governor

ATLANTA — Keisha Lance Bottoms talks a lot about the policies she would pursue as Georgia governor. The Democratic nominee is less likely to talk about the history she would make by winning the job.

Never has a Black woman been elected governor in any state. The former Atlanta mayor and onetime White House adviser to Democratic President Biden is trying to do it in a Deep South state where her lineage extends back to antebellum enslavement.

“I am at least a fifth-generation Georgian,” Bottoms, 56, says as she campaigns. “I say ‘at least’ because we can only trace our family back five generations to a plantation in Crawfordville.”

Bottoms rarely if ever mentions slavery, Jim Crow segregation or even race explicitly. But that story — hers, Georgia’s and the nation’s — shadows her battle with Republican nominee Rick Jackson.

The billionaire, a 72-year-old white man who grew up in Atlanta but now lives on a sprawling suburban estate, has hammered the former mayor as a failure, painting her four-year tenure as a crime-ridden decline. Other Republicans, up to Donald Trump, have joined in, with the president accusing Bottoms of ruining a once-great city.

“It’s a long-standing playbook to paint Atlanta as this big bad place,” Bottoms said, dismissing the Republican frame as ridiculous for a town that once hosted the Olympics and recently staged eight World Cup soccer matches.

One of her most recent ads pushes back by featuring clips of the news conference she held with the city’s law enforcement leaders during the peak of 2020 street protests of police violence in Atlanta and nationwide against Black men. “If you care about this city, then go home,” she said. “We are better than this.”

Bottoms would have her chance to answer Trump and Republicans at a rally Wednesday headlined by Barack Obama, the first Black U.S. president.

Some Black women see the attacks as loaded

Republican coalitions in most states, and certainly in Georgia, are overwhelmingly white and anchored in suburbs, smaller cities and small towns. Those are places where many voters look skeptically, even scornfully, upon big cities and the people who run them. But some of the rhetoric directed against Bottoms is steeped in the specter of race and gender in a state where all 83 governors since 1776 have been white men.

Jackson’s TV ads, a deluge funded by more than $200 million of his own money, feature footage of the demonstrations and violence in Atlanta in 2020, along with grainy images of Bottoms. The protests followed the police killing of Rayshard Brooks, an unarmed Black man, by a white Atlanta police officer.

The Republican campaign effort has not gone unnoticed among some Bottoms supporters, especially other Black women.

“It’s easy for people to attack Atlanta and Mayor Bottoms based on their own biases,” said retired educator Beverly Rice, a Bottoms supporter.

Bottoms’ bid marks the third consecutive time that Georgia Democrats have nominated a Black woman for governor. Stacey Abrams lost in 2018 and 2022 to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who is leaving office in 2027 after eight years due to term limits. Abrams came as close to winning a governor’s race as any Black woman before her.

In an interview, Abrams was reluctant to assign race and gender as the deciding factor in her defeats. But she said Black women running for governor face a higher bar because there is no example yet for voters who place a special emphasis on executive experience. Abrams, also an Atlantan, had served previously as state House minority leader, a role Republicans minimized as insufficient experience.

Abrams said that executive standard “does not apply equally across candidates” in politics. She said Bottoms “has a sound argument” because she has held the executive’s role. Before that, Bottoms was a City Council member, magistrate judge and prosecutor. That resume, Abrams and others said, is why Republicans have so aggressively criticized Bottoms’ experience.

“Bad mayors don’t make good governors,” Jackson has said over and over in the closing stretch of the campaign.

He has taken special notice of her decision not to run for a second term as mayor, instead joining Biden’s White House as a senior adviser – a move Bottoms said she deliberately put off to finish her four-year term. In Jackson’s telling, Bottoms “turned her back on Atlanta.”

Republicans say Atlanta ‘burned’ in Bottoms’ tenure

Other conservatives have gone further than Jackson.

“Keisha Lance Bottoms let Atlanta burn,” top Jackson surrogate John King, a former Atlanta police officer and now state insurance commissioner, sometimes says at the candidate’s rallies.

That is a reference to protesters setting fire to a Wendy’s fast food restaurant close to where Brooks was killed. The reference carries an extra weight in a city whose symbol is a phoenix rising from the ashes — a symbol adopted because Union forces burned parts of a young Atlanta during the Civil War.

At a Trump rally last weekend in Macon, a smaller city in middle Georgia, the president hammered away, too. Bottoms “destroyed Atlanta with her crime and filth and constant riots,” Trump said, echoing the kind of sometimes profane attacks he has leveled against many places with large or majority Black populations.

“I always viewed Atlanta as a great city,” he insisted. “It’s not considered that anymore.”

In a 2017 dispute with then-U.S. Rep. John Lewis, Trump called the civil rights icon’s district, which includes Delta Airlines’ and Coca-Cola’s world headquarters and the Georgia Institute of Technology, “crime-infested” and said it was “falling apart.”

Bottoms counters with a more complicated reality

Atlanta did see a crime spike during Bottoms’ tenure, but it was not an outlier alongside the COVID-19 pandemic surge across the country, according to federal statistics. After the pandemic waned, U.S. and Atlanta crime rates dropped significantly. Bottoms did sign an executive order blocking the Atlanta jail from holding federal immigration detainees.

Republicans have exaggerated her action on bail. Bottoms signed a city ordinance that eliminated cash bail for certain nonviolent crimes, intending to reduce the jail’s population and what she and other city officials deemed excessive punishment for low-grade offenses.

Her latest advertising retort follows a surge of fundraising that she did not have throughout Jackson’s summer advertising onslaught. “When a national crisis poured into Atlanta, Keisha Lance Bottoms stood up,” a voice-over says.

Besides her exhortation for people to leave the streets, the mother of four said, “Above everything else, I am a mother, so you are not going to out-concern me and out-care about where we are.”

Her aides see the ad — and the reality of how she handled the matter in real time — as depicting a political figure who is tough and empathetic, aware of public safety concerns and the realities for Black Americans.

But Bottoms’ advisers, and the candidate herself, also say they want Georgians to make their decisions on tangible policy distinctions, most notably her emphasis on addressing economic struggles and expanding Medicaid insurance eligibility — a move that would reach urban and rural populations across racial lines.

That is the point of the governor’s office, said Rice, the retired educator.

“I have 100% faith that she can win if people just judge her with their values,” she said. “I don’t look at her and see a ‘Black governor.’ I see a governor for all the people.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 25, 2026 3 AM PT

KALAMA, Wash. — Colorado and Washington are reliably Democratic states where elected officials have rejected moves to ban transgender women and girls from female sports competitions. Now activists have gone around lawmakers to put proposed bans on both states’ ballots.

At a time when some Democratic leaders nationwide are recalibrating their approach to transgender issues, particularly sports, and polls show Americans generally back the bans, supporters are optimistic they will pass and open the door to similar efforts in other places where lawmakers have blocked bans.

Though the issue has been debated in many legislatures, this is the first time it’s going to voters.

“What is happening in 2026 is a testing ground for the future,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which supports LGBTQ+ rights.

Twenty-seven states — including all where Republicans control both the legislature and governor’s office — already have such laws.

The efforts are billed as a way to protect women and girls and keep separate spaces for them, tapping into a concern that’s gained momentum. President Trump has taken steps to roll back transgender rights. The Supreme Court has upheld state sports bans.

A June poll from Quinnipiac University found that about 7 in 10 registered voters think transgender women and girls should not be allowed to play on female sports teams. About one-quarter think they should. Democrats are divided, with about half saying transgender women and girls should be allowed and about half saying they should not.

Robert Preuhs, a professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver, said the absence of public polls on Colorado’s ballot measure, which also covers college sports, makes it hard to predict whether it will pass. “It’s probably going to get more support than some of the Republican candidates that will run,” he said.

Since transgender restrictions gained traction this decade, states with Democratic-led governors’ offices and legislatures generally have rejected proposals such as banning transgender people from the bathrooms that match their gender identity and restricting gender-affirming care. Most Republican-led states have adopted those policies.

In addition to the two blue-state questions, a measure in Arizona would broaden an existing ban to include private schools, and one in Nebraska would add an existing state law to the state constitution.

There’s not a clear consensus on whether transgender women and girls have a competitive advantage. Factors include the age of the athlete, the sport, whether the athlete went through male puberty and how long they’ve received hormone therapy.

But the idea that girls are being cheated is personal for some athletes.

Ahnaleigh Wilson, a 17-year-old junior at Eastmont High School, about 25 miles north of Seattle, has been speaking out against allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports since she was in junior high. She said she’d won all of her 1,600-meter races in seventh and eighth grade — until she finished second to a transgender athlete in a major meet.

“Women have fought for Title IX and our own categories and it’s very important that we keep the dignity of that, and let women have their own sports and their own spaces to be safe and completely fair,” she said, referencing the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities.

Opponents say excluding transgender girls is also unfair.

“They will say that they want to protect kids and in particular, young girls,” said Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, which is leading the opposition to the measure there, “but I don’t understand how you can protect kids and discriminate against kids at the same time.”

The Washington measure would require that a healthcare provider verify the student’s “biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”

“We see that as being as simple as a checkbox,” said Let’s Go Washington spokesperson Hallie Herzberg. “Doctors can use the history of the patient from treating them all their lives or their medical history forms.”

But Dr. Libby Loft, who opposes the measure, says the language calls for a genital inspection as part of a physical, or expensive testing.

“I think it doesn’t make any sense to force the working families of … girl sports players in Washington to pay for unnecessary medical tests to be able to weed out an estimated five or 10 girls in the state of Washington, trans girls,” Loft said.

She fears the verification requirement will lead to fewer girls — transgender or not — playing sports.

Mulvihill and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

LAS VEGAS — Five days after settling back into the White House, President Trump embarked on a political victory lap that took him to a rally in downtown Las Vegas.

Joined by Nevada’s Republican governor, Joe Lombardo, Trump told boisterous supporters that, as a first order of business, he’d directed every member of his Cabinet “to marshal all powers at their disposal to defeat inflation and bring down the cost of daily life.”

That hasn’t happened — not even close — and that failure is one big reason that Nevada’s governor is fighting for his political life.

Democrats, still smarting from their loss four years ago, have made Lombardo their No. 1 gubernatorial target this election season. Republicans are battling to keep their top-of-the-ticket foothold in a state that will, once more, stand at the center of the presidential campaign.

With just over a week to go — and with more than 335,000 ballots already cast — the contest could go either way.

After a career in law enforcement and eight years as sheriff of Clark County — home to Las Vegas — Lombardo made the leap to governor in 2022 in a pandemic-fueled backlash against Democratic incumbent Steve Sisolak.

Reserved by nature and a political civilian most of his life, Lombardo has spent the last four years focused on the basics — crime, education, job growth, economic development — and largely steered clear of the country’s incendiary culture wars.

Unlike other Republican lawmakers, Lombardo has also shied away from the provocations and flamboyant pugilism of the MAGA movement.

Still, Trump hangs like an anvil around Lombardo’s neck — a fact his Democratic opponent, Aaron Ford, exploits at every turn.

Appearing last week at a gas station two miles off the Las Vegas Strip, Ford cited record-high fuel prices — and the knock-on effects they’ve had on tourism, groceries and online shopping — and said Nevadans were suffering for no other reason than Trump’s “war of choice” against Iran.

“And where,” Ford asked rhetorically, as traffic whooshed past, “is our current governor? As usual, he’s at Trump’s feet, serving as his doormat.”

Nevada Democratic gubernatorial candidate and current Nevada Atty. Gen. Aaron D. Ford arrives at a get-out-the-vote event on Oct. 7 in Las Vegas.

(Ethan Miller / Getty Images)

Ford, who’s bidding to become Nevada’s first Black governor, has one of those up-by-the-bootstraps biographies that campaign consultants see as spun gold.

He grew up in Dallas in a family that struggled to stay above water and, as a single father in his early 20s, relied on Medicaid and food stamps to get by. He worked as a waiter and a teacher to pay for law school and a Ph.D. in education before moving to Nevada in 2007. After six years in the state Senate, Ford was elected in 2018 to the first of two terms as the state’s attorney general.

Like Democratic candidates everywhere, Ford has made affordability a key component of his campaign.

Standing on the sidewalk outside a Circle K — where regular was going for $5.35 a gallon — Ford squatted to sign a blown-up copy of a “letter” to Trump demanding a $2,000 “pain-at-the-pump” rebate for every Nevada household. A line was provided, obligingly but obviously unnecessarily, for Lombardo’s signature.

Four years ago, Ford noted, when gas was around $4.68 a gallon, his Republican rival wrote on social media that hard-pressed Nevadans needed “leadership that ensures our families and businesses are protected from these disastrous policies.”

“But once he got in office,” Ford said, Lombardo “stopped fighting for us in Nevada and he started working for Trump full time.”

A few hours later, at a country-themed nightclub in northwest Las Vegas, the governor took to the stage to extol his performance these last four years.

Small-business creation and job growth are up, he told a crowd of supporters gathered on the dance floor. Teachers are better paid and more people are working in Nevada than ever before. “Kicking butt,” he said, referring to either himself, Nevada or both; it wasn’t clear which. “Kicking butt.”

Also, Lombardo added, Nevada’s crime rate has fallen for both violent and property crimes — “without any help from the attorney general.”

The words “Donald” and “Trump” never passed the governor’s lips.

Lombardo has had a somewhat mixed relationship with the president.

He kept his distance during the 2024 campaign and has occasionally, selectively, taken issue with the administration since Trump returned to office. The governor, for instance, spoke out against cuts to Medicaid as well as the shuttering of wind and solar projects in Nevada.
.
But Lombardo didn’t help himself in the least when Trump came to town in August for another rally, this one at the Red Rock Casino. He heaped praise on the president and defended, of all things, the care and feeding of Trump’s plutocratic pals.

“Quite often when the press and the media runs him down, they think about, you know, he’s taking care of his billionaire friends,” Lombardo said. “Those billionaire friends provide jobs. Unless you take care of them, those jobs are absent.”

Naturally, the moment showed up in a campaign ad, showing the grinning governor alongside a smirking Trump and ending with the tagline: “Joe Lombardo. For Trump, Not Nevada.”

For his part, the governor has portrayed Ford as feckless and borderline corrupt.

He’s seized on the attorney general’s abundant out-of-state travel — for official business, Ford says — to portray him as a high-flier beholden to the special interests that financed his jaunts.

Lombardo has also accused Ford of being weak on crime, citing, in particular, the case of a Nevada inmate convicted of manslaughter in the killing of a pregnant woman. Ford placed the inmate’s bid for clemency on the agenda of the state pardons board — an example, Lombardo claims, of the way Ford treats criminals.

The Democrat said he was merely following procedure and would have opposed the clemency request had he not missed the board’s meeting due to an unspecified family emergency.

With a big financial advantage and the benefit of a highly practiced campaign team, Lombardo has kept the race close despite the rough political climate. But to a considerable degree, his fate is beyond anything that Lombardo can control. The key question is how big the Democratic wave is on Nov. 3 and how strong the Trump undertow.

Those forces of red and blue — more than anything either candidate says or does — will determine the winner in this most purple of states.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — President Trump said Thursday that Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee for Ohio governor, should keep running a controversial ad featuring the estranged mother of Democratic opponent Amy Acton, posting on social media that it was “hitting pay dirt.”

Trump also denounced Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who criticized the ad as “deeply, deeply troubling” earlier in the day. Acton previously served in DeWine’s administration as a health official. Her mother lost custody of Acton and her brother after her husband — the children’s stepfather — was indicted on a charge of raping Acton.

“He strongly suggested that Vivek should, ‘take down the Ad,’ ” Trump wrote. “He probably wants a Dumocrat to win, and certainly doesn’t want someone who will do a much better job than he is capable of doing. I suggested, on the other hand, that Vivek should keep it up, and let everyone listen to the mother of a defective, dishonest, and incapable Candidate, explain how the daughter is a DISASTER who, uncontrollably, lies, cheats, and steals!”

At a gathering with reporters at the Ohio Statehouse, DeWine recalled the painful experiences of rape victims he dealt with as a county prosecutor and state attorney general.

“It’s wrong to run this ad,” he said. “And, even at this late time — my wife, Fran, saw the ad just run this morning on TV — I would just urge the Ramaswamy campaign to take this down.”

The term-limited DeWine’s remarks place him at odds with Ramaswamy, whom he has endorsed. The biotech entrepreneur and former presidential candidate plans to spend $4 million to broadcast it online and on television.

DeWine stops short of pulling his endorsement

But the governor stopped short of pulling his backing of the Republican for now. DeWine recalled a previous line of attack by the Acton campaign had mentioned Ramaswamy’s mother and said that also was wrong — “family members have always historically been off limits” — though he noted it was never used in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign.

That critique from the summer cited an investigative report into Geetha Ramaswamy’s role at a pharmaceutical company run by her son, whom Acton and Democrats described as “hiring his own mother to manipulate clinical trial data.”

The Ramaswamy campaign called those claims “slanderous” and said he’s being held to a different standard than Acton and other Democrats who have attacked Republicans’ families.

“Governor DeWine is correct that the first and only candidate to attack the mother of her opponent in this race was Amy Acton,” spokesperson Connie Luck said in a statement, adding, “We refuse to accept the media’s double standards.”

Ohio Republicans divided over the ad

By chiming in, DeWine has entered the fray of a growing rift among Ohio Republicans over the advertisement — as both the governor’s race and a race for U.S. Senate appear far tighter than expected in a state Trump won handily three times. The video features Acton’s birth mother, Donna Arthur, calling her “a liar” and insinuating she has mental health issues.

Acton, Ohio’s COVID-19-era health director, has made no secret of facing homelessness and abuse as a child. Arthur lost custody of her children after their stepfather, Arthur’s husband, was indicted on a charge of rape involving Acton. Acton’s campaign on Tuesday posted a video of her brother, who supported her backstory about living in a tent and being abused.

Republican Vice President JD Vance, an Ohio native son, expressed disgust during an Ohio campaign swing Wednesday with Republicans “whining” about the ad as low and in poor taste. But Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, DeWine’s former lieutenant governor — running in a tight retention race against Democrat Sherrod Brown — has said he would not have run the ad, as has Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is running for state auditor.

Another influential Ohio Republican, former U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci, posted a lengthy essay on X overnight, suggesting that “the floor may have just fallen out from under the Republican campaign for Ohio Governor” and urging every Republican to distance themselves from it.

Amid the turmoil, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Alex Triantafilou posted what sounded like a warning, or a threat.

“The final days of a tough campaign are always the best time to find out who is really with you and who just posts and pretends,” he wrote. “Yes—we are keeping score.” The quote was followed by a winking-eye emoji.

Ad has faced bipartisan rebukes, support in conservative media

The ad is also dividing Republicans nationally.

Nikki Haley, who sparred with Ramaswamy during the 2024 Republican presidential primary over the personal nature of his attacks, called him “a bad guy” in a social media post Tuesday. “It’s a shame he continues to get away with it,” she wrote.

At the same time, Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog group, has reported that many within the national conservative media are promoting and praising the ad. Ramaswamy’s campaign manager, Jonathan Ewing, characterized it as “a campaign-ending moment for Amy Acton.”

Wayne Allyn Root, of Gateway Pundit, called it “absolutely hilarious” and Daily Wire host Michael Knowles described it as “brilliant.”

Police and court records show Cledith Arthur was arrested and charged with the rape of Acton in July 1978, when she was 12, after her biological father lodged a formal complaint against him. The abuse allegedly happened from December 1976 to April 1978. Cledith Arthur failed to show for a court appearance and became a fugitive.

Donna Arthur remained married to him until his death in 2004.

Smyth writes for the Associated Press.

While Republican Steve Hilton has spent months jackrabbiting around California during his long-shot bid for governor, Democratic front runner Xavier Becerra just recently emerged from quasi hibernation and stepped into political daylight.

Hilton has blasted Becerra as taking the state’s voters for granted, failing to hold public campaign events to explain his detailed plans to address California’s many ills. Despite pledging to participate in multiple debates, Becerra brushed aside several invitations, agreeing to just a solitary one-hour face-off against Hilton on CNN in late September.

That month, Hilton held 14 public events, a dozen more than Becerra, but the Democrat’s spokesperson said he appeared at multiple functions sponsored by other groups. Hilton wasn’t buying it.

“He is a useless nothing, a totally unaccomplished pipsqueak who is so smug, so arrogant, so entitled, that he somehow thinks he’s owed this job just because he was picked as a useful puppet by the Sacramento machine,” Hilton, a former Fox News commentator and British political strategist, said last week in West Sacramento.

On Oct. 10, Becerra, a longtime member of Congress and Biden’s secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, scoffed at his GOP rival.

“Uh, hello?” Becerra said sarcastically to reporters in Sacramento after being asked about his absence from the campaign trail.

“That Steve Hilton doesn’t see me on Fox News is his problem, not mine. I am gonna talk to voters,” Becerra said, rattling off a list of his recent campaign events. “I will talk to them until November the 3rd, and then I’ll be ready to talk to voters and taxpayers and the people of California when I’m the next governor.”

On Thursday, Becerra held a news conference in downtown Los Angeles with Latino leaders and famed Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez urging voters to turn out despite alleged intimidation efforts by the Trump administration.

On Monday, he held get-out-the-vote events in Santa Clarita and Glendale, shortly after he campaigned for former state Sen. Richard Pan, a congressional candidate, in Sacramento, and urged voters to cast their ballots early at an event in Santa Rosa. In September, Becerra promoted Proposition 1, a proposal on the November ballot that would allow the state to sell nearly $11.3 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing.

“We know we can get these men and women who are wearing these orange vests to work and keep them working, so they can afford to buy a house if we pass Proposition 1,” Becerra said, standing alongside union members in front of a chain-link fence encircling a vacant lot in North Long Beach.

Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra held a news conference in Long Beach on Sept. 4 to highlight his housing agenda.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, who endorsed Becerra in April and appeared at the housing event, pushed back on the notion that Becerra is taking the election for granted after winning a top spot in the primary, positioning him to be the first Mexican American elected governor of California.

“I’ve seen firsthand the work that has taken place under the radar that may not be explicitly, openly political or openly be seen as campaigning, but it is the kind of thing you want to see,” Richardson said in an interview on Thursday, adding that he saw Becerra meeting with elected officials of both parties, the mayors of the state’s largest cities and labor leaders. “I’ve seen a very active candidate that has been making sure that real time was put into building relationships that will ultimately translate to a successful governorship, because that’s the goal. I mean, ultimately, what we want is a leader who has the relationships to lead our state.”

Becerra’s campaign said that the candidate has frequently met with voters since the primary without press coverage to hear from Californians, and that he would be a frequent public presence in the weeks before the election, when “voters really get engaged, when ballots land in their mailbox,” said spokesman Jonathan Underland.

“People have incredibly busy lives. They are worried about affording their healthcare, putting food on the table, paying for gas to fill their tank,” Underland said. “What is at the forefront of Secretary Becerra’s mind is the very real problems that Californians are facing every day.”

In contrast, Hilton has been publicly barnstorming California since the June primary.

Becerra’s schedule is not surprising given Democratic dominance in California, where the party’s registered voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. While appearing at parades, pancake breakfasts and in voters’ living rooms can be effective for candidates running in local campaigns, the most effective way for candidates to reach voters in a state as vast as California is through sustained advertising buys, which can cost tens of millions of dollars.

“If you’re the Democrat running in California, the operating theme of your campaign is do no harm and measure the drapes and figure out how you’re going to put an administration together and what is the tone that you’re going to set for that administration,” said Tim Rosales, a veteran GOP consultant who led businessman John Cox’s unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial campaign and previously worked on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s successful effort to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the 2003 recall campaign.

Newsom was more active in the 2018 general election campaign against Cox than Becerra has been this year, but Rosales argued that could be because Becerra views it as the final chapter of his political career, which also may have been the case with former Gov. Jerry Brown in his 2014 reelection campaign. Newsom, however, is pondering a 2028 run for the White House.

“This is potentially more of a swan song for Xavier Becerra, the icing on the cake for a long and distinguished political career, and for Gavin Newsom, it was a stepping stone,” Rosales said.

Becerra has raised $40.5 million, as of Friday, while Hilton has raised $29 million, according to the fundraising disclosure reports filed with the state. Those figures do not include the exponential advantage that Becerra had in independent expenditure committees’ spending over Hilton in the primary.

Veteran Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an advisor to Schwarzenegger, said that while Becerra will almost certainly be the state’s next governor, he should be cautious about his approach weeks before the November election.

“What he needs to be careful of is a big Democratic night across the United States that looks muted in California, and if that happens, the analysis will be that it’s his fault,” Stutzman said. “He should want to optimize his political capital as the clear leader of his party now in California. So he has to be a little careful of leaving some political capital on the table by not creating a stronger brand over the next three weeks.”

The last gubernatorial race that was viewed as competitive took place in 2010 between Brown and former eBay chief Meg Whitman, then a Republican who spent $144 million of her personal wealth on her campaign.

That contest drew national attention, but Brown beat Whitman by nearly 13 percentage points. Every gubernatorial election since that race has been sleepy and ignored in national politics, with Democratic candidates coasting to victory. The state has seen contentious gubernatorial primaries, notably in 2018, and this year, when the Democratic field was so crowded that party leaders urged low-polling candidates, including Becerra, to drop out.

He won the top spot in the primary after then-Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) dropped out amid rape and sexual assault allegations.

Mason Harrison, who worked for Republicans Carly Fiorina in a 2010 Senate bid and Neel Kashkari in a 2014 gubernatorial campaign, and worked with Hilton on business ventures but is not affiliated with his campaign, noted that while Brown was well-known by Californians because of decades in the public eye, Becerra is not. However, given Democrats’ edge in the state’s voter registration, as well as current headwinds against the GOP in California and across the nation, it’s unsurprising that Becerra has been less visible than Hilton. Harrison compared Becerra’s campaign to Biden’s in 2024 before the then-president bowed out of the race.

“The calculus seems to be, the more he gets out on the campaign trail, the greater the potential of him having a misstep in an interview or getting some tough question that he’s going to have to answer, and what’s the advantage of that in a year when you’re running against a party that, by historical standards, stands to lose significantly,” Harrison said. “Why make it more competitive by making yourself more vulnerable?”

Indeed, Becerra previously committed to multiple debates, but has participated in one so far and appears unlikely to agree to another. Still, he has repeatedly disputed the notion that he is taking the race for granted.

“If I were trying to coast, I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all,” he told reporters one sweltering August afternoon in Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles, an area he represented in Congress.

Xavier Becerra, center, walks with Helen Ota, left, president of the 2026 Nisei Week Foundation, while touring businesses and meeting with business community leaders at Japanese Village Plaza in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles on Aug. 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While there, he met with local business and community leaders. And he bought merchandise and delicacies, including a sweet mango mochi wrapped in a thin, fluffy pancake at a 123-year-old Japanese confectionery.

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report from Sacramento.

With just over two weeks left until election day, Democrats can barely contain their glee.

Control of the House seems about to fall into their eager laps. Senate races in states that are normally cardinal red — Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Texas among them — have grown fiercely competitive.

And, for the first time since 2010, a Democrat may soon be sitting in the governor’s office in more than half the 50 states. As recently as 2017, just 16 of them had Democratic governors — the lowest number in nearly a century.

The party owes a big thank you to President Trump, whose political standing seems to be sinking, like a depth charge, lower by the day. The only question is how much damage he inflicts on fellow Republicans.

There are, however, exceptions to every political trend, outliers in every election, a contest that zigs when races just about everywhere else are zagging.

Oregon, that crunchy and damp citadel of Left Coast liberalism, hasn’t elected a Republican governor since President Reagan was midway through his first term. In 2024, Kamala Harris walloped Donald Trump by more than 14 percentage points, extending a decades-long Democratic presidential winning streak.

And yet the state’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, is on the defensive as she fights for a second term in November, burdened by a dismal approval rating and a sense that things have been pretty lousy in Oregon under her leadership.

The state “hasn’t thrived in the last decade, and certainly hasn’t thrived since COVID, the way other states have,” said John Horvick, one of Oregon’s leading independent pollsters.

Kotek, a former speaker of the state House — and a highly effective lawmaker in that role — made some very concrete promises.

“She was going to build 36,000 new homes. She was going to improve our educational outcomes and make improvements to behavioral health in the state,” Horvick said. “Voters give her poor marks on all those.”

Most notably, perhaps, the epidemic of homelessness — which has curdled Portland’s hipster image and agitated Oregonians more than just about any issue in recent years — hasn’t abated under Kotek, despite a promise to make the problem her top priority.

Gov. Tina Kotek speaks to opponents of data center development during a demonstration at the state Capitol in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 8, 2026.

(Alex Milan Tracy / Sipa USA / Associated Press)

The Democrat still remains the favorite to win reelection. Oregon’s gubernatorial races tend to be closer than presidential contests and voters have been shown a reluctance to heave their governor from office, even when they tell pollsters they’re not happy with the incumbent or the state of their state.

“We watch this movie every four years in Oregon, where it looks really, really close and then, in the end, the Democrat wins,” said Kari Chisholm, a political strategist in Portland.

That may happen again. But Kotek’s travails show the perils of incumbency this angry election season, even for a Democratic swimming with a blue tide.

Thirty-six states are electing governors in November. Most of the contests lean toward one party or the other, like in California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears a shoo-in to replace Gavin Newsom.

But a dozen races are at least somewhat competitive, including toss-ups in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. All of the hardest-fought contests are in states that Trump carried in 2024 — several by double-digits — with Oregon being the lone exception.

Kotek, who’s been rated one of the least popular governors in America, is facing a rematch against Christine Drazan, a former GOP state House leader who now serves in the state Senate. In 2022, she lost narrowly lost to Kotek, 47% to 44%, in a three-way contest.

Unlike four years ago, Kotek has a gubernatorial record to defend and the case Drazan makes against her is succinct.

“Tina Kotek told Oregonians that she would solve the problems and challenges facing our state,” Drazan said in the candidates’ first debate this month. “She hasn’t.”

In a recent Fox News interview, Drazan elaborated.

“We have record high businesses that have gone out of business, bankruptcies, businesses that are leaving, family bankruptcies are at an all-time high,” Drazan said, exaggerating some. “Oregon is uniquely bad right now. It’s not a national issue, it’s here at home.”

Suggesting the state’s problems are indigenous is an obvious effort to lay responsibility on Kotek and absolve Trump, whose policies — ruinous tariffs, a reckless war, budget cuts — have slashed healthcare benefits, stoked inflation and driven fuel prices to all-time highs.

Further distancing herself from the Republican brand, Drazan has undergone a distinct makeover since winning the GOP primary in May. “Tough. Tested. Conservative,” is no longer the descriptive shorthand she uses on her campaign website. Now it’s “Mom. Public Servant. Champion for All.”

Drazan’s revised campaign biography also omits her opposition to various Democratic-backed policies, such as gun control, and her culture-warrior vow to “protect girls’ sports and keep men out of their locker rooms.” Instead, the Oregonian newspaper noted, her emphasis is now affordability and relatability.

Despite that, Kotek has continued wielding her sharpest-pronged political weapon, tying Drazan — an “out-of-touch MAGA extremist,” in her campaign’s parlance — to the unpopular president.

“I think we all know that there have been a lot of challenges facing our state and they’re still coming at us because of the confusion and disruption coming from Washington, D.C.,” Kotek said during the candidates’ third and final debate last week. “It’s just a fact. It’s upending who we are as a state and it is … making it harder for us to solve the problems that we have ahead of us.”

Passing the buck and pointing her finger is not exactly a message of triumph, uplift and achievement, but it may be enough to win Kotek a second term.

Grudgingly.

Lawyers for Janie and Joey Buss, two of the co-trustees of the Buss Family Trust that owns part of the Lakers, filed a response to Jeanie Buss’ petition Friday with intention to move forward with the proposed sale of the family’s remaining shares of the team.

While Jeanie is trying to block her five siblings from selling the team, the new response filed in L.A. Superior Court states that Janie and Joey, the two other co-trustees of the family trust, were authorized and required to implement the vote after a majority of the living siblings opted to terminate the trust in August. The vote of five siblings to sell the shares triggered the termination clause in the trust, and the filing argues that the trust doesn’t grant trustees discretion to disregard a valid vote to terminate.

The filing, which follows formal opposition filed on behalf of five Buss siblings last week that defended their right to vote to sell the team, asks the court to dismiss Jeanie’s petition or deny it in its entirety.

Jeanie argued that her siblings could not terminate the family trust and sell the remaining 17.82% of the team without her approval, citing a 2017 court order that instructed trustees to “take reasonably available steps” to support Jeanie’s annual election as Lakers controlling governor. The court order, obtained after Jeanie’s older brothers Jimmy and Johnny Buss tried to oust her from the organization, installed Janie and Joey as co-trustees.

But the court order did not prohibit a sale or termination of the trust, lawyers for Janie and Joey argue. While the order named “voting the trust’s shares” as a reasonable action, it did not require the trust to hold a 15% stake in the team to reach the NBA’s eligibility threshold for minority owners to serve on the league’s board of governors, the filing states.

Jeanie was selected by her father Jerry Buss to serve as the team’s controlling governor after his death in 2013.

Since the family patriarch bought the team, the Forum and the Kings for $67.5 million in 1979, the Lakers have become one of the most valuable brands in sports. Mark Walter, who purchased controlling ownership from the Buss siblings in 2025, sold his shares to venture capitalist Joshua Kushner and former Disney chief executive Bob Iger 14 months later at a record $12.5 billion valuation.

Using a tag-along provision secured during the sale to Walter, the five Buss siblings hope to maximize value for all six beneficiaries, including Jeanie, the new filing reports. Selling the 17.82% stake in the team would be worth about $2.2 billion.

A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8. The Lakers open the regular season on Oct. 21 against the Golden State Warriors at Crypto.com Arena. Jeanie was seen at the Lakers’ home preseason opener on Oct. 8, sitting courtside on the baseline.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is headed to New Hampshire this weekend to campaign for Democratic candidates in the November election, a continuation of his reconnaissance tour through swing states in preparation for a possible 2028 presidential run.

The trip follows voyages to other early primary voting states, including South Carolina in September and Nevada in July, that could be critical to his campaign if he officially joins the race.

“I think if your travel calendar aligns with the Democratic Party’s primary calendar, you’re probably running for president,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego.

It’s still too early for Newsom, or any other would-be presidential contender, to declare their candidacy, Kousser said, but the governor’s movements are typical of a politician who is “all in.”

“This is the clearest signal to voters, to donors, and to the chattering class that you’re willing to put in the hard yards, the years of on-the-ground campaigning, that it takes to do well in one of these primaries or caucuses,” he said.

Newsom isn’t alone.

A cadre of potential 2028 candidates, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, among others, is also deploying a similiar shadow campaign strategy and raising money for swing-state Democrats in the midterms.

The governor’s visit to New Hampshire comes after he raised a half of a million dollars for New Hampshire Democrats this election cycle. His fundraising supported a new field office for the state party in Nashua, where he’ll join gubernatorial candidate Cinde Warmington and Rep. Chris Pappas, who is vying against a Republican for the U.S. Senate, at a canvassing event on Saturday morning.

Newsom, Pappas and Warmington will appear at a second campaign event in Exeter together at 1 p.m. before Newsom heads to an early evening meet and greet with Stefany Shaheen, a House candidate, in Manchester.

After returning from New Hampshire, Newsom plans to participate in campaign events across California in support of Democrats in newly redistricted congressional seats.

The Harris campaign said she also plans to stump for Pappas in New Hampshire on Oct. 24. As she considers a third bid for the White House, Harris is visiting Nevada, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Georgia in the final days of the midterm election cycle.

Kousser said Harris’ schedule suggests she wants to keep her options open.

“These candidates are reaching out to the direct audience of voters, endorsers, and key leaders in those states, and they’re also trying to show the national audience that they have a fire in the belly and that they’re willing to put in the work,” he said.

While Newsom mirrors the moves of a presidential candidate, his comments have fueled speculation about whether he will ultimately run.

Newsom recently said that if Harris is in, he’s out.

The governor, who made similar statements in the past, said it would be “mutually-assured destruction” and there would be too much crossover between the two California political heavyweights, who would be vying for the same donors and supporters while offering a similar policy profile.

The governor has also said the decision lies with his family and that his four children need to be “on board.”

For the past eight years, a small group of influential Ventura County Republicans has played a pivotal role in the selection of every new judge in the Superior and Municipal courts.

Working out of the public eye, this little-known group of judicial advisers has helped pick almost half the judges now serving in the Ventura County courts–its recommendations almost always accepted by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The most influential of the advisers–according to several sources–is Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who has helped secure judicial appointments for nine assistant prosecutors out of the 11 judgeships that have opened up since Deukmejian’s election in 1982.

In addition to Bradbury’s input, three of the county’s top Republican Party stalwarts serve as an informal judicial screening panel for Deukmejian.

They are Paul Leavens of Ventura, former county campaign chairman for Deukmejian; Gwen Tillemans of Oxnard, county Republican chairwoman; and Katherine H. Haley of Ojai, a major Republican fund-raiser.

The four have helped give a conservative and prosecution-oriented shape to the county’s bench for years to come, but whether they will enjoy a similar advisory role in the administration of Republican Gov.-elect Pete Wilson remains to be seen.

Leavens, Tillemans and Haley say that, in the informal structure of the county panel’s makeup, they see themselves as a separate panel of political advisers to the governor that usually checks with Bradbury before making judicial recommendations to Deukmejian.

Leavens is among those who candidly admit that Bradbury is probably the most influential of Deukmejian’s local advisers, an opinion shared by many in the legal community.

“The district attorney in Ventura County, as I recall, is a very influential person,” said Charles Vogel, president of the California Bar Assn. “I think that he’s not shy about expressing his views and I think that he will endeavor to influence the composition of the court, since it’s important to him.”

“It is not sufficient for Kay Haley to say, ‘Gee, I’d like you to make Chuck Campbell a judge now,’ ” said Wendy Lascher, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., referring to Municipal Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.

“That’s how the governor gets the ideas for choosing who to nominate, and if it comes down to one or the other it makes a difference,” Lascher added. “I suspect Mike Bradbury has had more influence than the rest of those people put together.”

And Leavens conceded:

“I would never send a recommendation to the governor without checking with Mike. He’s probably the most influential one of all. He’s in and out of the courts. He knows who they are.”

Bradbury downplays his role in picking the county’s judges, insisting that the governor’s office consults the local district attorney on judicial openings in every county in California.

That statement is supported by Terry Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary, but disputed by a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in Los Angeles, a Democrat, who said Deukmejian never consults Reiner or any other Democratic head prosecutors around the state.

“I’m treated no differently than any other district attorney in the state . . . the governor’s office seeks our input and we provide it if we have the pertinent information,” Bradbury said. “The governor is clearly his own person when it comes to judge appointments and he does not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of others.”

Nonetheless, Bradbury said that all 11 judges appointed by Deukmejian in the last eight years were recommended by him during the initial review process, including the nine former prosecutors from Bradbury’s office.

All the judges are white, nine of the 11 are Republicans and all but one are men.

Deukmejian appointed five out of the 15 sitting Superior Court judges, including Robert C. Bradley in 1984 and Barbara A. Lane, Kenneth R. Yegan, Frederick A. Jones and Edwin M. Osborne in 1986. All were elevated from Municipal Court positions. Osborne, a Democrat, is now presiding Superior Court judge.

Deukmejian also installed half of the 12 Ventura County Municipal Court judges, including Democrat Herbert Curtis III in 1984, John R. Smiley in 1986, Barry B. Klopfer in 1987, Charles W. Campbell Jr. and Ken W. Riley in 1988 and Thomas J. Hutchins in 1989.

Lane and Smiley, the only non-prosecutors, were appointed from private practice.

Bradbury’s influence in the judicial selection process, especially the elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court, brought an expression of concern from one expert on legal ethics, Dean Gerald F. Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a conflict that should preclude him from serving on the committee, but I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Uelmen said. “The danger would be that a judge would be more reluctant to rule against the D.A. on an issue that comes before him, for fear that it would jeopardize his prospects for advancement.”

Bradbury retorted:

“Gerry’s comment is the typical BS that he throws out on this and every other issue where he takes a very pro-defense point of view. I’ve never had any judge try and curry favor with me for any reason.”

Bradbury said he has “a fairly combative relationship” with Ventura County’s judges who dislike the fact that his policy against plea bargaining forces 12% to 15% of cases to trial, compared with 5% to 7% in most other counties.

Bradbury vehemently insisted he is “not on any committee” and added that “my views do not carry the kind of weight people attribute to me.” He said that Deukmejian’s office also consults with Sheriff John V. Gillespie on some appointments. Gillespie was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Each of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees in Ventura County began the selection process by calling or being recommended by someone on the informal three-member review panel, Leavens said.

Panel members never meet to discuss their work, but they often call each other and Bradbury to confer on nominees, said Leavens, whose Ventura-based Leavens Ranches company owns more than 1,000 acres of citrus and avocado orchards in Ventura and Monterey counties.

Each sends a letter of recommendation to Deukmejian’s office only “after conversing with people that know these people and learning who is well-respected, who has a good reputation and who would not embarrass the governor,” Leavens said.

Haley, a third-generation Ventura County resident described by some as “Mrs. Republican” in Ventura County, said she agrees with Leavens’ description of their work.

“The gist of it is that when there were people who had contacted us that were interested in serving as a judge . . . we investigated whether they were qualified people who could do the job. We’d write a letter and send it to the governor,” Haley said. “He wouldn’t always take our suggestion.”

Bradbury said that party loyalties play no role in his recommendations to Deukmejian. As for the fact that nearly all of Ventura County’s judges are Republican, he said:

“I have a hunch it’s because people that go into law enforcement organizations, for example, prosecutors, tend to be Republican. But we’ve got our share of Democrats in the office.”

Although the three review panel members do not automatically reject Democrats, Leavens and Tillemans said they screen the legal records, family background and political views of potential nominees to make sure that they will hew to Republican philosophies.

“Through the years, we’ve had so many judges that were very lenient in so many ways . . . so we look for the good Republican principles,” Tillemans said. Asked to outline the principles that are reflected in nominees’ legal briefs and judicial rulings, she said, “It’s more government by the people than government for the people.”

However, the three said that they do not delve into nominees’ personal lives.

“The kind of people we were talking to were all law-abiding citizens that were well-known in the legal community. Besides, isn’t that against the law anyway?” Haley said. “I never had anybody talk to us that had murdered anybody or threw his wife downstairs.”

And Leavens said they do not concern themselves with the nominees’ drinking habits or marital fidelity. “I think those things you wouldn’t have to ask about. You’d hear about them from other sources. Anybody that wants to go up is essentially pretty clean.”

The process of settling on a recommendation can take four to six months, said Tillemans, who when not working for her party promotes housing developments for the Dolphin Group, a Los Angeles-based lobbying and public relations firm with strong Republican political connections.

“We go over their resumes and we recommend the ones who we think are suitable and then the governor’s appointment secretary looks over them and it goes to Deukmejian,” she said.

But before Deukmejian makes any appointment, each nominee is reviewed by the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, a panel of 20 lawyers and six lay people, which does extensive background checks.

The so-called Jenny Commission also reviews a seven-page questionnaire in which each nominee lists experience on the bench and at the bar, outlines political affiliations and personal history, and answers the question, “Why do you want to be a judge?”

Once that process ends, the commission rates each nominee as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified or “not ready for appointment at this time,” Flanigan said.

After reviewing the commission’s recommendations and letters on the nominees from local bar associations, the governor picks the nominee he feels is best suited for the slot, Flanigan said.

But this process could change in January–after what is sure to be a flurry of appointments by the outgoing Deukmejian–when Sen. Pete Wilson becomes governor, legal experts and Wilson associates agree.

Wilson has relied on an eight-member merit selection committee to make initial recommendations for federal judge appointments in the Central District of California. The panel included U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. District Judge William D. Keller and California Supreme Court Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who also served while a federal district judge.

Although critics on the federal bench challenged the propriety of letting federal judges help name their colleagues when the Wilson committee’s makeup was first revealed in 1986, the panel has continued to advise Wilson on federal judicial nominees. Federal judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of legislators.

And if Wilson’s taste in federal judges is any guide, his appointments to the state bench will differ to some degree from Deukmejian’s, said Vogel, the state bar association chief.

“It appears he is impressed with people who have good academic records,” Vogel said of Wilson. “If you look at his federal appointments, many of them were high achievers in college or law school.”

Vogel continued, “Deukmejian was the attorney general, he did work with prosecutors, he did work with government lawyers. He was pretty proud of them and felt somewhat in line with them and felt their expertise in government would fit them well in the bench.”

However, Wilson’s method of weeding out unwanted nominees probably will change for state appointees because state law requires nominees to be reviewed by the Jenny Commission, said John G. Davies, a San Diego lawyer who served as Wilson’s judicial selection adviser.

“Deukmejian and all the other governors in my lifetime have had local screening committees. I have no idea what Pete’s intentions are on that,” Davies said.

“We have over 4,000 judicial applications on file for Deukmejian,” Flanigan said. He predicted the lame-duck governor will fill many of the judicial vacancies before leaving office. “I think he’ll look at it as his greatest legacy.”

The retirement last week of Presiding Municipal Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. virtually guarantees that Deukmejian’s local advisers will have further impact on the bench before Wilson takes office.

The Jenny Commission already has pumped nominees through the pipeline and readied them for the governor’s final approval, and the local advisers have made their recommendations for new openings, Bradbury said.

“It’s my sense that Deukmejian will fill every opening that he has available before he leaves office because the judiciary was a very important issue for him,” Bradbury said.

Once Wilson takes office, he will find the California justice system far larger and more of a challenge–with 1,500 judgeships–than the federal system he is accustomed to, said Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary.

Flanigan, who has been asked to keep his job through the first year of Wilson’s term, said that relying on a fixed group of people for input “would not be reasonable,” even though “there are lawyers and non-lawyers who we may talk to in the Deukmejian or future Wilson administration.” The ideal situation, he said, “is to talk to as broad a group as possible.”

Flanigan said the work of local advisers such as Bradbury, Leavens, Tillemans and Haley is vital to selecting the nominees that his office sends to the Jenny Commission–that is, the nominees who have a shot at being appointed by the governor.

“Wilson will follow the same road as Deukmejian in appointing conservative judges,” Tillemans predicted, “and we’re on that governor’s council now.”

Leavens’ wife, Carolyn Leavens, who was chairwoman of Wilson’s campaign in Ventura County, said she made a recommendation on one of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees–a duty she would gladly repeat for Wilson.

Bradbury, who actively campaigned for Wilson this year, said he is uncertain what his role will be in helping the new governor select future Ventura County judges.

But he added, “I would hope that Sen. Wilson would continue to seek the input of local public officials.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The odds are against him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

In March 2025, when California ran out of Medicaid funds to pay doctors and hospitals, the state borrowed $3.4 billion to keep the program afloat. It was, as a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted, nothing new. Indeed, a handful of times over the years, the state had taken out internal, short-term loans to sustain its healthcare program for poor and disabled people.

The unprecedented move came a few months later, when Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers agreed to pay down the loan — which grew to $4.4 billion — over 10 years instead of later in the year. California’s healthcare safety net, it seemed, was buckling.

Rising healthcare costs systemwide were partly to blame. But so were several state-led expansions that made California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, one of the nation’s most generous.

Now, with congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, California and dozens of other states must contemplate the limits of their generosity. The problem is particularly acute in the nation’s most populous state, which spends more on Medicaid than New York and Texas combined.

“We know we can’t afford to serve everybody we want to serve in the model that we have today,” said Mark Ghaly, the former top Newsom health official who now co-chairs the Future of Medi-Cal Commission, a 29-person panel with the goal of modernizing and sustaining California’s Medicaid program for those who need it. “What can we do differently? What can we do smarter?”

The 2025 law that Newsom, a Democrat, has dubbed President Trump’s “Big Ugly Bill” is expected to leave millions more Americans without health insurance, mostly because of new work requirements. It also curbs the use of healthcare provider taxes and other strategies states have deployed to maximize federal funds. Some state lawmakers and consumer advocates have argued the federal cuts, along with rising costs, present an opportunity for the next governor to overhaul a program plagued by long appointment wait times, low reimbursement rates for healthcare providers, and volatile financing.

“If we continue to just give millions and millions into the same system and expect something different — I’m sick and tired of that,” said Caroline Menjivar, a Democratic state senator representing a Los Angeles-area district where roughly half of constituents rely on Medi-Cal.

Democratic lawmakers, who have often clashed with Newsom on Medi-Cal rollbacks, succeeded in getting him to delay a number of painful cuts until 2027 in hope that a new governor might reverse them.

So far, neither of the gubernatorial candidates running in the November election to replace Newsom has offered substantive proposals for a program that covers 1 in 3 Californians — roughly 13.6 million people.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, wants to pare back Medi-Cal eligibility and has promised to end coverage for immigrants without legal status, citing that benefit as an example of “wildly unsustainable” state spending. Democrat Xavier Becerra, who has spent decades trying to expand government-funded healthcare, has promised to protect Californians from the massive federal cuts and find and cut billions in administrative waste.

Expanding coverage

President Johnson signed the law that established Medicaid and Medicare in 1965 to cover certain low-income groups, such as families with children, older people and those with disabilities. Over the last six decades, states have substantially widened that pool, most notably under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion to childless adults.

Starting in 2024, California offered healthcare coverage to all low-income residents, regardless of age or immigration status, although lawmakers scaled that back this year. At the same time, the state opted to cover a slew of non-mandated benefits such as physical therapy, hospice care and housing assistance.

“California has always struggled with wanting to have as broad a program as possible but then having to figure out a way to pay,” said Jennifer Kent, who oversaw Medi-Cal under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat. “There is no population that we have met that we don’t want to offer coverage to, and we’ve never met a benefit that we don’t like.”

Since 2010, California’s Medi-Cal enrollment has nearly doubled while spending has ballooned from $50 billion a year to $222 billion. It now makes up more than 40% of overall state spending, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Conservatives argue the program is bloated and rife with fraud. They say the federal changes will force states to refocus resources on the neediest.

“The role of the safety net programs was just that — to be a safety net,” Hilton said in an interview. “I don’t think it’s a particularly positive boast to say 40% of Californians should be on a program that was designed for people living in poverty.”

Becerra declined an interview request.

Nelly, a 59-year-old from Los Angeles County, was one of millions who have benefited from the state’s Medi-Cal expansion, but she was initially reluctant to sign up.

For years after she left her corporate job to care for her ailing mother, Nelly said, she didn’t consider applying. She remained uninsured until three years ago, when she woke up and couldn’t see out of her left eye.

She enrolled in Medi-Cal in the emergency room. It now covers her appointments with specialists and transportation to and from. While her condition may exempt her from the new Medicaid work requirements, Nelly said, she’s still worried about losing coverage after experiencing numerous paperwork hiccups simply trying to renew.

Nelly, who asked that her full name not be used because she hasn’t told her family about her condition, said she understands not everyone on the program may need it. But, she added, “it should be there for someone like me.”

Tough choices ahead

When Republican state lawmakers got wind of Newsom’s plan to stretch the debt repayment over a decade, they accused Democrats of trying to “paper over” the state’s structural deficit.

“This leaves future governors and legislatures to clean up the mess,” stated a July 2025 memo from GOP senators. The Legislative Analyst’s Office later called the maneuver “unusual.” That could leave Becerra, the favorite to succeed Newsom in the overwhelmingly liberal state, as the face of staggering changes to a program he spent his career defending.

More than 2 million Californians under age 65 could lose health coverage over the next four years as a result of the state and federal policy changes, according to recent estimates by the UC Berkeley Labor Center and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. At least 730,000 residents have already disenrolled since June 2025.

State agencies are scrambling to implement new federal work requirement rules for adult Medicaid enrollees under 65, hoping to automate as much verification as possible to blunt coverage losses. And in 2028, states will be required to charge some enrollees fees for many services, making it harder for them to maintain coverage.

Disability rights activists say new asset limits will prevent Californians from getting needed home care, which they say is more cost-effective and humane than nursing homes. Counties, deemed by state law to be healthcare providers of last resort, say they need immediate funding for the millions of uninsured patients they anticipate in the new year.

Hospital administrators have urged policymakers to help them keep their facilities stable, and the state’s most recent budget included some $390 million to assist public and distressed hospitals.

Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles treats five times the patients it was designed to serve, and 80% of patients are uninsured or on Medi-Cal. Demand is so high in the chronically underserved area, MLK Community Healthcare CEO Elaine Batchlor said, that the hospital has erected tents in the parking lot. Most emergency room patients are now treated there.

“We already have an extremely overcrowded, overburdened emergency department,” MLK Community Healthcare CEO Elaine Batchlor said. “Insured care will turn into uncompensated care, and the financial burden for that will fall on providers.”

Becerra has said he opposes the state’s recent freeze on enrollment for adult immigrants without legal status, as well as new monthly premiums set to take effect next year, saying such moves will only saddle taxpayers with higher bills for ER care.

If elected, Becerra will probably need to wade into the politically toxic debate over whether to raise more revenue, cut benefits further, or do both.

Aside from promising to find and eliminate billions in administrative waste from the industry, the nation’s former top health official has not explained how he would cobble together the tens of billions of dollars the state is likely to need just to maintain status quo.

The next governor must tread carefully, Kent warned. “When people come and say, ‘Well, you should just do this because it’s the right thing,’ ” she said, “all of those right things have fiscal consequences.”

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

The five Buss siblings who voted to sell the family’s shares of the Lakers filed their formal opposition to team governor Jeanie Buss’ attempts to block the sale on Wednesday, calling Jeanie’s petition “legally and factually baseless” in a statement provided to The Times.

“While discussions among the siblings continue, their focus remains on facilitating the proposed transaction and the Trust’s participation in it, while ensuring that all beneficiaries, including Jeanie, are treated equally,” Jimmy, Johnny, Janie, Joey and Jesse Buss said in the statement.

“Today’s filing is a necessary step to protect those interests and ensure the transaction proceeds on schedule.”

The five siblings voted in August to include the family’s 17.82% of the team in the sale from Dodgers controlling owner Mark Walter to Joshua Kushner and Bob Iger. Jeanie immediately opposed her siblings’ vote, saying that the transaction would breach the family trust that states she and her co-trustees Janie and Joey must take reasonably available actions to maintain Jeanie’s role as the controlling governor of the team “on an annual basis during [her] lifetime.”

If the Buss Family Trust sells its remaining shares, Jeanie would be ineligible to serve on the board of governors because the NBA requires governors to own at least 15% of the franchise. Although the Buss family ended its more than 40 years of majority ownership of the team in 2025 by selling to Walter at a then-record $10-billion valuation, Jeanie was to remain the controlling governor for at least five years.

Jeanie and her attorneys filed a petition in L.A. Superior Court about two weeks after her siblings’ vote in which she argued their plan was void.

The siblings’ formal opposition claims Jeanie is attempting to prevent the sale “in order to protect her own personal interests” and her actions “constitute a breach of her fiduciary duties as a trustee.” The siblings believe that with five votes to sell, they have the right to proceed with their plan to sell the shares and distribute the proceeds because they have a two-thirds majority of the living children, as outlined in the trust.

With the latest sale from Walter to Kushner and Iger valued at $12.5 billion, a 17.82% share would be worth approximately $2.2 billion for the Buss siblings.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has said the woman at the centre of the Cornell University rape case was “failed” at “every turn”.

The woman, known as Jane Doe in legal documents, alleges she was drugged and raped by several men at a fraternity house in 2024.

The case was investigated at the time but no charges were laid. It recently reopened after the woman filed a civil lawsuit last month that thrust the allegations into the national spotlight.

At a news conference on Friday, Hochul said she was “deeply disturbed” by how the investigation was handled. She has now appointed New York Attorney General Letitia James to lead the case.

This appointment was made after Hochul said she “lost faith” in the local prosecutor’s ability to oversee the investigation.

Expressing outrage that local prosecutors did not interview the accuser themselves, Hochul on Friday said: “This young woman had already endured something that is utterly unspeakable, and then at every turn she was failed by people and institutions with an obligation to protect her.”

She has also vowed to close a “loophole” that prevents prosecutors from pursuing rape charges in cases when the victim has voluntarily consumed drugs or alcohol. Jane Doe is believed to have voluntarily taken drugs and alcohol on the night of the alleged gang rape.

“If someone is too intoxicated to consent it should not matter if they chose to use drugs or alcohol,” said Hochul, adding: “Voluntary intoxication is not a licence for gang rape.”

James, who is the state’s chief legal officer, appeared alongside Hochul at Friday’s news conference, pledging to “lead a process guided by the facts and the law”.

She said her office would interview witnesses and pursue prosecutions if warranted.

District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, who previously led the investigation, has defended his office’s previous decision not to file charges in the case, arguing they were not given enough evidence to meet the legal threshold.

Van Houten said much of the information released in recent weeks about the case was not passed to his office.

In a statement on Friday, he said he supported James’ investigation, adding: “It has become clear that we were not provided the full picture by the university.”

Cornell has said it provided evidence to the district attorney’s office from its own investigation, including a Snapchat group chat in which fraternity members discussed a “free” sexual encounter with Doe on the night of the alleged assault.

Oct. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

California’s general election takes place on November 3. Here is information Times reporters gathered about the races:

L.A. mayor election

L.A. City Council elections

Other L.A. city elections

Community college elections

L.A. County elections

Judge elections

Governor’s race

California statewide propositions

Other statewide races

U.S. House elections

How to vote

Follow more election coverage

SACRAMENTO — Days after signing a package of bills to rebuff aspects of federal immigration enforcement in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills from Los Angeles lawmakers that targeted public employment for federal agents.

One of the bills, backed by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), would have blocked agents and contractors who worked to enforce federal immigration laws from state and local jobs in California, including for law enforcement agencies. It was called the “Get the Feds Out” or “GTFO” Act.

Newsom said the bill goes “a step too far.”

“It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration’s policies and tactics reprehensible,” the governor wrote in a veto letter to the Legislature made public on Wednesday.

The governor added that hiring for public employment already includes personal conduct evaluations. He emphasized the “horrific tactics” used by immigration agents during President Trump’s second term but said it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the administration and individual agents accountable.

Newsom signed a similar bill that prevents federal agents from becoming police in California if their federal badge was revoked for misconduct.

While he expressed disappointment in the veto, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), the author of Assembly Bill 1896, applauded Newsom for signing “a strong package of legislation that will protect Californians and stand up for our immigrant communities.”

“From the beginning, the GTFO Act was about a simple principle: We should never use public dollars to reward conduct that has caused fear, terror, and pain in our communities. I am proud to have stood alongside my brother, Speaker Rivas, in this fight and this fight is not over,” Gonzalez said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Rivas said while the proposal did not become law, “Californians know Trump’s immigration agenda is failing and doesn’t keep anyone safe. That’s why Assembly Democrats are leading the nation in holding ICE accountable. The Speaker thanks his colleagues for delivering real results this year.”

The outgoing governor also vetoed a proposal from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City), Assembly Bill 1537, that would have prevented sworn law enforcement officers from taking secondary employment or contract jobs for immigration enforcement.

Newsom took issue with the prospect of prohibiting “secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time.”

“State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct,” Newsom wrote in the veto letter. “Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.”

Bryan, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the veto.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed 21 bills aimed at federal immigration enforcement, including bans on electric shock gloves and face coverings for law enforcement. Other laws impose a 25% tax on companies that operate private detention centers, along with additional oversight of the facilities.

“No tax will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make California safe again,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email. “While California sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make California safe again.”

The California I grew up in had its pluses and minuses, just like the state I’m living in now.

But consider this:

In 1974, I wrote a check for a semester of college.

The fee was $98.

That was the cost of registration, by the way. Tuition for in-state residents was free at San José State University and other public universities in California. The state’s leaders believed subsidized higher education would serve the greater good and seed economic growth.

Two years after graduating, I was working as a sportswriter for a small Bay Area newspaper. My spouse was a drug store clerk. Together we made less than $20,000 a year.

And we bought a brand-new house, 45 minutes east of Oakland, for just under $50,000.

In a thousand ways, we’re living in a different California today. Tuition and fees for a semester on a Cal State campus now run about $4,500, and the average mid-tier home costs about $775,000 in some places and far more in others, which is out of reach for nearly 80% of working people.

So as I watched the gubernatorial debate Wednesday night between the two men who want to lead us into the future, I was wondering which California is better in terms of hope, opportunity and livability?

The one I was born in during the postwar boom, or the one we’re living in now?

There’s no easy answer. The California of my youth was more affordable, but it was no utopian dreamscape. Housing discrimination and segregation were deep-seated, and the Los Angeles sky was the color of swamp water.

In the last half of the 20th century, California went on to become a global leader in technology, aerospace, the arts and healthcare, and its investment in public education helped build an economic superpower. Even the air got cleaned up, to a degree.

But for all of California’s riches and unrivaled natural beauty, it’s fair to say things are out of whack at the moment. How is it that the world’s fourth-largest economy also has the nation’s highest poverty rate?

There’s a flotilla of yachts, but millions of have-nots, and enough homeless people to fill stadiums. If we’re so progressive, and swimming in more venture capital than the rest of the nation combined, why are the masses crippled by a housing shortage and the high cost of living, and why did we build a soaring higher education model while letting our once exalted K-12 system sink in national rankings?

If California weren’t so lopsidedly blue, Republican candidate Steve Hilton might get a little more traction with a campaign built around the idea that there’s an easy explanation for the state’s misery of problems: Democrats have been in charge for years, they’ve mucked things up, and Xavier Becerra is yet another textbook California liberal who will stay the course.

“It’s impossible for regular working people to live in this state anymore,” Hilton charged during the debate, calling out over-regulation, the high cost of living, the housing shortage and a homelessness problem that “shames” our state. “And all you’re offering,” Hilton continued, “is more of the same, backed by the same corrupt machine in Sacramento.”

Becerra, meanwhile, kept handcuffing Hilton to President Trump, a good move, given that the president has helped launch an idiotic war, gummed up the economy, and seen his favorability plummet.

Hilton is not entirely off base, although there’s no evidence he has plausible solutions.

What he doesn’t tell you is that other states have their own problems, many of which have more to do with global economic forces — and President Trump’s war-mongering and tariff tirades — than with public policy decisions at the state level.

When I was a lad, my father drove a milk truck, and then a bread truck, and then he sold candy and tobacco for a wholesale distributor based in Oakland, near the Coliseum, where he’d take me to A’s games but save a few bucks by parking next to the railroad tracks a half-mile away from the parking lot.

His jobs were mostly unionized. Unions were plentiful in the private sector back then. My family saved up for a house while we lived in an apartment, and then I paid next to nothing for a college degree.

The boldness of that idea — a free education at an elite university, with a lofty if unfulfilled goal of equal access for all — is still a testament to California’s long-ago grand ambition, even if Gov. Ronald Reagan eventually ended free tuition.

In her new book, “California Dreams: The Making and Remaking of the University of California,” Miriam Pawel references a quote from UC Berkeley alum Joan Didion, who called the system “the most coherent expression of the California possibility.”

The staircase I climbed was the essence of what USC professor Natalia Molina called “the infrastructure” of upward mobility. In her immigrant family, her grandmother established an Echo Park restaurant that Molina wrote a book about — “A Place at the Nayarit” — and her mother ran the bar there after attending bartending school.

Molina went to UCLA, and is now both a MacArthur Foundation fellow (the “genius” grant) and a Guggenheim fellow.

“There’s not that same path for upward mobility,” Molina said. “But there sure seems to be a path for downward mobility.”

That brings me back to the economy, and lessons I learned in 2018, when I spent several weeks in and around Telfair Elementary School in Pacoima, looking into why nearly a quarter of the students were homeless.

The answer? Several once-bustling manufacturing and aerospace companies in the area had shut down. The new economy was fast food and big box stores. Pay dropped; housing prices spiked. It was a snapshot of a changing world — one we haven’t yet adapted to.

Modern politics is not built to foster long-term thinking about such challenges, said longtime political strategist Darry Sragow.

“What are the dreams, what are the aspirations, where do you want to go?” said Sragow, who doesn’t know the answers but would like to at least hear the questions. “I keep looking for somebody who will do that.”

Agoura Hills resident and attorney Dan Douglass, 80, who detests President Trump and isn’t a fan of Hilton, told me that as a moderate Republican, he feels like “a man without a party.” But he is not without an answer to California’s housing problem.

“They’ve made it too complicated to build anything,” Douglass said. “Too many permits. Too much time to build.”

He is not wrong.

Samuel Trachtman, a political scientist with the UC Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative, argues that despite recent legislative progress on the housing crisis, state policies are restricting growth and making California more unaffordable.

“California must reduce regulatory costs that fall disproportionately on low- and middle-income residents,” Trachtman wrote in a recent four-part analysis.

“The state has “long led the nation in regulations promoting safety, sustainability, and quality,” he went on. “These policies can produce strong benefits. But they can also drive up the cost of essentials — costs that hit the poor hardest. This amounts to regressively funded progressivism.”

California was, and is, a work in progress, richly endowed and deeply flawed. Fixing complicated problems isn’t easy, but what I’d like to see from the next governor is more of the striving, imagination and sense of collective purpose that made California great.

There’s no way and no reason to go back to the state of my youth, but Trachtman had a thought about where to go next.

“In some ways we can use the past as a model,” he told me. “But in other ways we need to be more innovative and think about charting a path forward.”

Toward the most coherent expression of the California possibility.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton debated for 60 minutes Wednesday night on a soundstage in Burbank. Times columnists Gustavo Arellano, Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak watched the gubernatorial match-up and weigh in.

Arellano: Steve Hilton came in with next to no chance of becoming the next California governor, but maybe if he focused on touting the feel-good messages he’s been spouting since launching his campaign in front of the Huntington Beach Pier earlier this year — Make California Gold Again! Califordable! I’m a Legal Immigrant with a British Accent! — he might’ve convinced at least a few voters to go with him.

Instead, Hilton debated like someone already preparing to launch a podcast or beg for his old Fox News job back after he gets walloped. When your solution for solving California’s housing crisis is building 10 new cities, you’re not running for California governor — you’re angling for an influencer job with the Irvine Co.

He whined and grumbled and grinned and quoted someone calling Becerra a “bitch ass,” which would’ve been a funny dig if he wasn’t running to run the greatest state on Earth. Hilton is charming in person, in the way all British people inevitably, initially come off as to Americans, and he has traveled to every California county — and especially to Latino-majority cities. He should’ve shared some of the many stories of hardship that I’m assuming he’s heard over the last year.

Nope! Instead, Hilton attacked Becerra again and again — why? California is a super-blue state, Latino Trump supporters notwithstanding, so Hilton should’ve tried to at least offer a reason for voters to choose him instead of saying — not completely inaccurately — that the problems Californians deal with are the fault of Democrats.

But blaming the other side only gets you so far — just ask Democrats how it worked out with them in 2024.

“We’ve got to try something different,” Hilton said in his concluding remarks. Californians agree — and his name is Xavier Becerra, who last I heard isn’t Gavin Newsom, no matter how much the California GOP is trying to convince people otherwise.

Becerra, meanwhile, didn’t offer much in terms of vision, mostly because he played defense most of the evening. But he didn’t have a major flub, except maybe raising a CNN coffee cup a few too many times. Why, Becerra sometimes even smiled — proof that he’s not some Chicano automaton. He hasn’t agreed to any more debates with Hilton — but after this blowout, Becerra should take the both of them on the road to make Hilton the next John Cox.

Chabria: Becerra came out as more of a fighter than we’ve seen before, even in the earlier Democratic debates. He held his own against Hilton, who is a skilled orator and attacker with a pointed wit and slick accent. But please, for the love of God, Hilton, button that shirt. This is not a casino.

Becerra was the clear winner, and to be honest, Hilton — usually a nimble pugilist — came across flat too much of the time. Maybe he’s already signed his Fox contract, as Gustavo suggests.

But Becerra also failed to lay out any kind of vision for the future of California. He did a good job of fending off Hilton’s attacks, but never told us what a vote for him will bring to the average Californian. There was some talk about housing, about protecting health insurance, but no big picture of what the California Dream of the future is and how we deliver it for the next generation.

I walked away from this debate certain that Hilton hadn’t gained a single voter, and equally certain Becerra hadn’t lost one. But also certain that Californians are rightfully disenchanted with this political moment because it offers little for the people who are voting. Becerra is going to ghost-coast into leading the most powerful state in the nation, and none of us will know what that will mean or why we should care one way or another.

Yes, there is a strong Legislature that will certainly keep the next governor focused on Democratic priorities. But what Becerra stands for remains a mystery that only the next four years will reveal. Let’s hope it has to do with our collective well-being.

Barabak: Xavier Becerra walked onto Wednesday’s debate stage as the overwhelming favorite to become California’s next governor.

Becerra exited the stage a little over an hour later, still the overwhelming favorite to become California’s next governor.

As the Democratic nominee in a state where Democrats enjoy big numerical, structural and political advantages — and have for decades — Becerra needed only to show up at CNN’s Burbank studio, field some questions alongside Hilton and avoid a Bidenesque disaster. (Even that might not have mattered.)

It was an exceedingly low bar, and one Becerra easily surmounted.

He was authoritative, crisp and kept on the offense most of the night, which raises the question of why his campaign handlers have been sheltering him up to now. Yes, it did get a bit repetitive when the Democrat’s response to so many questions amounted to: Trump, Trump, Trump! But that’s hardly surprising in a state where the president is about as popular as $6-a-gallon gas and $10-a-pound hamburger.

What was surprising was Hilton’s failure to do more to unshackle himself from the ball-and-chain sitting in the White House.

He allowed a smidgen of daylight here and there, but not enough to doff the MAGA mantle Becerra has draped around him. If anything, Hilton yoked himself even closer to Trump, sounding at times like his wacky Health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr,. as he talked about vaccines — Hilton said he was for them, but also favored more parental discretion — and re-litigated masking and other pandemic policies from the Biden administration.

Hilton’s most effective moments came when he asked why unhappy California voters should expect anything different if they keep electing Democrats. Not an unreasonable question. Trump Lite, however, doesn’t seem like the remedy most are looking for.

Little to nothing seems likely to change as a result of Wednesday night’s encounter. Still, it was important to give California voters an opportunity to take the measure of the two gubernatorial hopefuls side by side and hear — in something more than a 30-second commercial — how they would lead the state.

It’s far more probable than not Becerra will be the candidate voters choose on Nov. 3. But for those who don’t like Becerra’s vision, his record, Democratic affiliation or, heck, his glasses or salt-and-pepper hair, Hilton offered an alternative — albeit more of a grouchy one than the happy warrior who’s appeared on the campaign trail.

Hilton gave it his best shot. Becerra ably deflected him.