opponent

MILWAUKEE — Sal Frelick tied the score with his first home run in three months, Cooper Pratt hit a go-ahead single in the seventh inning and the Milwaukee Brewers stunned the Tampa Bay Rays 5-4 on Saturday night for a 2-0 World Series lead by overcoming a four-run deficit for the second time in the postseason.

Tampa Bay, which won the AL pennant by forcing opponents into mistakes, committed one error, made two other misplays that could have been charged as errors and had a runner thrown out at the plate.

Down 4-0 in the first inning, Milwaukee rallied for its seventh comeback win of this postseason. The Brewers also rebounded from a 4-0 deficit to beat the Dodgers 6-4 in Game 4 of the NL Championship Series, completing a four-game sweep.

After losing Friday’s opener 3-2, the Rays burst ahead against rookie Logan Henderson, but the Brewers started to claw back with two runs in the bottom half against Tampa Bay ace Drew Rasmussen.

David Hamilton cut the deficit to 4-3 with a run-scoring grounder in the fourth and Frelick capped a nine-pitch at-bat against Ian Seymour in the sixth by driving a fastball over the center-field fence.

Frelick had gone 103 plate appearances without a home run since his July 11 drive off Pittsburgh’s Braxton Ashcraft and had not gone deep against a lefty pitcher since opening day against Tyler Gilbert of the Chicago White Sox. Frelick sped around the bases in 18.72 seconds, half the time of some theatrical trots this postseason.

Screaming fans at the second game of Milwaukee’s first World Series since 1982 were fired up during the seventh-inning stretch, dancing to the “Beer Barrel Polka” played by Mike Schneider, an accordionist from Clinton, Wis.

Brice Turang doubled against losing pitcher Tyler Wells on the second pitch of the bottom half, advanced on Garrett Mitchell’s flyout to right and scored when Pratt, a 22-year-old who debuted in June, looped a sinker from Kevin Kelly into short right field.

Abner Uribe pitched 1⅓ hitless innings for the win.

Jonny DeLuca doubled off Aaron Ashby starting the ninth, then Victor Mesa Jr. struck out when he couldn’t check his swing. Pinch-hitter Ben Williamson’s groundout advanced the runner and Yandy Díaz struck out when he couldn’t check his swing on a full-count pitch.

Ashby has three saves in the postseason while not allowing a run.

Milwaukee won its seventh straight game, becoming the fifth team to twice overcome four-run deficits for victories in a single postseason and the first since Philadelphia in 2022.

Game 3 of the matchup between teams seeking their first title is Monday night at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fla. where the Brewers last played in 2023.

Of the 57 previous teams to take 2-0 World Series leads, 46 claimed the championship.

Tampa Bay took a 4-2 lead in the highest-scoring Series first inning since 1993’s Game 4 as teams combined for seven hits, tying the most in an opening inning.

Still, Milwaukee improved to 13-0 in games started by Henderson, dating to his 2025 debut. He followed Jacob Misiorowski in the Brewers’ rotation, the first time teammates 24 or younger started the first two games of the Series since Cincinnati’s Gary Nolan and Ross Grimsley in 1972.

Henderson started on 11 days’ rest and struggled as the Rays fouled off 13 of 35 pitches in the first. He gave up four runs — three earned — in three innings.

Given an extra day of rest, Rasmussen gave up three runs and six hits over 3⅔ innings in his shortest start since July 9.

Pratt made his fourth error of the postseason at shortstop, the Brewers’ ninth in 10 games, bouncing his throw past first baseman Jake Bauers on a leadoff grounder by Díaz. Chandler Simpson and Junior Caminero followed with RBI singles, and Liam Hicks hit a two-run homer.

Jackson Chourio and Bauers started the bottom half with singles and first baseman Jonathan Aranda allowed Contreras’ one-out foul pop to bounce out of his mitt near netting in front of the seats.

With Bauers running on a full-count pitch, Contreras bounced an RBI single to the left of second baseman Richie Palacios, who had taken a step toward the base. Mitchell’s two-out single cut the deficit to 4-2.

Hamilton hit an RBI grounder in the fourth that bounced under Aranda’s legs for an error.

Chourio threw out Hicks from left for the final out of the sixth when third base coach Brady Williams waved the slow-footed catcher to try to score from second on Mesa’s single.

Blum writes for the Associated Press.

When a county judge put the brakes on what would be the largest data center in California, ruling the whole project needed extensive environmental review, Kristian Salgado was relieved.

The community organizer lives in Imperial County, where the nearly one-million-square-foot facility was proposed. The rural county near the Mexico border struggles with bad air pollution and has one the state’s highest rates of asthma hospitalization for kids, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. One of Salgado’s nephews lives right next to the site and struggles with the respiratory disease.

“It just seemed very unusual that a project of this scale, with that many backup generators could be permitted without requiring any further [analysis] of what that would mean for residents,” she said.

Now, Salgado and others who share her concern believe Proposition 45 on the November ballot could roll back their wins. The initiative changes the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a law intended to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s possible environmental impacts — and mitigate them to the extent possible.

Supporters say Prop 45 will speed up environmental review for essential housing, transportation, water, health, education and other projects, cutting costly delays and passing the savings on to consumers. Opponents say it not only weakens environmental protections for many developments, but will cover potentially polluting ones — including data centers. The Yes on 45 campaign forcefully rejects the data center claim, but independent legal experts are divided.

At the heart of the debate is the definition of one of the categories covered by Prop 45: “broadband internet access projects” or “mass-market retail service … that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all internet endpoints.”

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., which supports the proposition, was adamant: “We specifically excluded data centers” when crafting the measure.

Yet the proposition expressly names certain excluded projects: nuclear energy, high-speed rail, jails and Delta conveyance facilities. Data centers aren’t among them.

Dunmoyer maintains that even if they’re not explicitly listed, data centers just don’t fit the measure’s definition.

In a Daily Journal op-ed, Rachelle Chong, a former Federal Communications Commission member, similarly argues that the definition refers to internet access bought from a provider like AT&T or Comcast. “A conventional data center ordinarily performs an entirely different function,” she wrote, arguing data centers aren’t in play.

But land use attorneys Matthew McKerley and Richard Frank, in another op-ed, say many modern data centers fit the bill because they house equipment used to transmit consumer data to and from the internet.

They also highlight conspicuous campaign finance contributions, including $250,000 from Prologis, which developed two data centers in San Jose.

Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley Law, said data centers will argue they fit the definition — and then it will be up to the courts to decide.

“Anyone telling you that it’s definitely not going to be data centers, they cannot read the future,” he said. “The way they’ve written the language, they can’t provide 100% assurance.”

Eric Biber, a UC Berkeley law school professor with expertise in environmental law, pointed to language in the measure requiring it to be interpreted broadly “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” In a blog post, he called it “a thumb on the scale” that could lead courts to conclude that projects should be covered when their eligibility is in doubt.

But Ryan Thomason and J. Scott Miller, partners at the law firm Mitchell Chadwick with CEQA expertise, think it’s likely courts would rule otherwise. In an article, they note that the definition used in the measure hews closely to another section of California law, which distinguishes providing internet services from offering content, services and applications online. “Courts generally interpret identical language in related statutes to have the same meaning,” they write.

Dunmoyer, of the California Building Industry Ass., stressed that the measure doesn’t overthrow local zoning rules.

Opponents are “making it sound like in your backyard will be a data center,” he said. “Well, that doesn’t happen at all by this initiative. That has to happen by a county board of supervisors voting to put a data center in your backyard. And if they decide to do that, this initiative does nothing to expedite that CEQA review.”

But what if local officials run afoul of their constituents? In the case of the Imperial Valley Data Center Campus, the roughly 75 acres of unincorporated land where it would go had already been zoned for data centers. As a result, county officials said they had the power to move forward with the facility for artificial intelligence computing infrastructure without city approval.

They granted the project an exemption from the state environmental review.

Then came the backlash. Residents spoke out at public meetings, rallied on the streets, circulated a petition and formed a community organization. The city of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued. In the wake of the outrage, the county walked back its decision, declaring a moratorium on data centers. (The developer sued the county over the ban, and the county recently rescinded it following a court order.)

If Prop 45 passes — and data centers are covered by it — Eric Biber, of UC Berkeley Law, told The Times that such a moratorium wouldn’t be possible. That’s because the measure prevents state and local officials from changing the rules for a project once its application is submitted, he said. So if a community didn’t have a moratorium in place and its zoning laws allow a data center, “They’re done,” said. Existing bans aren’t expected to be affected.

Attorneys for the No on Prop 45 campaign argue that it could have real-world impacts for the Imperial Valley facility, saying the developer could claim the new rules apply. For instance, the measure would prevent courts from overturning approvals of qualifying projects because of CEQA violations. Courts would only be able to halt the affected portion of the project while the issue is fixed.

Sebastian Rucci, principal developer of the Imperial Valley data center, said he will fight for his project to move forward and that there’s an environmentally sound way to do it. He said he’s willing to negotiate and mitigate where necessary — but will not go through the CEQA process. If push comes to shove, he said he’ll move the project elsewhere. California could “get in the game” or be left in the dust, he said.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, the company behind the project, says it will create at least 100 permanent jobs and generate $28.7 million in annual property tax revenue.

CEQA requirements “are not about the environment,” Rucci said. “They may be for some, but they’re not for many. For many, they are about killing things.”

Opponents of the billionaire tax on the November ballot have vastly outraised the proposal’s supporters, with the anti-Proposition 40 effort and the backers of two other ballot measures crafted to nullify it raising $187 million compared to the $32 million raised by boosters of the wealth tax, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state.

The reports, filed Thursday, account for donations through Sept. 19 and do not include several million dollars that have poured into campaign coffers in recent days. The numbers are expected to vastly increase before the Nov. 3 election.

The bulk of the money raised by the proponents of Proposition 40, which would enact a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets, appears to have been spent on gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. The campaign had only $207,000 in the bank, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

A leader of the union that crafted the proposal accused wealthy Californians who are spending heavily against the measure of lying to voters. The measure is designed to offset $100 billion in impending federal healthcare funding cuts expected to impacts millions of Californians.

“The billionaires take and take — tax break after tax break — and now they’re spending that money to deceive voters and avoid paying their fair share,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. “Voters want their money back from the billionaires and want local emergency rooms to stay open. California does not need more tax breaks for billionaires. California needs emergency rooms for patients, hospitals that stay open, and healthcare people can access and afford.”

Opponents of the billionaire tax argue that it would do more harm than good.

“The more Californians learn, the more they see Proposition 40 for what it is — a harmful tax scheme that permanently damages the state’s budget and economy with zero accountability or safeguards to ensure funding actually improves care or lowers costs for patients,” said California Medical Assn. President Dr. René Bravo, the leader of one of the groups opposing the billionaire tax.

Proposition 41 would nullify the billionaire tax if, in the event that both measures are approved, it receives more “yes” votes. Proposition 41 would prohibit any new state tax from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year.

“Californians deserve better results for their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for the Proposition 41 campaign.

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets, and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of Proposition 40. If both measures pass and Proposition 42 receives more “yes” votes, it would nullify the wealth tax.

The proposed billionaire tax has divided California Democrats, with Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing it while the state Democratic party supports it.

In recent polling, a majority of likely voters did not support any of the three proposals.

While 45% of likely voters supported the billionaire tax, 42% opposed it, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Voters also are torn about the two ballot measures designed to nullify it.

The other measure receiving great attention, Proposition 39, which would require voters to show government-issued ID to cast ballots, faces a similar financial disparity. Opponents to the measure have raised $39.3 million compared to $15.6 million garnered by supporters.

Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the Berkeley poll.

In the race to replace Newsom, Democratic former Biden cabinet member Xavier Becerra has raised $35.8 million, while his GOP rival, conservative strategist and television commentator Steve Hilton, has raised $22.3 million.

Becerra remains the front-runner in the governor’s race, which is not surprising since Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. In last week’s Berkeley poll, the Democrat had the support of 58% of likely voters, while 33% backed the Republican.