majority

Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Pride Puppy” into the staid public record of the nation’s highest court.

The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court’s three liberals dissented.

As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County’s new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in its entirety.

Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case:

Pride Puppy
Author: Robin Stevenson
Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin

Book “Pride Puppy” published by Orca Book Publishers.

(Orca Book Publishers)

“Pride Puppy,” a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade.

Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the “invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘lip ring,’ ‘[drag] king’ and ‘[drag] queen,’ and ‘Marsha P. Johnson,’ a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.”

The “leather” in question refers to a mother’s jacket, and the “underwear” to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit.

The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching “Pride Puppy” in the midst of the legal battle.

Love, Violet
Author: Charlotte Sullivan Wild
Illustrator: Charlene Chua

Book “Love Violet” published by macmillan publishers.

(macmillan)

The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who “had a leaping laugh” and “made Violet’s heart skip.” But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet.

On Valentine’s Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together.

Lawyers for the parents describe “Love, Violet” as a book about “two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.” They wrote in that “teachers are encouraged to have a ‘think aloud’ moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just ‘like’ but ‘like like’ someone.”

Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope
Author: Jodie Patterson
Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow

Book “Born Ready” published by Random House.

(Random House)

In “Born Ready,” 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy.

“I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,” Penelope tells their mom. “We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,” Penelope’s mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate.

In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, “When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, ‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’ ”

In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that “teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people ‘guess about our gender,’ but ‘we know ourselves best.’ ”

Prince and Knight
Author: Daniel Haack
Illustrator: Stevie Lewis

“Prince and Knight” is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback.

When the king and queen find out of their love, they “were overwhelmed with joy. ‘We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!’ ” A great wedding is held, and “the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.”

“The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,” said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong.

“For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,” Alito wrote. “If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn’t that mean it is in every respect a good thing?”

Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
Author: Sarah S. Brannen
Illustrator: Lucia Soto

In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union.

In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that “two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they ‘love each other.’ ” That viewpoint is “directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.” Parents ability to “present a different moral message” to their children, he said, “is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”

In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, “Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.”

The majority’s analysis, she writes, “reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.”

Jacob’s Room to Choose
Author: Sarah Hoffman and Ian Hoffman
Illustrator: Chris Case

Book “Jacob’s Room To Choose” published by Magination Press.

(Magination Press)

“Jacob’s Room to Choose” is a follow-up to “Jacob’s New Dress,” a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.‘s top 100 banned books of the last decade.

Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy’s bathroom, two little boys “stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.” The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl’s bathroom.

Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors.

“After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim ‘Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny’ and ‘[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,’ ” lawyers for the parents wrote.

IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi
Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith

Book “IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All” published by Dottir Press.

(Dottir Press)

“IntersectionAllies,” written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, “My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.”

In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: “When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.” The guide asks readers, “What pronouns fit you best?” Alito wrote.

What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns
Author: Katherine Locke
Illustrator: Anne Passchier

“What Are Your Words” is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are “like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that’s ok, because they’re my words.” Ari’s Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them.

“The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,” the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, “My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.”

My Rainbow
Author: DeShanna Neal and Trinity Neal
Illustrator: Art Twink

“My Rainbow” tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. “The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,” lawyers for the parents wrote.

The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching “My Rainbow” during the course of the lawsuit.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

The Los Angeles Lakers, a family-run business since Jerry Buss purchased the franchise in 1979, will be sold to Dodgers controlling owner Mark Walter and TWG Global, according to multiple people briefed on the deal.

The deal is expected to occur with the Lakers’ valuation being about $10 billion — a record for a professional sports franchise.

Walter will now lead the city’s two premier professional sports teams.

Control of the Lakers went into a family trust after Buss died in 2013, with daughter Jeanie Buss operating as the team’s governor. The structure of the trust meant the majority of Buss’ six children — Johnny, Jim, Jeanie, Janie, Joey and Jess — would need to agree for a sale to occur.

The Lakers didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The sale was viewed as a massive surprise in NBA circles.

Jeanie Buss reportedly will remain _{governor under the terms of the sale. All controlling governors representing teams in league meetings need to own at least 15% of the franchise to serve. The Buss family owned 66%.}

The sale will end family-run control of the Lakers, who have achieved incredible success — 11 NBA championships earned by some of the league’s most iconic figures, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James — under Buss and his children’s leadership.

“I know that my sister Jeanie would have only considered selling the Lakers organization to someone she knows and trusts would carry on the Buss legacy, started by her father Dr. Buss. Now she can comfortably pass the baton to Mark Walter, with whom she has a real friendship and can trust,” Magic Johnson wrote in a post on X.

“She’s witnessed him build a winning team with the Dodgers and knows that Mark will do right by the Lakers team, organization, and fans! Both are extremely intelligent, visionaries, great leaders, and have positively impacted the greater Los Angeles community! I love both my sister @JeanieBuss and my business partner Mark Walter.”

In March, Bill Chisholm purchased the Boston Celtics from Wyc Grousbeck for $6.1 billion. Mark Cuban sold his control of the Dallas Mavericks late in 2023 for $3.5 billion.

And earlier that year, Marc Lasry sold the Milwaukee Bucks for $3.5 billion. Grousbeck and Cuban were two of Jeanie Buss’ closest confidantes among league ownership.

Walter and Todd Boehly became the Lakers’ largest minority shareholders in 2021 when they bought 27% of the franchise — a stake previously held by Phil Anschutz.

“The Los Angeles Lakers are one of the most successful and admired franchises in sports history,” Walter said in a news release at the time. “I have watched the organization grow under Jeanie’s leadership and couldn’t be more excited to partner with her and the entire management team. I am committed to supporting the franchise’s iconic status by continuing to bring together culture, community and entertainment to Lakers’ fans.”

Walter was a relatively anonymous billionaire in 2012, when Johnson and Stan Kasten were the marquee partners in the purchase of of the Dodgers for $2 billion, then the largest price paid for a Major League Baseball team.

Critics scoffed at the purchase price, but Walter and Boehly then negotiated a record $8.35-billion local television deal with Time Warner Cable. Sportico this year valued the Dodgers at $7.73 billion and estimated that they generated $1 billion in revenue last year, highlighted by the global economic boost they gained from signing Shohei Ohtani to a record $700-million contract.

The Dodgers also won the World Series last year, their second championship and fourth World Series appearance in the last eight years. In the 13 seasons since Walter and his group bought the Dodgers, the team has posted a winning record every year. In that same 13-season span, the Lakers have one championship, one NBA Finals appearance and six winning records.

After buying the Dodgers, Walter and Boehly explored buying AEG, the entertainment giant that owns the Kings and Crypto.com Arena. Walter subsequently bought the Sparks, invested in the Lakers and launched a professional women’s hockey league in which the championship trophy is called the Walter Cup.

If the Dodgers’ purchase is any indication, Walter might not make an immediate flurry of changes with the Lakers. After he bought the Dodgers, he retained general manager Ned Colletti through the 2014 season before replacing him with Andrew Friedman.

The beloved O’Malley family sold the Dodgers before the turn of the century, saying the economics of professional sports had exploded beyond the means of families with no other significant source of income.

Under Walter, the Dodgers have not only raised their payroll to record levels but invested heavily in areas that they believe help deliver a winner, from a vaunted analytics department to dietitians for their major and minor league players and expanded clubhouses with the latest in hydrotherapy. The owners also have invested more than $500 million into renovating Dodger Stadium, adding modern amenities to a 63-year-old ballpark.

The Lakers, whose minority owners include Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, are entering a critical moment in the franchise’s history. James, the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, has a $53-million player option that he needs to either accept or decline by June 29. If he declines, he’d be an unrestricted free agent.

The team also is trying to sign Luka Doncic, who it acquired in a shocking trade last February, to a massive contract extension functionally making him the future face of the franchise. He’s eligible to sign an extension on Aug. 2.

Times staff writer Jack Harris contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight.

In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win.

Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against “any individual” who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.

The law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience.

Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation.

But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to “background circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims.

This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals.

But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide.

Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump’s drive to rid the government of DEI policies.

Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people.

In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, “we said that ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.’”

A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, “holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”

Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “majority” in the workplace differs by workplace.

“Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”

“Defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.”

The court’s ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames’ claim of discrimination.

Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others.

“As a practical matter, more ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,” said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York.

Although the decision doesn’t significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington.

The “background circumstances” rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that “it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”

Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the “opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ approach was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.”

Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and “pretty straightforward” perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.

And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said.

There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn’t expect any issues.

“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,” McGinnis said. “The short answer is, it should not change much.”

Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.

A majority of Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders voted against the 2024 compensation package given to Chief Executive David Zaslav and other executives at the company’s annual meeting Monday, according to a regulatory filing.

Almost 60% of the votes cast came in against the 2024 executive pay package at the company, according to a regulatory filing Tuesday. The vote is nonbinding.

In a statement, the board said it “takes the results of the annual advisory vote on executive compensation seriously,” adding it “looks forward to continuing its regular practice of engaging in constructive dialog with our shareholders.”

Zaslav, 65, earned $51.9 million last year in salary, stock awards and other compensation. Shares of Warner Bros. declined 7.1% in 2024, while the S&P 500 index gained 23%.

Warner Bros. reported first-quarter financial results that missed Wall Street’s estimates last month. The company recently reorganized into two business units, fueling speculation it may split off cable TV networks like CNN and TNT into a separate company. The entertainment giant took a $9.1 billion writedown to reflect the declining value of its traditional TV networks last year.

Zaslav, who merged Discovery with WarnerMedia in 2022 to create Warner Bros. Discovery, has drawn criticism during his tenure as CEO. He recently changed the name of the company’s Max streaming service back to HBO Max after an unsuccessful brand overhaul. The company also announced it is launching a new online video service built around CNN, three years after canceling the short-lived CNN+ streaming service.

Miller writes for Bloomberg.

News and social media feeds inundate us with dramatic scenes of immigration policing. Viral videos of immigrant mothers picked up on sidewalks near their homes, news accounts of ICE agents showing up in Los Angeles schools and social media posts of U.S. citizens detained by government agents, all create a frightening spectacle. President Trump fuels the fear by trolling immigrant communities with sinister Valentine cards, dangling self-deportation incentives and implementing a chaotic enforcement strategy that ignores attempts at judicial oversight. Amid all this, many look to state and local leaders for calm, reassurance and support.

In California, there remains a simple and consistent response. No matter who, when, where or how you ask, a commanding majority of registered voters in the Golden State support a path to citizenship for those in the state without proper documents. In other words, across the partisan aisle, and across all kinds of different groups and places, most voters see a path to citizenship as a much-needed policy fix, even now.

In August of 2024, a few months before the presidential election, the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll asked more than 4,000 voters across the state whether they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who come forward, are up to date on their taxes, and pass a background check.”

At that time, the Harris and Trump campaigns were in full swing. Harris’ team had already held a few news conferences at the border, insinuating that increased border security would be top of mind in her administration. Meanwhile, Trump continued his usual discourse about immigrants, once infamously contending that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” It was difficult to see who, if anyone, felt sympathy toward community members who’d entered the country without authorization or overstayed a visa, despite the fact that many of them had raised new generations of American citizens and contributed to public coffers and local job markets.

But even back in August, 80% of California registered voters who answered the poll supported a path to citizenship. This included close to 60% of polled Republicans, 75% of independents and even 56% of those who intended to vote for Trump. It also included 75% of those who earned a high school degree or less, 80% of those who earned a college degree or more, 80% of women, 78% of men, 75% of homeowners and 84% of those under 40. Among the strongest supporters were Democrats, with 91% support, as well as middle- and high-income earners, and those who lived in the Bay Area. Across most categories, a commanding majority of California voters expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.

But that was then, before the onslaught. Before the viral videos, the renditions to El Salvador, the offer of cash to self-deport. One could argue that in those before-times, perhaps voters were somehow more sympathetic to immigrants because they were distracted by other issues, like the price of eggs and groceries or broader inflation issues. And perhaps some might not have believed that Trump would actually follow through on his attacks on immigrant communities.

So in early May the Berkeley IGS Poll asked survey respondents again about their support for a path to citizenship. This time we polled more than 6,000 registered California voters and we inserted a small survey experiment. We were curious about whether respondents’ support in August had been so strong because the question they were asked included language about a “background check,” an idea that might have primed them to think about “good” and “bad” immigrants and may have inadvertently linked unauthorized status to crime. So for half of all respondents in May, we asked the same question again, but for the second half of respondents, we omitted this language, simply asking if they would support or oppose a “path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are working or going to school and are up to date on their taxes.”

Our survey found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The vast majority of California voters think a path to citizenship is simply the right thing to do, background check or not.

Moreover, we found virtually no differences from August to May. Eighty percent of registered voters this month, including close to 60% of Republicans, continued to support a path to citizenship. Somewhere between 70% and 85% of every demographic, including respondents under 40, those over 65, those of different racial groups, those in unions, those that rent their homes, those that own their homes, men, women, those in the Central Valley, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire and even those on the far North Coast all expressed support for a path to citizenship. The consistency is resounding.

If you’re trying to make sense of the bombast and the whirlwind of executive and law enforcement actions directed at immigrants, remember the one thing that unites a commanding majority of California voters, almost without regard to who we are and where we live, an understanding that good policy is practical policy: Undocumented community members deserve relief.

State and local leaders do not design federal immigration policy, but they should remember this poll data as they make decisions about how to support us all. If it were put to a vote, an overwhelming majority of Californians would support immigration reform, not mass deportation.

G. Cristina Mora and Nicholas Vargas are professors at UC Berkeley affiliated with the Institute of Governmental Studies, where Mora serves as co-director.

Portugal’s ruling centre-right Democratic Alliance (AD) is poised to win the most votes in an early parliamentary election, but is short of a full majority, exit polls have shown, paving the way for more political instability in the country.

Sunday’s election, the third in as many years, was called just one year into the minority government’s term after Prime Minister Luis Montenegro failed to win a parliamentary vote of confidence in March when the opposition questioned his integrity over the dealings of his family’s consultancy firm.

Montenegro has denied any wrongdoing, and most opinion polls showed that voters have dismissed the opposition’s criticism.

The election, also dominated by issues such as housing and immigration, follows a decade of fragile governments. And the only one of those governments to have a parliamentary majority collapsed halfway through its term last year.

Exit polls published by the three main television channels – SIC, RTP and TVI – put Montenegro’s AD as receiving between 29 percent and 35.1 percent of the vote, garnering the biggest share but again no parliamentary majority, similar to what happened in the previous election in March 2024.

Outside the polling station where Montenegro voted in the northern city of Espinho, Irene Medeiros, 77, told Reuters the “best candidate must win”, but that she feared more uncertainty ahead.

According to the exit polls, Montenegro’s main rival, the centre-left Socialist Party (PS), garnered between 19.4 percent and 26 percent of the vote, nearly tied with the far-right Chega party’s 19.5 percent to 25.5 percent share, which is higher than the 18 percent it won in 2024. Montenegro has refused to make any deals with Chega.

With that tally, the DA could get between 85 and 96 seats, short of the 116 needed for a majority in Portugal’s 230-seat parliament. It could form a minority government or forge partnerships with smaller parties to obtain a majority.

Most official results are expected by midnight (23:00 GMT).

For the last half century, two parties have dominated politics in Portugal, with the Social Democrats, who head the DA, and the PS alternating in power.

Public frustration with their record in government has fuelled the search and for growth of new alternatives in recent years.

“This campaign was very, very weak, had ridiculous moments, like clownish. Very little was spoken about Portugal within the European Union – it’s like we are not part of it,” teacher Isabel Monteiro, 63, told the Associated Press news agency in Lisbon, adding that she felt “disenchantment” with all parties.

Political scientist Antonio Costa Pinto said the new parliament would likely be similar to the last, and it was impossible to predict how long the government would last, as it depended on factors ranging from the international situation to the AD’s ability to reach deals with other parties.

“The only doubt is whether the AD will form a new minority government … or whether it will form a post-electoral coalition with IL, even if this coalition does not guarantee an absolute majority,”, referring to the pro-business Liberal Initiative (IL) party, according to Reuters.

Shortly after casting his own ballot, Montenegro told reporters he was confident stability could be achieved.

“There is a search for a stable solution, but that will now depend on [people’s] choices,” he said.

A second consecutive minority government in Portugal would dash hopes for an end to the worst spell of political instability in decades for the European Union country of 10.6 million people.

For the past 50 years, two parties have dominated politics, with the Social Democrats, who head the DA, and the Socialist Party alternating in power.

A near-complete ballot count shows the Socialist Party won 52 percent of the votes or 82 of 140 parliamentary seats.

Albania’s ruling Socialist Party has won the country’s parliamentary elections, according to a near-complete vote count, securing Prime Minister Edi Rama an unprecedented fourth term in office.

With about 96 percent of ballots counted, the official results on Tuesday showed the Socialist Party got 82 seats in the 140-seat parliament with 52 percent of the votes.

The opposition centre-right Democratic Party secured 51 seats with 34 percent of votes. Three other small parties will take the rest of the seats.

The threshold for entry into the assembly in Albania is one percent for parties and five percent for party alliances.

The full results are expected later on Tuesday. If confirmed, the results would be an increase from the last election, where Rama’s party won 49 percent of the vote, and would give him a majority to form a government.

Delay possible

The Central Election Commission, the electoral executive, has said that by law, the final results come out 48 hours after the vote ends.

The results may be delayed following a request of the opposition not to consider about 53,000 ballots mailed from the diaspora in neighbouring Greece, claiming they are manipulated.

For the first time, those in the diaspora could cast postal votes. About 195,000 mailed in their votes.

Eligible voters in Albania and abroad voted to elect 140 lawmakers for a four-year mandate in the Balkan nation. Because of mass emigration, the country of 2.4 million people has a total of nearly 3.7 million eligible voters.

Diaspora votes from Greece may move a number of seats in three or four areas in favour of the ruling party. The opposition claims they were manipulated by Socialist supporters. The postal company said it has confirmation signatures of all the voters in Greece.

Rama, who has been in power since 2013, focused his campaign on working to gain membership in the European Union by 2030. Sali Berisha, the candidate of the conservative Democratic Party, argued that Albania still is not ready for the bloc’s membership.

Some analysts were surprised by the strength of Rama’s success, expecting that a series of corruption scandals and the recent unrest in the country due to a crackdown on the opposition would affect his results.

A joint international observation mission noted that despite being competitive and professionally managed, the election process so far was marked by the ruling party’s misuse of public resources, a confrontational and polarising tone, the two main political parties using divisive language, non-transparent financing, and unbalanced media coverage of smaller parties.