moves

The feud between California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has escalated after Bonta asked a court to stop Bianco’s investigation into alleged election fraud.

In a 70-page petition filed with the Fourth Appellate District Monday, Bonta wrote that “the Sheriff’s misguided investigation threatens to sow distrust and jeopardize public confidence” in upcoming elections. The investigation, which he also called “sweeping and unprecedented,” is an abuse of the criminal process, he wrote.

Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, last month seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in Riverside County in the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.

The sheriff has said that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.

Bianco has described his probe as a “fact-finding mission” to determine if votes were fraudulently counted. He has accused the attorney general, a Democrat, of improperly interfering with what he says is a lawful criminal investigation.

In Riverside County, the proposition passed by more than 82,000 votes. Statewide, it passed with about 64% of the vote and a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.

“Well, well, well, the political corruption in California just gets bigger and bigger,” Bianco said in a social media video Monday night in response to Bonta’s petition.

“Why in the world would Rob Bonta want that count stopped unless he was afraid of what that count would uncover?” he added. “We have an extremely politically biased appeals court, so this is going to be interesting.”

Political observers have said that Bianco, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, appears to be vying for attention from Trump, who has called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections, remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.

Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said that Bianco’s investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”

“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”

The sheriff has denied the probe has anything to do with his campaign.

A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.

Bonta’s office said in a statement Monday evening that it was asking the court to pause the investigation “while we work to understand its basis.”

Bonta’s petition revealed that — in addition to warrants issued on Feb. 9 and 23 — the sheriff obtained a third warrant from the Riverside County Superior Court on March 19 to restart a paused recount of the ballots. The warrants now are under seal.

Bonta’s office called the warrants and the affidavits supporting them legally deficient because “the Sheriff has not identified any particular crime that may have been committed by anyone — a necessary predicate to obtain a criminal search warrant.”
Bonta had earlier questioned whether Bianco had concealed important information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants.

In his petition, Bonta wrote that the sheriff’s department had planned to assign “12 employees working four days a week, five to seven hours each day” to count the votes.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed with Bonta’s assessment that the sheriff’s probe is a legally deficient “fishing expedition.” He questioned how Bianco got a judge to sign off on three warrants.

“You can’t use a warrant as a PR tool, as something to help your political campaign,” Becker said. “You have to meet certain standards in order to obtain a warrant, because a warrant is extraordinary. A warrant is saying we believe there is probable cause to seize evidence, and we need it now.”

Bianco said in a news conference Friday that a Riverside County Superior Court judge had ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.

“This isn’t about counting yes and no votes,” Bianco said in his social media video Monday. “This is simply counting the total ballots and comparing that total with the number of votes. … Plain and simple. Common sense.”

Citing concerns about affordability, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is proposing revising the state’s 2019 climate law, asking to delay implementation by several years and to adopt a different greenhouse-gas accounting method.

The changes would effectively water down a law viewed as one of the most ambitious state climate policies in the U.S.

Hochul called the law’s current targets “costly and unattainable” in a statement released Friday. “This is solely out of necessity — to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy,” she said.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 85% cut by 2050. As of 2023, the state had lowered its emissions by about 14%.

Meeting the 2030 deadline would drastically drive up energy bills for New Yorkers, Hochul, a Democrat, has said. Regulations to implement the law are already delayed; Hochul wants to push them back to 2030 and create a new emissions target for 2040.

Energy bills have surged around the U.S., partly as a result of AI-driven demand. As of November, the average residential electricity price in New York was 26.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranking eighth highest in the country, according to Empire Center, a nonprofit think tank in Albany. The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices surging.

The proposed weakening of the law comes amid the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal climate regulations and clean energy incentives, which environmentalists have looked to Democrat-led states and cities to counter.

“Lots of people around the country — really around the world — have been looking to see how New York does in implementing this strong climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University law professor who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“If a very blue state like New York moves backwards on climate change as well, that’s a negative sign for the country,” he said. “If you can’t do it here, can you do it anywhere?”

Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, is seeking to advance changes through the state’s budget, which is due April 1. The proposal is expected to meet resistance from some Democratic lawmakers.

“We will negotiate with the governor,” said State Sen. Pete Harckham, who chairs the body’s environmental conservation committee. “We’ll be able to get to, I think, a resolution of this.”

Policymakers including Harckham and State Sen. Liz Krueger, who chairs the finance committee, penned a letter to Hochul earlier this month urging her not to back a delay.

Given Washington’s war on climate policy, they wrote, “it is incumbent on states like New York to reject this new wave of climate denial and put forward bold policies that will save New Yorkers money, reduce pollution and protect a livable climate.”

Krueger said Friday the proposed changes would increase the likelihood that the climate law will never be fully enacted.

“This is a serious problem,” she said. “We need to be spending the money for the infrastructure to help meet the targets.”

Business groups and Republicans in Albany have argued that implementing the law as it stands would drive up costs and worsen the affordability crisis. State Sen. Tom O’Mara has urged changes. “It is time [to] amend the CLCPA to account for economic realities,” he said in a statement. The Business Council, representing New York companies, last month said the deadlines stipulated “are proving unachievable.”

Even some Democrats have advocated for amendments. State Assemblymembers Carrie Woerner and John T. McDonald said last week that “the reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law.”

“The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions,” they added. “The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.”

In 2025, environmental groups sued Hochul’s administration after the state failed to set up a regulatory program for the climate law.

“The main effect of these proposed changes is to allow the Hochul administration to do nothing for at least the next four years,” said Rachel Spector, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that represents the groups. “These proposals will do nothing to benefit New Yorkers. The only beneficiaries would be Hochul along with gas utilities and corporate polluters.”

Hochul also wants to align New York’s emissions-counting standards with other U.S. states and the international community. That might mean switching from a 20-year emissions-counting methodology to a 100-year one. The shorter timeframe highlights the pollution impact of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas and the main component of natural gas. The 100-year metric essentially balances out short- with longer-lived gases like carbon dioxide.

“It’s ultimately a way to cheat on a test,” said Liz Moran, New York policy advocate at Earthjustice.

In October, a judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups, putting pressure on Hochul to enact a so-called cap-and-invest program that would help generate revenue for the state to transition to renewable energy.

However, a memo released in February by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concluded that implementing the policy would result in rocketing energy bills for New Yorkers.

It modeled a scenario in which the law were “implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets” and found that upstate New York households relying on oil and natural gas “would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year.”

Many Democrats and environmental advocates have pushed back on the narrative that climate policy is spiking costs. Harckham said the solution to improving affordability and lowering emissions is clear: “It’s renewable energy.”

“We set a law for ourselves,” he added. “We should be held accountable to it.”

Raimonde writes for Bloomberg.

The Trump administration on Friday moved to roll back Biden-era limits on emissions of ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing chemical often used in the sterilization of medical devices.

The Environmental Protection Agency said repealing the rules, which fall under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, would “safeguard the supply of essential medical equipment” — saving approximately $630 million for companies over 20 years. California is home to about a dozen such facilities.

The government said the emissions are part and parcel of protecting people from “lethal or significantly debilitating infections that would result without properly sterilized medical equipment.”

“The Trump EPA is committed to ensuring life-saving medical devices remain available for the critical care of America’s children, elderly, and all patients without unnecessary exposure to communities,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement.

An estimated 50% of sterile medical devices in the U.S. are treated with ethylene oxide, or EtO, particularly those that can’t be cleaned using steam or radiation. The colorless gas is also used to make chemicals found in products such as antifreeze, detergents, plastics and adhesives.

But EtO poses health risks. Short-term exposure by inhalation can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue respiratory irritation and other adverse health effects, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Longer-term exposure increases the risk of cancers of the white blood cells, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as well as breast cancer. A now-deleted page from the EPA’s website stated, “EtO is a human carcinogen. It causes cancer in humans.”

Friday’s proposal specifically targets updated rules for EtO emissions that were passed by the Biden administration in 2024 following pressure from environmental justice groups, particularly those in Louisiana’s heavily industrialized “Cancer Alley.” The change sought to reduce the amount of EtO released from commercial sterilizers by 90% and lessen the hazards for nearby communities.

The tighter rules were in part based on EPA’s own scientific study that found it to be 60 times more carcinogenic than previously thought, which the agency now says should be reassessed.

If finalized, the plan would give facilities the choice between installing continuous real-time monitoring systems for EtO emissions or complying with modified pollution control requirements at facilities that emit more than 10 tons a year, the EPA said.

The proposal follows other moves by the Trump administration to rescind regulations that it says are burdensome and costly for industries, such as those governing emissions from coal power plants. Last month, the EPA repealed the endangerment finding, which affirmed the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions and underpinned the agency’s ability to regulate those emissions from vehicles.

The action around ethylene oxide would affect about 90 commercial sterilization facilities owned and operated by approximately 50 companies. Three California companies applied for and received presidential exemptions for their EtO emissions in July.

The Sterigenics facility, center, in Vernon is pictured in 2022.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

They are located in Ontario and Vernon and operated by the company Sterigenics, which provides industrial sterilization technology for medical devices and other commercial products.

In January, a coalition of environmental and community groups challenged the EtO exemptions in federal court. The lawsuit from the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Natural Resources Defense Council argues that technology exists for facilities to comply with the tighter Biden-era standards without raising costs, and many facilities are already using it.

“EPA’s 2024 rule was an important and overdue step to reduce toxic ethylene oxide pollution and protect communities,” said Irena Como, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, in a statement Friday. “Repealing this rule that is proven to significantly lower pollution exposure and cancer risks will subject even more people who work, live, and send their children to schools located near these facilities to harm that is entirely preventable.”

Sterilization and chemical industry groups support the plan.

“The EPA rule concerning ethylene oxide use in commercial sterilizers threatens to severely restrict access to vital medical products nationwide,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. “We commend the EPA for their commitment to reevaluating these policies.”

The EPA will hold a 45-day comment period about the proposal after it is published in the federal register. A final decision is expected sometime this year.

A series of proposed changes to the city’s charter — essentially its constitution — could give elected leaders in Los Angeles more oversight of the police department and enable the chief to fire problematic officers, reforms long sought by advocates that are likely to once again face fierce opposition.

Among the recommendations approved last week by the city’s Charter Reform Commission was a proposal that would require any LAPD accountability-related motion or ordinance passed by the City Council to automatically become law if not acted on by the Police Commission within 60 days.

Once the language is finalized, the proposals must clear the City Council and its committees before they can be put to voters on November’s ballot.

Another proposal would give city leaders the ability to override the policy decisions by the Police Commission, a board appointed by the mayor that sets the LAPD policies, oversees its budget and serves as a civilian watchdog.

With the police chief taking criticism for a recent rise in shootings by officers, several proposals sought to strengthen accountability for the use deadly force. One recommendation could require the LAPD to purchase “no less than” $1 million of liability insurance for its roughly 8,700 officers. The insurance would be used to cover legal fees if an officer is found liable for a wrongful injury or death, instead of tapping into the city’s General Fund budget.

Another potential change would “clarify and strengthen” the police chief’s ability to “to initiate and pursue the removal of officers with documented, repeated histories of harm or misconduct.”

Under city rules, the chief of police does not have the authority to fire an officer. Instead, they must send officers whose misconduct they deem severe to disciplinary panels, which occasionally lead to lighter penalties. The new proposal would give the City Council the power to override decisions not to fire, still leaving officers the right to appeal through the courts.

Mayor Karen Bass vetoed a similar bid to rework the disciplinary process in 2024.

The latest proposals drew cautious optimism from activists, many of whom claim the Police Commission is too cozy with the LAPD and have pushed for stronger independent oversight.

Godfrey Plata, deputy director of the nonprofit L.A. Forward, called the proposals a “huge victory” in the fight for police accountability.

“Months ago, police reform wasn’t even on the Charter Commission’s to-do list. Today, because community members came together to force conversations that likely never would have happened on their own, we have multiple reforms headed to City Council,” Plata said.

The Police Commission and LAPD issued nearly identical statements that said they are looking forward to working with the City Council on the charter reform process.

An LAPD spokesman declined to say how Chief Jim McDonnell felt about the proposal, saying it wasn’t “in his interests to give his opinion on something like this as long as it’s still with the full council.”

Samantha Stevens, a Los Angeles political consultant and former legislative staffer, said she is worried the proposed changes are a shortsighted solution to address police abuses that will create another layer of bureaucracy.

“If we don’t like how they’re running things, we should replace the commissioners.” she said. “I don’t know that this will be as effective when you’ve got 15 councilmembers now telling LAPD what to do in their own districts. Is that now too many cooks in the kitchen?”

The charter commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommended changes to the City Council by April 2.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — While the U.S. Senate remains deadlocked over President Trump’s call for strict citizenship voting requirements, Republicans in some states are pressing ahead with their own measures that could require documentary proof of citizenship to join or remain on the voter rolls.

Proof-of-citizenship legislation won final approval this week in South Dakota and Utah, already has passed one chamber in Florida and received a committee hearing in Missouri. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation submitted 750,000 petition signatures this week in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections, with violators subject to fines, imprisonment and potential deportation.

When people register to vote, they affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. But Trump contends that’s not enough. He wants prospective voters to show proof of their citizenship.

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the Republican measures amount to voter suppression, as they may prevent many eligible voters from casting ballots. Similar laws have been overturned by courts as an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

What would the federal legislation do?

The federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. That could be satisfied with such things as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification.

The federal bill also would require a photo identification to cast a ballot, which some states already mandate. The Republican-led House approved the legislation last month on a mostly party-line vote, but it has stalled in the Senate under a filibuster threat from Democrats.

South Dakota and Utah

Legislation passed in South Dakota and Utah would create a two-tier voting system. People who provide documentation of their citizenship could vote in all elections. Those who don’t could vote only in federal elections for president, U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

The bifurcated voting system is modeled after Arizona, where tens of thousands of voters who have not provided proof of citizenship can cast ballots only in federal elections. Arizona implemented its system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections.

The bills in South Dakota and Utah would take effect upon a governor’s signature, meaning they could be in place for newly registered voters ahead of the November elections.

Utah’s bill also directs election officials to use an online service from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check the citizenship status of existing voters. Those flagged would be sent notices asking for proof of citizenship to remain eligible to vote in all elections.

Florida and Michigan

Neither the Michigan initiative nor legislation passed by the Florida House would require people to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Instead, the measures would create a behind-the-scenes review that could result in some people being asked for citizenship documentation.

Under the Michigan measure, the secretary of state would review driver’s license records, juror records and federal Homeland Security and Social Security data to determine whether registered voters are citizens. Those flagged would be removed from the voter rolls if they cannot provide proof of citizenship.

The Florida legislation would require election officials to verify the citizenship of all registered voters using the state’s driver’s license database. Anyone whose citizenship could not be verified would be required to submit documentary proof.

Why are some pushing for proof of citizenship?

Trump and some fellow Republicans have complained for years about noncitizens voting in U.S. elections, although evidence of doing so is rare. The few cases found are not nearly enough to affect an election result, studies have shown, and those caught face severe penalty.

In 2024, a student from China was charged with perjury and attempted illegal voting after registering to vote by showing a University of Michigan student ID and signing a document asserting he was a U.S. citizen. He later contacted a local clerk’s office requesting to get his ballot back, and ultimately fled the country.

The case provided part of the impetus for the Michigan ballot initiative, said Paul Jacob, chairman of Americans for Citizen Voting, which is backing the measure.

“We want a system we can have confidence in,” Jacob said. “The way you avoid big problems in elections is to fix the small problems when they rise up and present themselves.”

Voting rights advocates’ concerns

Constitutional amendments limiting voting to “only citizens” have won widespread support when placed on state ballots. But voting rights advocates note that requiring documentary proof can get complicated.

During a recent debate in the Florida House, Democratic state Rep. Ashley Gantt recounted how her aunt was born in a South Carolina home at a time when some hospitals didn’t accept Black patients. As a result, she has no birth certificate and has had difficulty trying to demonstrate her citizenship, Gantt said.

A proof-of-citizenship law “would stop many thousands — if not more — U.S. citizens from voting in Florida,” said Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at the nonprofit Fair Elections Center. “It requires documentation that a lot of eligible citizens don’t have, or don’t have access to.”

Nationwide, about 21 million people — 9% of voting-age citizens — lack documentary proof of citizenship or cannot easily obtain it, according to a 2024 report by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland.

Other states

Legal challenges are common when states pass proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters.

After Kansas adopted a proof-of-citizenship law 15 years ago, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens ended up getting blocked from registering to vote. Federal courts declared the Kansas law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Two years ago, New Hampshire and Louisiana both passed proof-of-citizenship laws, prompting lawsuits. New Hampshire’s law went to trial last month and is awaiting a ruling. Louisiana’s election commissioner acknowledged in a December court filing that the requirement has not been enforced.

A nonprofit group also filed a legal challenge to a Wyoming proof-of-citizenship law passed last year. But a federal court dismissed that case while ruling the group lacked standing to sue.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.