 10 days until voters start receiving mail ballots in early May.

“We’re putting this forward to ensure everyone is armed with the information they need to clearly have an eyes-wide-open assessment of where the state of the race currently is between now and when ballots land in the mailboxes of voters,” Hicks said.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “the dangerous politicization of science,” Newsom hired her to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the West Coast Health Alliance, a regional public health agency, whose guidance the governors said would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the first state to join a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and Health and Human Services declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the COVID era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public health guided by science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has excoriated federal officials for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, warning that the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request, but Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and prevention efforts. The White House last year proposed cutting Health and Human Services spending by $33 billion, including $3.6 billion from the CDC. Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing and education, were axed.

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back more than $600 million in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, the states sued and a judge temporarily blocked the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Assn. of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for more than half of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3-billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding cuts hurt all

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the county has announced the closure of seven public health clinics that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. eliminated measles in 2000 but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had 2,281 confirmed cases last year, the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at schools, airports and Disneyland.

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust vaccine schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a more robust vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition suing the Trump administration over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza and COVID-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and several other East Coast states banding together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaborative.

Hilliard, of Health and Human Services, said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing red states

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year signed a bill authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Antonio Villaraigosa is best known as the former mayor of Los Angeles. But that title will not be on the ballot when voters choose the next governor of California.

Instead, Villaraigosa will be listed as a “Public Policy Advisor,” a reference to his most recent profession.

The words that appear next to candidate names are governed by state regulations. Since Villaraigosa left office nearly five years ago, after serving from 2005 to 2013, he can’t use his mayoral title. He formed a public consulting firm that advised companies such as Herbalife, Banc of California and Cadiz from 2013 to last year.

Candidates spend time and often money on polling to determine a ballot title that paints them in the best light to voters while complying with the state’s regulations, even though in prominent races for governor or U.S. Senate, ballot designations aren’t typically a deciding factor.

Follow California politics by signing up for our email newsletter »

State Treasurer John Chiang’s campaign protested the designation. (He will be listed as “California State Treasurer” on the primary ballot.)

“Let’s be real, the only thing Antonio Villaraigosa can currently advise on is how to best target innocent Californians,” said Chiang’s spokesman, Fabien Levy, pointing to work Villaraigosa has done for Herbalife, Cadiz and Edelman.

Critics accuse Herbalife, a nutritional supplement company, of being a pyramid scheme. Cadiz is trying to pump groundwater out of the Mojave Desert and sell it to Los Angeles consumers, a project opposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and public lands advocates. Edelman is a public relations firm that counts oil-industry groups among its clients.

Levy said Chiang’s campaign has no plans to back up the rhetoric with a formal challenge to Villaraigosa’s ballot designation, but he left open the possibility of going to court later.

Ballot designation rules are so picayune that they dictate what types of punctuation are acceptable (commas, slashes and occasionally hyphens). Company names are verboten, as are words such as “reformer,” “activist,” “patriot” and “taxpayer.” The word “retired” cannot be abbreviated.

Learn more about the race for governor »

That has left room for some colorful ballot designations, such as Mary Carey Cook, who was listed as an “Adult Film Actress,” and Kurt E. “Tachikaze” Rightmyer, who was listed as a “Middleweight Sumo Wrestler” in the 2003 recall election. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected governor in that race, was listed as “Actor/Businessman.”

Some titles, such as businessman or teacher, are more popular than others, such as lawyer or the person’s political title in Congress or the Legislature.

In 2016, five congressional and legislative incumbents did not use their elected titles for ballot designations, including Rep. David Valadao. The Hanford Republican called himself a “Farmer/Small Businessman.”

In 2014, David Evans, an obscure Mojave Desert accountant who spent just $600 on his campaign to be California state controller nearly placed in the second spot in the primary. His ballot designation of “Chief Financial Officer” probably had something to do with it.

Eric Jaye, Villaraigosa’s political advisor, said that while the campaign considered other ballot designations, they went with “Public Policy Advisor” because it most accurately reflected Villaraigosa’s work after leaving City Hall.

“The company has advised a wide-range of for-profit and nonprofit companies around issues such as economic development, investment strategy, community reinvestment, healthcare, and education,” according to Villaraigosa’s filing documents. “As a public policy advisor, Mr. Villaraigosa guides clients through turning policies into action.”

Whether it matters is up for debate.

“How important ballot designations are diminishes the further up the ballot you go. So in the governor’s race, voters are going to have a wealth of information about the leading candidates from news coverage, from advertisements, etc.,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman. “Where ballot designations become important information is races where voters don’t know much else. Frankly, they’re most valuable at the sanitation and water district level, and then the value starts to decline the more you move up.”

seema.mehta@latimes.com

For the latest on national and California politics, follow @LATSeema on Twitter.

ALSO

California’s candidates for governor react to Trump administration lawsuit over immigration policy

California Democratic Party offers no endorsements in U.S. Senate or governor’s races

Live coverage of California politics

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to spend $19 million promoting California and dispelling “myths driven by misinformation and political rhetoric” in a marketing campaign that would run through the final months of his administration as he weighs a potential run for president.

The new contract, which is in the bidding process, comes as Newsom’s political future and national standing are closely tied to how voters view California’s economy, crime and quality of life — issues that have become central to attacks from President Trump and conservative media outlets.

The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is seeking a contractor to design a statewide taxpayer-funded “California Brand Campaign,” with two-thirds of spending under the proposal to be used for paid advertising and media placements. Bidding on the contract opened Feb. 24 and is expected to end March 13.

The solicitation frames the campaign as an effort to push back on what Newsom has often described as misleading narratives about California. The campaign would launch during a period of financial uncertainty for the state, with Newsom’s January budget projecting a $3-billion deficit next fiscal year.

“California and its business climate have been falsely and maliciously maligned for years, and the state has a right to tell the true story — California is a great place to do live, work, invest and visit,” said Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos. “Setting the record straight will benefit every business, worker and resident of this state.”

Newsom is contemplating a run for president in 2028 and says he remains undecided about whether he will pursue the Oval Office.

State Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), who is vice chair of the Senate budget committee, said the language of the proposal request is concerning. He said it would make it easier to stifle criticisms of policies that he says make it difficult to do business in California.

“This is clearly part of the Gavin Newsom for President campaign, but what is most troubling to me is that this is a program to be developed by some private-sector contractor to define what is acceptable speech in the state of California,” Niello said. “That scares the stuffing out of me.”

The negative image of California — homeless encampments lining the streets, smash-and-grab robberies at malls and an exodus of residents and businesses fleeing high taxes and nanny-state governance — could be a liability for Newsom if he runs for president.

Newsom has seen his popularity surge in the last year after his fight-fire-with-fire approach to countering Trump’s rhetoric. The two-term governor has used his expanding platform, including a podcast and nationwide book tour for his recently released memoir, to repeatedly push back on Trump’s criticisms of California. He argues that California remains one of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies and the envy of other states.

The tone of the marketing campaign bid request itself echoes that message, with its introductory paragraph pulled directly from Newsom’s State of the State speech in January.

“California has never been about perfection,” it reads. “It’s about persistence. The courage of our convictions and the strength to embody them. That’s the California Way.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who runs the research nonprofit Latino Working Class Project, said scrutiny of the campaign will depend on whether the ads veer into politics or overtly promote Newsom in the way federal border security ads showcased the now ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“You have to ask why now?” Madrid said of Newsom’s timing for the California ad campaign. “He’s in the eighth inning of a nine-inning baseball game. Timing and tone are everything when considering the appropriateness.”

The use of taxpayer dollars to combat negative publicity about the state and the governor isn’t new under the Newsom administration.

Newsom tapped an employee in his communications office to serve as his “deputy director of rapid response” in 2024. Staff member Brandon Richards, who made $136,000 last year, is tasked with quickly dispatching responses to information the governor’s team deems inaccurate or misleading that is spread on social media and in the media.

When right-wing accounts claimed in February that Newsom allows dogs to vote in California, Richards responded with a CBS News article reporting that a woman was charged with five felonies for registering her canine. Richards and the governor’s office pushed back on false assertions that Newsom and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, were stealing money from the state through her office that same day.

Newsom’s frustration reached a boiling point over claims about the state’s response to the Los Angeles wildfires last year. President Trump publicly blamed Newsom and “his Los Angeles crew” for the disaster, though the Republican’s claims that a lack of water in Southern California led to a shortage for firefighters were widely debunked.

Newsom’s political team launched a website in January 2025 to fight misinformation about the L.A. fires, which he said at the time would “ensure the public has access to fact-based data.” The site, www.californiafirefacts.com, no longer appears to exist.

At one point, however, it redirected viewers to the redistricting campaign website for Proposition 50, according to internet archives. Newsom championed the successful redistricting ballot measure to add more Democrats to California’s congressional delegation, a direct response to Trump urging Texas and other Republican states to reconfigure their congressional boundaries to elect more Republicans to Congress.

Newsom adopted an even more aggressive social media strategy last summer after Trump deployed the National Guard and U.S. Marines to California during federal immigration sweeps. The governor directed his team to match the brash communication tactics emanating from the White House. His aides continue to shoot down criticism and launch their own snarky assaults on Trump and his allies.

The new ad campaign appears to be an extension of his work to refute the anti-California narrative.

The request for bids says “some look at this state and try to tear down our progress. They attack our values and caricature our culture. They distort the data to diminish our accomplishments.”

SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

The judge was perplexed.

“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.

The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.

One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.

Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?

She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.

State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.

That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.

Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.

But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.

Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.

Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.

There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.

Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.

Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.

“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”

Others were more blunt.

“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”

Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.

“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.

Others saw it differently.

“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”

Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.

“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.

Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.

“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.

Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.

“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”

Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.

The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.

“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.

Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)

The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.

The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.

“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.

Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.

Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.

The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.

Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.

“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”

Fearing the prospect of a Republican winning California’s gubernatorial race, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks on Tuesday urged his party’s candidates who lack a viable path to victory to drop out.

“It is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” Hicks wrote in an open letter to the politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. “I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.”

Hicks did not name the Democrats he wants out of the race.

But, even though the odds are relatively low, California cannot risk having a Republican elected as the next governor at a time when President Trump is in the White House, he said.

“[S]o much is at stake in our Nation and so many are counting on the leadership of California Democrats to stand up and speak out at this historic moment,” Hicks wrote. “California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor.”

Hicks urged Democrats languishing at the bottom of the field of candidates to drop out before the Friday deadline to officially file to run for governor — to ensure their names do not appear on the June primary ballot.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

With nine top Democrats running, the fear is that the candidates will splinter their party’s vote and allow the top two Republicans in the race to finish in first and second place. This is despite Democratic registered voters outnumbering Republicans in the state by almost 2 to 1, and no GOP candidate winning a statewide election since 2006.

Having two Republicans competing in the November election would be devastating to Democratic voter turnout and could hurt party candidates in pivotal down-ballot races.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks said in his letter. “We simply can’t let that happen.”

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that five candidates lead the contest — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer among Democrats and conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans. Hilton and Bianco have led all candidates in other polls over the last few months.

Discussions about the need for some Democrats to exit the race took place at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention as well as when the powerful California Federation of Labor Unions began its endorsement process last week.

But a politically thorny issue is that nearly all of the Democrats lagging in the polls are people of color, as former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted at a candidate forum Monday evening.

“By the way, there are people who are calling for candidates to get out of the race,” he said at a gathering hosted by Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center at the Renberg Theatre in Hollywood. “Isn’t it interesting that the candidates they are asking get out of the race are the candidates of color? So don’t take me there.”

Hicks, asked about the effect on candidates of color, lauded the field’s accomplishments.

“We have a number of strong candidates. They have incredible stories, and they are reflective of the diversity of our party. That being said, there are some political realities of where we are at at this particular moment,” he said in an interview. “I’m not calling on any specific candidates to move in one direction or the other. I’m just calling on them to assess their campaign and determine if they have a viable [path] and if they don’t, to not file.”

During Monday evening’s gubernatorial forum, Porter said she is concerned about the prospect of two Republicans making the top two.

“I hear people say to me, it could never happen, but everybody said that about Trump too,” she said at the forum. “And I look at how much harm we’re suffering, and I think about all the political risks that people are facing every day, the risk of an immigrant to leave their home and walk on our streets, the risk of a kid who’s trans to try to play sports even in this state. And I just don’t think we can take any more political risks.”

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

An independent expenditure committee backed by Silicon Valley executives spent $4.8 million on television ads supporting San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s gubernatorial bid that will begin airing Thursday.

The two 30-second ads highlight the Democrat’s life story — being raised in a working-class family and working on a grounds crew and as a middle school teacher — and his accomplishments leading the state’s third-largest city.

Mahan’s parents “taught him the difference between nice to have and need to have,” a narrator says in one of the ads. “So as mayor of San Jose, Matt focused on the basics and delivered results on the things that matter most. The safest big city in America, a sharp drop in street homelessness and thousands of homes built. As governor, Matt Mahan will focus on results Californians need to have, like affordable homes, safe neighborhoods and good schools.”

The ads, which will air statewide on broadcast and cable TV, were paid for by an independent-expenditure committee called California Back to Basics Supporting Matt Mahan for Governor 2026.

The group has not yet filed any fundraising reports with the secretary of state’s office, but the ads’ disclosure says the top donors are billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz, luxury sleepwear company founder Ashley Merrill and Silicon Valley entrepreneur Michael Seibel.

Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso, who considered running for governor or mayor of Los Angeles but ultimately decided against seeking either post, is involved in the effort, according to a strategist working for the committee who requested anonymity to speak about it.

The committee legally cannot coordinate with Mahan’s campaign, which he launched four weeks ago. Although Mahan lacks the name recognition of several other candidates in the crowded field running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, his fundraising prowess, notably among tech industry leaders, is notable. He has raised nearly $9.2 million in large donations since entering the gubernatorial race.

Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have long circled one another.

The two moved in the same political slipstream, wooed the same set of Democratic donors and, for a time, even shared the same group of campaign advisors.

Harris rose from San Francisco district attorney to elected positions in Sacramento and Washington before twice running unsuccessfully for president.

Newsom climbed from San Francisco mayor to lieutenant governor to California’s governorship, where he quietly stewed as Harris leapfrogged past him into the vice presidency. While she served in the White House, Newsom tried any number of ways to insinuate himself into the national spotlight.

Now both have at least one eye on the Oval Office, setting up a potential clash of egos and ambition that’s been decades in the making.

Newsom, whose term as governor expires in January, has been auditioning for president from practically the moment the polls closed in 2024 and horrified Democrats realized Harris had lost to Donald Trump.

Harris, who’s mostly focused on writing and promoting her campaign autobiography — while giving a political speech here and there — hasn’t publicly declared she’ll seek the White House a third time. But, notably, she has yet to rule out the possibility.

In a CNN interview aired Sunday, Newsom was asked about the prospect of facing his longtime frenemy in a fight for the Democratic nomination. (California’s gallivanting governor is embarked on his own national book tour, promoting both the “memoir of discovery” that was published Tuesday and his all-but-declared presidential bid.)

“Well, I’m San Francisco now, she’s L.A.,” Newsom joked, referring to Harris’ post-Washington residency in Brentwood. “So there’s a little distance between the two of us.”

He then turned zen-like, saying fate would determine if the two face off in the 2028 primary contest. “You can only control what you can control,” Newsom told CNN host Dana Bash.

A decade ago, Newsom and Harris swerved to keep their careers from colliding.

In 2015, Barbara Boxer said she would step down once she finished her fourth term in the U.S. Senate. The opening presented a rare opportunity for political advancement after years in which a clutch of aging incumbents held California’s top elected offices. Between Lt. Gov. Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Harris, there was no lack of pent-up ambition.

After a weekend of intensive deliberations, Newsom passed on the Senate race and Harris jumped in, establishing herself as the front-runner for Boxer’s seat, which she won in 2016. Newsom waited and was elected governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown.

Once in their preferred roles, the two got along reasonably well. Each campaigned on the other’s behalf. But, privately, there has never been a great deal of mutual regard or affection.

Come 2028, there will doubtless be many Democrats seeking to replace President Trump. The party’s last wide-open contest, in 2020, drew more than two dozen major contestants. So it’s not as though Harris and Newsom would face each other in a one-on-one fight.

But dueling on the national stage, with the country’s top political prize at stake, is something that Hollywood might have scripted for Newsom and Harris as the way to settle, once and for all, their long-standing rivalry.

The two Californians would start out closely matched in good looks and charisma.

Those who know them well, having observed Newsom and Harris up close, cite other strengths and weaknesses.

Harris has thicker skin, they suggested, and is more disciplined. Her forte is set-piece events, like debates and big speeches.

Newsom is more of a policy wonk, a greater risk-taker and is more willing to venture into challenging and even hostile settings.

Newson is more fluent in the ecosphere of social media, podcasts and the like. Harris has the advantage of performing longer on the national stage and bears nothing like the personal scandals that have plagued Newsom.

But Harris’ problem, it was widely agreed, is that she has run twice before and, worse, lost the last time to Trump.

“To a lot of voters, she’s yesterday’s news,” said one campaign strategist.

“She had her shot,” said another, channeling the perceived way Democratic primary voters would react to another Harris run. “You didn’t make it, so why should we give you another shot?”

(Those half-dozen kibbitzers who agreed to candidly assess the prospects of Newsom and Harris asked not to be identified, so they could preserve their relationships with the two.)

Most of the handicappers gave the edge to Newsom in a prospective match-up; one political operative familiar with both would have placed their wager on Harris had she not run before.

“I think her demographic appeal to Black women and coming up the ranks as a Black woman working in criminal justice is a very strong card,” said the campaign strategist. “The white guy from California, the pretty boy, is not as much of a primary draw.”

That said, this strategist, too, suggested that “being tagged as someone who not only lost but lost in this situation that has set the world on fire … is too big a cross to bear.”

The consensus among these cognoscenti is that Harris will not run again and that Newsom — notwithstanding any demurrals — will.

Of course, the only two who know for sure are those principals, and it’s quite possible neither Harris nor Newsom have entirely made up their minds.

Those who enjoy their politics cut with a dash of soap opera will just have to wait.

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SAN FRANCISCO — It was speed dating: Eight suitors with less than four minutes each, pitching the woo to thousands of Democratic Party faithful.

The race for California governor has been a low-boil, late-developing affair, noteworthy mostly for its lack of a whole lot that has been noteworthy.

That changed a bit on a sunny Saturday in San Francisco, the contest assuming a smidgen of campaign heat — chanting crowds, sign-waving supporters, call-and-response from the audience — as the state party held its annual convention in this bluest of cities.

Delegates had the chance to officially endorse a party favorite, providing a major lift in a contest with the distinct lack of any obvious front-runner. But with an overstuffed field of nine major Democratic contenders — San José Mayor Matt Mahan was said to have entered the contest too late for consideration — the vote proved to be a mere formality.

No candidate came remotely close to winning the required 60% support.

That left the contestants, sans Mahan, to offer their best distillation of the whys and wherefore of their campaigns, before one of the most important and influential audiences they will face between now and the June 2 primary.

There was, unsurprisingly, a great deal of Trump-bashing and much talk of affordability, or rather, the excruciating lack of it in this priciest of states.

The candidates vied to establish their relatability, that most valuable of campaign currencies, by describing their own hardscrabble experiences.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — the first speaker, as drawn by lot — spoke of his upbringing in a home riven by alcoholism and domestic violence. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond described his childhood subsistence on food stamps, free school lunches and surplus government cheese.

Former state Controller Betty Yee told how she shared a bedroom with four siblings. Katie Porter, the single mom of three kids, said she knows what it’s like to push a grocery cart and fuel her minivan and watch helplessly as prices “go up and up” while dollars don’t stretch far enough.

Michele Reed of Los Angeles cheers at the state Democratic Party convention.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

When it came to lambasting Trump, the competition was equally fierce.

“His attacks on our schools, our healthcare and his politics of fear and bullying has to stop now,” Villaraigosa said.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) called him “the worst president ever” and boasted of the anti-Trump battles he’s fought in Congress and the courts. Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general, spoke of his success suing the Trump administration.

Porter may have outdone them all, at least in the use of profanity and props, by holding up one of her famous whiteboards and urging the crowd to join her in a chant of its inscription: “F—- Trump.”

“Together,” the former Orange County congresswoman declared, “we’re going to kick Trump’s ass in November.”

Porter was also the most extravagant in her promises, pledging to deliver universal healthcare to California — a years-old Democratic ambition — free childcare, zero tuition at the state’s public universities and elimination of the state income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

Unstated was how, precisely, the cash-strapped state would pay for such a bounty.

Former Assemblyman Ian Calderon offered a more modest promise to provide free child care to families earning less than $100,000 annually and to break up PG&E, California’s largest utility, “and literally take California’s power back.” (Another improbability.)

Becerra, in short order, said he was “not running on inflated promises” but rather his record as a congressman, former attorney general and health secretary in President Biden’s cabinet.

Rachel Pickering, right, vice chair of the San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party, stands with others wearing pins supporting Democratic causes at the party’s state convention.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

It was one of several jabs that could be heard if one listened closely enough. (No candidate called out any other by name.) “You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who voted for the border wall, are you?” Thurmond demanded, a jab at Porter who supported a major funding bill that included money for Trump’s pet project.

“You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who praises ICE, are you?” Thurmond asked, a poke at Swalwell, who thanked the department for its work last year in a case of domestic terrorism.

“You’re not going to vote for a Democrat who made money off ICE detention centers,” Thurmond went on, targeting Tom Steyer and his former investment firm, which had holdings in the private prison industry.

Yee seemed to take aim at Mahan and his rich Silicon Valley backers, suggesting grassroots Democrats “will not be pushed aside by the billionaire boys club that wants to rule California.”

The barb was part of a full-on assault on the state’s monied class, which includes Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager.

In a bit of billionaire jujitsu, he sought to turn the attack around by saying his vast wealth — which has allowed him to richly fund his political endeavors — made him immune to the blandishments of plutocrats and corporate interests.

“Here’s the thing about big donors,” Steyer said. “If you take their money, you have to take their calls. And I don’t owe them a thing. In a world where politicians serve special interests, I can’t be bought.”

There were no breakout moments Saturday. Nothing was said or done in the roughly 35 minutes the candidates devoted to themselves that seemed likely to change the dynamic or trajectory of a race that remains stubbornly ill-defined and, to an unprecedented degree in modern times, wide open.

And there was certainly no sign any of the gubernatorial candidates plan to give up, bowing to concerns their large number could divide the Democratic vote and allow a pair of Republicans to slip through and emerge from California’s top-two primary.

But for at least a little while, within the confines of San Francisco’s Moscone Center, there was a glimmer of a life in a contest that has seemed largely inert. That seemed a portent of more to come as the June primary inches ever closer.

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.

Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.

“California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”

Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared to two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long-served in public office, and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.

While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.

In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.

“That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”

However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.

Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”

“We have not weighed in on the governor’s race but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.

Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could impact turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.

“A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.

Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.

“I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”

She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.

The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.

“My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.

“Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”

Not everyone agreed.

Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”

“This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”

Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.

“You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”

The efforts had already began.

RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.

Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.

Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”

“First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”

Yee‘s campaign manager noted that 40% of voters are undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.

“I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.

Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.

Calderon noted the largest group of voters is still undecided and defended staying in the race to try to reach those voters after speaking at a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday

“I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”

Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

WASHINGTON — President Trump can’t seem to stop talking about Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

He refused to invite him to a White House dinner later this week with state leaders from both parties, saying he was “not worthy” of the event. And he has castigated Moore for a sewage spill that has spoiled the Potomac River, even though the faulty pipe is part of a federally regulated utility.

There could soon be more reasons for Trump to complain about Moore, the nation’s only Black governor currently in office. Moore is trying to redraw Maryland’s congressional map to boost Democrats, part of a nationwide redistricting battle that Trump started to help Republicans in the midterm elections.

If Moore can overcome resistance from a key member of his own party in the state legislature, the tide could continue to shift in Democrats’ favor.

Moore, who is frequently floated as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, is the vice chair of the National Governors Assn., which is meeting in Washington this week for its annual conference. He sat down with the Associated Press on Wednesday at the start of his visit. Here is a transcript of the interview, edited for length and clarity.

Redistricting

Q: You met with Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries to talk about redistricting. Can you tell me what your understanding was leaving that meeting and whether there will be an up-and-down vote in the Maryland legislature?

A: All we’re asking for is a vote. And however the vote goes, however the vote goes. But that’s democracy.

Q: What do you see as your role in the party?

A: I don’t look at it as I’m doing it because I’m trying to help a party per se. I’m doing it because I think we have an unchecked executive and right now Congress does not seem interested in actually doing its job and establishing real checks and balances.

And I’m watching what Donald Trump is doing. This would not be an issue had it not been for Donald Trump saying, you know what, let me come up with every creative way I can think of to make this pain permanent. And one of the ways he did was he said, let’s just start calling states — the states I choose — to say let’s have a redistricting conversation mid-decade.

This would not even be an issue had Donald Trump not brought this up and introduced this into the ecosystem.

Trump relationship

Q: Speaking of the president, do you have thoughts on why he’s been stepping up his criticism of you on everything from not inviting you to the dinner to his criticism of the Potomac River sewage spill?

A: This one would actually be comical if it weren’t so serious. This is a Washington, D.C., pipe that exists on federal land. How this has anything to do with Maryland, I have no idea. I think he just woke up and just said, I hate Maryland so I’m just going to introduce them into a conversation. This literally has nothing to do with us, with the exception of the fact that when we first heard about what happened, that I ordered our team to assist Washington, D.C.

The short answer is I don’t know. I cannot get into the president’s psyche.

Q: Do you think it’s personal?

A: I know it’s not for me. I have no desire to have beef with the president of the United States. I didn’t run for governor like, man, I can’t wait so me and the president can go toe to toe. I have no desire on that. But the fact that he is waking up in the middle of the night and tweeting about me, I just, I pray for him and I just feel bad for him because that has just got to be a really, really hard existence.

Trump and Black History Month

Q: The White House is holding an event right now commemorating Black History Month. Could you share your thoughts on the president’s relationship with the Black community?

A: Listen, I think the president has long had a very complicated history with the Black community. We’re talking about a person who has been sued from his earliest days from his treatment of Black tenants. We’re talking about a person who is one of the originators of birtherism. We’re talking about a person who has now spent his time trying to ban books about Black history, a person who has spent his time now doing the greatest assault on unemployment of Black women in our nation’s history. You know, so, I’m not sure what anyone is going to gain from an event by Donald Trump about Black history.

2028

Q: Do you think the next presidential nominee on both sides might come from this group of governors?

A: I see the governors as in many ways the final line of defense because I think it’s never mattered more who your governor is.

Q: The country is so polarized. How do we break the fever?

A: You stay consistent with who you are. I think if you’re a polarizing person or polarizing personality, then that’s just who you are. That’s just never been me.

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In another era, the scene would have been unremarkable. But in President Trump’s Washington, it’s become increasingly rare.

Sitting side by side on stage were Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat. They traded jokes and compliments instead of insults and accusations, a brief interlude of cordiality in a cacophony of conflict.

Stitt and Moore are the leaders of the National Governors Association, one of a vanishing few bipartisan institutions left in American politics. But it may be hard for the organization, which is holding its annual conference this week, to maintain its reputation as a refuge from polarization.

Trump has broken with custom by declining to invite all governors to the traditional White House meeting and dinner. He has called Stitt, the NGA’s chair, a “RINO,” short for Republican in name only, and continued to feud with Moore, the group’s vice chair, by blaming him for a sewage spill involving a federally regulated pipeline.

The break with tradition reflects Trump’s broader approach to his second term. He has taken a confrontational stance toward some states, withholding federal funds or deploying troops over the objections of local officials.

With the Republican-controlled Congress unwilling to limit Trump’s ambitions, several governors have increasingly cast themselves as a counterweight to the White House.

“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said about the expansion of executive power in recent administrations. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”

Cox, a Republican, said “it is up to the states to hold the line.”

Moore echoed that sentiment in an interview with The Associated Press.

“People are paying attention to how governors are moving, because I think governors have a unique way to move in this moment that other people just don’t,” he said.

Still, governors struck an optimistic tone in panels and interviews Wednesday. Stitt said the conference is “bigger than one dinner at the White House.” Moore predicted “this is going to be a very productive three days for the governors.”

“Here’s a Republican and Democrat governor from different states that literally agree on probably 80% of the things. And the things we disagree on we can have honest conversations on,” Stitt said while sitting beside Moore.

Tensions over the guest list for White House events underscored the uncertainty surrounding the week. During the back-and-forth, Trump feuded with Stitt and said Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis were not invited because they “are not worthy of being there.”

Whether the bipartisan tone struck Wednesday evening can endure through the week — and beyond — remains an open question.

“We can have disagreements. In business, I always want people around me arguing with me and pushing me because that’s where the best ideas come from,” said Stitt. “We need to all have these exchange of ideas.”

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsed former Rep. Katie Porter, her protege and former Harvard Law School student, for California governor on Thursday.

“From the moment Katie set foot in my consumer law class, I knew that she would be a warrior for working families,” Warren said in a statement, citing Porter’s work on the foreclosure crisis as well as her questioning of corporate leaders and members of the Trump administration while wielding a white board in hearings when she represented an Orange County district in Congress.

“No one will stand up to Trump with more grit and determination than Katie,” Warren said. “But just as importantly, she will champion the kind of bold, progressive vision that California workers and families deserve.”

The endorsement comes on the cusp of the California Democratic Party’s convention in San Francisco this weekend, at a time that there is no true front-runner in the crowded race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Porter was initially viewed as having a potential edge in the race, but her prospects dimmed after videos emerged in October of the UC Irvine law professor scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide. She expressed remorse for her behavior.

Warren and Porter, who met more than two decades ago, have a long-standing relationship, to the point that the senator is the namesake of one of Porter’s children.

Porter endorsed Warren during the 2020 presidential campaign, which caused consternation among some California Democrats since then-Sen. Kamala Harris, who as state attorney general appointed Porter in 2012 to oversee a $25-billion mortgage settlement with the nation’s top banks, was also running for the White House.

Porter pointed to their shared values, such as fighting to protect consumer protection in Congress, as she responded to Warren’s endorsement.

“Senator Warren and I fought together in Congress to hold Big Banks and giant corporations that cheat the American people accountable,” Porter said. “From the classroom to the Capitol, we have made … fighting for working families our lifework. I’ll be a governor who is unbought, undeterred, and unwilling to continue the special interest status quo that has left too many Californians behind.”