politics

Protesters say the election commission’s voter-roll revision has removed millions of eligible voters to benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling BJP party.

Thousands of youth and opposition protesters have rallied for a third day in India demanding the resignation of the country’s election commission chief.

Thousands marched in Mumbai on Sunday, while others gathered for a third day of demonstrations in New Delhi. The protests began on Friday demanding that Election Commission of India (ECI) chief Gyanesh Kumar step down due to reports that he has overseen voter-roll revisions removing millions from electoral lists.

Protesters say the disenfranchisement stands to benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Both the ECI and the BJP have denied the allegations.

Led by opposition leaders Raj Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray, thousands marched in Mumbai on Sunday, waving Indian flags and calling for Kumar to step down.

In the capital, New Delhi, protesters started gathering in the early evening. As on previous days, some were detained by police as they arrived, according to the Reuters news agency.

Police in the capital have clamped down in a bid to prevent protesters from assembling over the last two days, detaining dozens and taking them away by bus.

Some of the detainees were released later on Friday and Saturday, but police registered cases against some on charges of violating orders banning mass gatherings in the centre of the capital.

“⁠I just want to tell the ruling party this much … We are angry about how you are wielding that power. ⁠It’s the people of this country who should decide who sits in power and who sits in opposition, not the election commission,” Raj Thackeray told the crowd in Mumbai.

The ECI says the voter-roll revision is designed to remove duplicate, deceased or ineligible entries and maintain electoral integrity. On Friday, it directed its officials to register eligible voters inadvertently omitted from electoral rolls.

Kumar has not publicly responded to the demands for his resignation or commented on the protests, which look set to continue over the coming days, with more rallies planned.

An alliance of India’s opposition parties plans to launch protests to “save democracy” with a march to the election commission office on Tuesday. The Gen Z-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has announced plans for a major rally in New Delhi on October 10.

“Mumbai is out on the streets again for free and fair elections!” Abhijeet Dipke, chief of the CJP, said in a social media post on Sunday.

“Solidarity with all the protesters,” he added. “All Indians need to come together. It’s now or never!”

Speaking at the final rally of his right-wing alliance ahead of Bosnia’s October 4 election, Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik delivered a predictably controversial statement.

“Bosnia-Herzegovina is dead. It is an impossible country, it makes no sense,” Dodik told supporters of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) party in Banja Luka on Friday.

“It is now nothing more than an empty shell … for those who are trying to keep it alive, so they can prove themselves right about something,” said the former president of Republika Srpska, who is known for frequent separatist threats and for challenging the country’s constitution.

Dodik’s comments came as Bosnia remains deeply divided over its political future more than three decades since the 1995 Dayton peace agreement. It split the country into two semi-autonomous parts – the Serb-majority Republika Srpska entity and the Federation entity, where most Bosniaks and Croats live.

The agreement ended the 1992–95 Bosnian War and established a political framework for power-sharing among Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats.

On Sunday, voters across the country cast ballots to elect the three members of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s multiethnic presidency, representatives to the national parliament and leaders of institutions in the country’s two entities.

Dodik himself is not on the ballot after being stripped of his post last year, following his conviction for refusing to carry out decisions issued by Christian Schmidt, the international peace envoy who oversees the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement.

‘No political relevance’

Elvis Fejzic, a professor at the Faculty of Political Science in Sarajevo, said attempts by figures such as Dodik to dismantle Bosnia and Herzegovina amount to “populist rhetoric”.

“Politicians and political parties that act unconstitutionally do not determine the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Fejzic told Al Jazeera, arguing that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s status as a UN member and internationally recognised state is secure.

“Bosnia and Herzegovina … will outlive all those who, through inflammatory statements, seek to obstruct its path towards integration and development,” he said. “Their statements have no political relevance whatsoever.”

Political analyst Tanja Topic said that while Dodik was not officially a candidate, he remained a central figure in the campaign and sought to present himself as a “senior official in international relations”.

Topic told Al Jazeera that the election result could produce several political scenarios in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from “cohabitation in Republika Srpska”, through the formation of a grand coalition, to a “blockage at the state level and the Council of Ministers continuing to operate in a caretaker capacity”.

Dodik’s rhetoric marks ‘long escalation’

Expert Adnan Cerimagic said Dodik’s rhetoric should be taken “seriously” and viewed as part of a “long escalation” rather than a reflection of the country’s current reality.

“For the past four years, his moves against the Dayton order and against Bosnia’s EU and NATO path have reached a new and dangerous level: in March 2025 the country came close to an armed standoff between Republika Srpska and state police,” Cerimagic, a senior analyst at the European Stability Initiative, told Al Jazeera.

“Casting Bosnia as a front-line in a supposed war between Christianity and Islam, and himself as a defender of Christian Europe, is aimed at the one people in Europe against whom a genocide has been committed since the Second World War and recognised as such by two international courts,” he added.

Cerimagic added that Dodik’s rhetoric may reflect uncertainty over the electoral prospects of his preferred candidate, as well as a belief that the European Union has less leverage over Bosnia than it once did.

Initial results are customarily released by the Central Election Commission late on election night and then refreshed every few hours.

In the days that follow, the commission progressively inputs votes from polling stations that remain outstanding, mobile voting teams, as well as ballots sent by mail and those cast at diplomatic and consular missions.

The final, official results must be published by November 20 at the latest.

Every fall, I teach a Latino History of Orange County course at Chapman University — from the Portola expedition all the way to Huntington Beach’s MAGA Latina councilmember, Gracey Van Der Mark. The lecture last week focused on how anti-Mexican politics have always worked in Orange County and usually go on to be copied nationwide.

I usually, sadly, have to update this lecture every year because the lowlights just keep coming. That’s why this time around, one of my PowerPoint slides ended with “2026: Anaheim?”.

Haven’t you heard? A lawsuit accuses Anaheim mayor Ashleigh Aitken of calling her chief of staff a “dirty Mexican.”

Stay classy, O.C.!

TimesOC writer (and my fellow Anaheimer) Gabriel San Román first reported on the allegation last month. He revealed that a lawyer for Aitken’s chief of staff Berenice Ballinas was seeking mediation from the city after his client suffered a “sustained pattern of harassment, discriminatory treatment and, most recently, retaliation” while doing her job. A legal claim filed soon after offered pages of alleged incidents detailing what Ballinas claimed she had to deal with when her boss supposedly had too much to drink while on city business.

It’s an ugly read, with incidents at Disneyland’s Club 33, Angel Stadium and other Anaheim landmarks. Yet no passage is more damning — yet more Orange County — than when Ballinas claimed Aitken once called her a “dirty Mexican” in front of then-city attorney Jim Vanderpool and said another time that the mayor didn’t want “a Mexican” like Ballinas to drive her car while Aitken was supposedly what the British satirical magazine Private Eye would call “tired and emotional.”

The mayor, a Democrat who’s running for reelection, has denied the explosive charge in an official statement and during a recent council meeting. And yet the allegation against her now enters Orange County’s long, sad spectrum of anti-Mexican political history.

Just part of the list: Proposition 187. Poll guards. Trying to give local police immigration-enforcement powers. When then-Orange County supervisor Ronald Caspers called a group of Mexican American county employees who demanded promotions “bandidos” during a 1972 supervisors meeting, then suggested the supes move the county seat away from Santa Ana because the city “does not have a normal ethnic balance” — in other words, it was too Mexican.

Or how about when a Newport Beach council member, Dick Nichols, opined during a 2003 council meeting that he opposed expanding the grassy areas of Corona del Mar State Beach because Mexicans “claim it as theirs, and it becomes their personal, private ground all day”? (Asked to apologize, Nichols doubled down by saying, “Where the hell am I in any way discriminating or being a bigot by making a statement that is blatantly true?”)

My hometown is not exempt from this sad parade. Anaheim’s schools, parks and swimming pool were segregated until the 1950s. In 1999, the Anaheim Union High School District board of trustees voted to sue Mexico for $50 million for educating the children of undocumented immigrants (The Times’ write-up was the first time I appeared in the paper, although the writer misspelled my last name).

Why all the O.C. anti-Mexican hate? You’ll have to enroll in my Chapman class for the full explanation. But the main reason is that Mexicans have long functioned as O.C.’s demonized minority. When millions of O.C. residents have grown up believing the powers that be that all Mexicans do is work low-paying jobs and underachieve in life, no wonder politicians bash them again and again — and no wonder many Anaheim residents aren’t giving Aitken the benefit of the doubt.

On Friday, the Anaheim City Council announced after a closed session that it would launch an independent investigation into Ballinas’ allegations. Aitken had an eventful Friday of her own. She admitted on Instagram that she has an “unhealthy relationship” with alcohol and sighed to CBS Los Angeles that Ballinas was “somebody who I thought was my right-hand person.” And while local activists have demanded she resign, O.C.’s ascending liberal machine isn’t asking for her head the way they would’ve if it were a Republican official: Mayor Anaheim gave the opening remarks at the Orange County Labor Federation’s annual Solidarity Awards gala on Friday night to cheers.

Stay classy, O.C.!

The week’s biggest stories

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton visits patrons at Victorio’s Ristorante in North Hollywood, where a watch party was held for the CNN governor’s race debate Wednesday night.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

California politics

• A sexually suggestive ad from Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has drawn millions of views — and condemnation from allies on the right and Democrats.
• Latino voters have shifted away from Karen Bass in the L.A. mayor’s race, according to a new poll.
• The poll’s findings contrast the results of the June 2 primary, in which Bass carried 35 Latino-majority neighborhoods compared with Raman’s seven.

Helicopter tragedy

Paramount-Warner Bros. merger

• David Ellison said the merged Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery will be called Skydance — the moniker he picked nearly two decades ago when he began building his Hollywood empire.
• Although the name of the corporate parent will change, the two historic studios will continue to operate under their names.
• As Ellison names his new empire, the message is clear: He owns Hollywood, writes news and culture critic Mary McNamara.

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

Retro candies, zombie-themed chips, ghost-branded coffee and large-scale movie characters can all be found at the Horror Boodega snack shop in Burbank.

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Today’s recipe

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

For culinary content producer Owen Han, his nonna’s recipe for meatballs is as classic as they come. She does not brown the meatballs but instead poaches them in the copious tomato sauce (she called it salsa di pomodoro, or sugo, but you might know it as marinara) so they are extra tender.

Photo of the day

(Nava Rawls / Los Angeles Times)

Games

Here’s today’s mini crossword, plus our other free, daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and jigsaw games.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

Close race expected as left-wing Lula seeks fourth non-consecutive term against right-wing Flavio Bolsonaro, son of convicted former president.

Polls have opened in Brazil’s presidential election, once again pitting left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva against a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family – Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Some 160 million registered voters are eligible to cast ballots in Sunday’s elections, which will elect lawmakers, governors and senators.

If no presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of valid votes, the top two contenders will proceed to a run-off on October 25.

Most opinion polls ahead of the vote showed a close contest, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Bolsonaro that tightens further in a potential second round.

Lula, of the Workers’ Party, is seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term. The 80-year-old, who previously served as president from 2003 to 2010, wants to continue his series of social programmes aimed at addressing inequality.

Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party, has promised a hard stance on crime and insecurity. The 45-year-old has also pledged close collaboration with the United States under President Donald Trump.

His father is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his election loss to Lula by 1.8 percentage points in 2022. The far-right leader’s conviction and that of several military officers raised questions about the strength of Brazilian democracy, reviving past traumas of the 21-year-long period during which Brazil was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship.

The presidential election has been dominated by issues such as crime, insecurity and the high cost of living. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A recent survey by Quaest says violence was cited as the biggest concern by 31 percent of respondents, followed by corruption (20 percent), economy (19 percent) and healthcare (12 percent).

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera.

He added that while Lula embodies the “consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship”, the Bolsonaro family argues that “the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive”.

With reporting by Brian Osgood

There are few people, if any, who’ve tracked U.S. elections for longer or in greater depth than Charlie Cook.

Ever since 1984, when he started his eponymous political newsletter, Cook and his stellar crew of nonpartisan analysts have plumbed many thousands of races — for president, Congress, governor — following the money, sussing out the candidates, watching their ads and assaying the campaign landscape at a granular level.

Cook calls this midterm election the strangest he’s ever seen.

What appeared to be a fairly normal election for a president halfway through his term — a probable setback, as unhappy voters register their discontent — has the potential, Cook said, to turn into a disaster for Republicans. Big losses aren’t rare for the party in the White House. Democrats picked up 41 House seats in President Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018.

What’s unusual, Cook suggested, is the prospect of big Democratic gains when Republicans started out this election season with so many advantages. (And that was before the GOP set off on a gerrymandering jag at Trump’s behest.)

Roughly two-thirds of the Senate seats up in November are in states Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races are in states Trump won, several by double digits.

On the House side, Republicans maintain control by an exceedingly narrow margin, meaning there aren’t a lot of low-hanging districts for Democrats to aim for. As Cook rightly noted, “A party cannot lose a seat they don’t have.”

But Trump’s deteriorating approval rating, an unpopular war, persistent inflation and the president’s egotistical indulgences have jeopardized a number of GOP-held seats that normally would be automatic wins, including contests in such Republican strongholds as Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and even Texas.

“I’m not a meteorologist, but it’s kind of like three competing weather fronts collided,” Cook said. “One was Iran and gasoline, diesel prices going sky high … Then there’s trade, tariffs, overall non-energy cost of living, tariff impact on farmers. And then the third is kind of the catch-all and it’s everything from ballrooms, reflecting pools, arches, vaccines, Medicaid cuts.”

We’ll get to predictions in a moment. (Patience, dear reader.)

First, let’s hear from Nathan Gonzales, another longtime election handicapper. He’s been tracking political contests nationwide for more than 25 years and edits and publishes Inside Elections — formerly the Rothenberg Political Report — another nonpartisan field guide to campaigns. Like Cook, he traffics in clear-eyed, dispassionate analysis, not partisan wish-casting or political spin.

Gonzales, too, sees a bad moon rising for Republicans.

A detail of the exhibit in the Epstein Files Bookmobile during a campaign stop for Democratic House candidate Bob Brooks at the United Steelworkers of America office in Bethlehem, Pa. Brooks is challenging Republican incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) in Pennsylvania’s highly competitive 7th Congressional District in the upcoming midterm election.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Trump’s performance — his approval rating is flirting with record lows — “has inspired Democrats, turned off independents and created a group of apathetic Republicans,” Gonzales said, “and those are the ingredients for a good or great Democratic year.”

He noted Democrats don’t need a big wave to seize control of the House. A pickup of just three seats would flip the House, marking the seventh straight midterm election in which one chamber or the other changed partisan hands.

(For the record, there is no authoritative definition of a wave election, though it’s generally agreed the term applies to an election in which one party or the other gains a large and lopsided number of House and Senate seats.)

It’s beginning to feel a lot like 2006, Gonzales said.

“We had an unpopular Republican president, a war in the Middle East that drove up gas prices. Some members on Capitol Hill that were behaving badly,” Gonzales recalled. “I remember talking to Republicans after the fact and they admitted that, while they thought they had great research on Democratic candidates and they had a fundraising advantage, voters just didn’t care. Voters weren’t in the mood to listen to what they were saying about Democrats because they were so frustrated with what was going on with the status quo and the direction of the country.”

In that election, at the midpoint of President George W. Bush’s second term, Democrats gained six seats to take control of the Senate and netted 31 in the House, allowing the installation of Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker in history. “A thumpin’,” Bush called it.

So, 2026.

Gonzales and his team of experts believe the House is most likely gone for Republicans, forecasting a Democratic gain of seven to 15 seats, unless the bottom falls out for the GOP and their losses climb much higher.

In the Senate, where Democrats need to pick up four seats to take control, Gonzales sees the chamber teetering on a knife’s edge, forecasting a Democratic gain of three to five seats.

“It’s too late to fundamentally change the trajectory of this election,” Gonzales said. “But if Republicans can boost Republican turnout, it might be enough to save the Senate.”

For his part, Cook agrees that Mike Johnson may be nearing the end of his speakership. The best-case scenario for the GOP would be keeping its losses to 25 House seats or less, Cook said, which is right around the average for midterm elections going back well over half a century.

“It starts getting into eyebrow-raising territory if it gets north of 35,” Cook said, “because that shouldn’t be possible with the few competitive districts we have now.”

As for the Senate, he suggested the best Republicans can hope for is a net loss of two seats, keeping the GOP barely in control. (A loss of three would mean a 50-50 split, leaving Vice President JD Vance poised to be the tiebreaker on close votes — and wouldn’t he love having to drop off the 2028 campaign trail to be on hand, just in case.)

Of course, there’s still an election to be held, votes to be cast and ballots to be counted.

Blue wave, tsunami or a pale sapphire puddle?

We’ll know in a little more than four weeks.

WASHINGTON — Sipping tea from beer mugs with his co-workers, Kyle Bos listed the ways his life is changing.

Bos has two daughters, with a third due in January. At the grocery store, five items cost as much as a full cart once did. And on Wednesday, Bos and nearly 1,400 other people were laid off from their jobs as the Navistar truck factory in southwestern Ohio shut down.

The layoffs — occurring three days before President Trump’s rally Saturday at a nearby high school — were large enough to essentially erase an entire year of job growth in the greater Dayton area. And they are one reason why Bos, 30, plans to spend the final weeks before the November election canvassing votes for Democrats.

Asked how many times he voted for Trump, Bos held up three tattooed fingers. But he said he’s done with the president.

“Something has to change politically in this country,” said Bos, a member of the United Auto Workers who identifies as a centrist.

A Trump campaign stop

This election is a test for the working-class coalition that lifted Trump into the White House again and gave majorities to Republicans in the House and Senate. The outcome will be decided in places like Dayton, which once sprouted factories but shed about half of its 90,000 factory jobs since 1990 after the North American Free Trade Agreement and trade with China made it cheaper to buy auto parts from abroad.

Trump’s blunt talk and status as a celebrity businessman initially helped him in and around Dayton, where some said politics as usual had failed them. But voters this year are disgruntled about inflation and the war in Iran.

An Ohio race could help determine control of the Senate. Republican Sen. Jon Husted is facing a challenge from Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is trying to harness that disenchantment as he attempts a comeback two years after losing his seat.

Americans increasingly blame Trump for the high cost of living, with just 17% approving of his handling of the issue, according to a new AP-NORC poll. Trump didn’t talk about grocery prices or gas prices or layoffs at his Saturday night rally in Vandalia, part of what he says will be a 32-day marathon of rallies to try to convince the public that the economy is better than they think.

“The fake news media, they refuse to talk about our record-setting numbers. So tonight, if you don’t mind, I’m going to do it myself,” he said at the rally.

Trump largely has scoffed at concerns about affordability, but is promising to give people $5,000 checks if Republicans win the House and Senate next month— something Bos said he found offensive.

“It feels like a bribe, a slap in the face, and, like, that we’re all ignorant,” Bos said.

Factory work moved abroad

As steady paychecks vanished in the 1990s, drug addiction and crime increased. Things seemed to hit bottom after the 2008 financial crisis, prompting Phil Plummer, who was then Montgomery County sheriff, to enter politics.

“My jail was 40% drug addicts, 50% mental health patients, 10% criminals,” said Plummer, the Montgomery County GOP chairman who has been a Republican state representative since 2019. “We got it upside down — that’s what drove me to the statehouse.”

Plummer is now on the ballot for the Ohio state Senate and thinks Trump is what keeps the GOP’s coalition of businesses and working-class families together.

In recent years, the local economy has improved as the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base steadily added government workers. The base has drawn new aerospace companies to the area such as Joby Aviation, Electra and the Sierra Nevada Corp.

“In economic development, it takes time, and you have got to give it a little bit of time to bake, and then once it does, then you’re going to have something special,” said Jeff Hoagland, chief of the Dayton Development Coalition.

Demand at plant fell

Trump pointed to the $850-million investment by aircraft maker Electra — along with a new project in Ohio from Stellantis and a Friday announcement from Bayer for a $2.2-billion drug plant near Columbus — as evidence that his policies were creating jobs.

But at the Navistar plant, Trump’s broad tariffs never boosted demand, and the plant’s former owner, International Motors, chose to offload the facility.

Trump’s major legislative achievement, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contributed little to people’s take-home pay, even as it temporarily stripped taxes from tips and overtime.

“We weren’t getting a lot of overtime because of the economy,” said Marianne Donnelly, who drove a forklift at the factory. “There just wasn’t any to be had, very little to be had.”

Laid-off workers like Donnelly say they expect to be rehired in six to 12 months by Roshel, a Canadian manufacturer of armored vehicles, which is buying the plant. Roshel said in a statement that it’s “working with everyone involved not only to protect the current workforce, but to more than double it over the coming years through a phased process.”

Laid-off workers looking for hope

On the Monday before the layoffs, Morgan Hughes and JoJo Burkhard were knocking on doors in Kettering, a Dayton suburb. They were trying to convince union members and retirees to vote for Democrats.

The Navistar job had helped Hughes, 35, buy a house at age 21 and work alongside her father. Burkhard said inflation had made it easier to swing voters to their side.

“It isn’t a hard pitch at all,” she said. “And even if they don’t want to stay Democratic long term, they’ll at least give the candidates a chance this election, which could be a turning point for us.”

After a morning of talking to voters, the pair settled down at a Chinese restaurant for some pot stickers, and the weight of the week hit them.

Burkhard cracked open a fortune cookie and tears began to well up. The layoffs meant no work for her, her boyfriend and her mother — and the words in small print almost seemed prophetic.

Her fortune read: “You’ll find your inner strength to overcome challenges.”

Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Seung Min Kim in Vandalia contributed to this report.

President Trump is promising more payments to voters just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — this time, to more than 20 million seniors, who each would get $90 to help pay for Medicare premiums.

The announcement, made late Friday night by Trump on social media, comes after he said last month about 1 million people would get rebate checks of $500 for Affordable Care Act premiums. It also comes after his One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year slashed funding for Medicare, disqualifying thousands from eligibility and raising fees for the rest, and for the ACA, raising premiums for millions by eliminating tax credits.

Trump has also promised on the campaign trail to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

His latest promise — which, like the others, would require approval from Congress — would probably cost more than $1 trillion, adding to the ballooning deficit and worsening inflation.

Polls show Americans increasingly blame Trump for the high cost of gasoline and groceries, with just 17% approving of his handling of inflation. Rising healthcare costs are also a key component of the affordability struggles many face across the country.

The president has sought to shrug off concerns about affordability, claiming the economy is booming.

The White House said the $90 payments for seniors would come from the Medicare Improvement Fund, established by Congress in 2008 as flexible funding to improve program operations and payments to healthcare providers.

As proposed, Medicare Part B enrollees would receive a one-time payment in October, either through direct deposit or by check, the White House said. Total monthly costs for the program — which covers costs like doctor’s visits, ambulance services and lab tests — start around $200 and vary with income.

To be eligible, seniors must be living in the U.S. and not be already receiving premium assistance from Medicaid or paying adjusted monthly premiums based on income, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare coverage, would not be eligible for the payment. More than half of eligible Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare Advantage, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Previous administrations have not used the Medicare Improvement Fund in this way, although Congress has periodically taken out money from the fund to pay for other priorities, said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy. For example, $20.74 billion was used for the creation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

“The Medicare Improvement Fund language is quite broad and gives substantial discretion to the administration,” Levitt said.

Goldin writes for the Associated Press.

Latest polls suggest Lula’s lead over Bolsonaro is narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro have wrapped up their election campaigns, each voicing confidence in victory ahead of Sunday’s tightly contested first-round presidential vote.

Lula, 80, closed his re-election bid on Saturday with a march through Sao Paulo, Brazil’s economic powerhouse, drawing what his campaign called a record crowd for a closing rally.

“Tomorrow, we’re going to win the elections in the first round,” he told supporters, describing Sunday’s vote as a choice between “democracy and barbarism” and promising to “defeat the far right”.

He has also framed the election as a test of Brazil’s sovereignty, warning against “meddling” by Washington.

Bolsonaro led a motorcycle caravan through towns in Sao Paulo state, echoing the campaign style of his father, before rallying later in Rio de Janeiro. “I am convinced that everything is in place for us to win this election in the first round,” he said.

The 45-year-old is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of US President Donald Trump. The former leader, 71, is serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

The younger Bolsonaro was photographed at his rally holding a portrait of his father.

Trump has not formally endorsed Bolsonaro but has said he is watching the election “very closely”, a level of US interest that has become a flashpoint in the campaign.

Lula’s supporters have seized on it as evidence Washington is trying to meddle in the elections, while some Bolsonaro supporters, frustrated by the cost of living, say they would welcome US pressure if it helped force change at home.

Polls released on Saturday suggested Lula was still ahead but his lead was narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday. Such a result would send the race to a run-off on October 25 between the two frontrunners, a contest polls suggest would also be close.

It is a far tighter race than Lula’s last victory in 2022, when he beat the elder Bolsonaro by less than two percentage points.

Meanwhile, the Bolsonaro campaign has faced scrutiny over a film-funding scandal. Flavio Bolsonaro is under investigation over financing for Dark Horse, a biopic about his father, bankrolled by a jailed banker tied to one of Brazil’s biggest financial scandals.

Brazil’s Supreme Court authorised federal police in April to investigate whether Flavio Bolsonaro made defamatory statements about Lula.

Bolsonaro has pledged to seek his father’s release from prison if elected, and has echoed his father’s unsubstantiated claims questioning the reliability of Brazil’s electronic voting system, which analysts say could be laying the groundwork to contest the result if he loses.

Beyond the presidency, Brazil’s nearly 160 million registered voters will also choose lawmakers, governors and senators on Sunday.

Right-wing candidates have gained ground in Latin America in recent months.

AUSTIN — A little more than a year ago, on a muggy July day packed with political symbolism, Texas Gov. George W. Bush delivered his first major policy address as a presidential candidate at an Indiana church.

As the national press hung on every word, Bush sketched his vision of a kinder, gentler brand of conservatism, one in which the government would turn to religious groups for help serving the poor. The word “compassion” popped up 15 times in 20 minutes.

Watching from afar, proud as a parent at a high school graduation, was Marvin Olasky, the inspiration for Bush’s philosophy of compassionate conservatism and one of the most unlikely gurus ever to attract the attention of a potential world leader.

Olasky–ex-Communist, ex-atheist, born-again Christian–has become a savior of sorts among Republicans, who see in his theories a way to create small government with a big heart.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich first raised his national profile in 1995, suggesting that Olasky’s vision was a model for the future of the GOP.

Now, Olasky’s idea that religion can play a role in providing government social services has found special resonance with Bush, a fellow Texan and fervent Christian who wrote the foreword to Olasky’s most recent book, a paean to faith-based charities published last month.

Olasky believes the current wall between church and state must be broken down to let religions use tax money to help the poor. An alcoholic needing treatment could take a government voucher to an evangelical abstinence program, for instance. Or a taxpayer could donate money to help fund a Buddhist self-help center.

As Olasky’s influence has grown, the University of Texas journalism professor has become the political equivalent of a double-wide trailer in tornado country, attracting roaring controversy.

In recent months, civil rights groups have attacked his views on religion as a menace to the church-state wall. Feminists are outraged by comments they say show that Olasky believes women are secondary as leaders. And some Jewish groups were angered by a recent article in which Olasky attacked a group of conservative newspaper columnists, all of whom turned out to be Jewish.

Even some other conservatives have joined the chorus, saying Olasky’s work lacks intellectual rigor and stokes negative stereotypes of Christian conservatives.

“We are concerned that someone of this stripe has the ear of a presidential candidate who self-admittedly is not an intellectual,” said Ira Foreman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Anti-Semitism Issue Is Raised

Some of the attacks, especially those that hint at possible anti-Semitism, have angered Olasky, 50, who was raised Jewish and has praised the work of Hebrew charities in his books. Others he brushes off as misreadings that ignore his life’s work, which include more than 13 scholarly books and hundreds of articles.

But he’s not backing down from his philosophy, which he said in a recent interview would even let groups like Scientologists and Wiccans use taxpayer funds to deliver services to the poor, so long as the programs were voluntary and proven effective.

“My tendency is to be inclusive. That can include Wiccans and Scientologists. If people are going to get mad at me, then so be it,” Olasky said.

Olasky is almost amused by the fierceness of the attacks against him. After years of portrayals in the media as an obscure academic with an oddball story, he now appears as a powerful Svengali bending Bush to a radical agenda.

Olasky scoffs at the notion, downplaying his role as “a very occasional, very informal, very unofficial” advisor who hasn’t had contact with Bush this year.

Bush officials echo that assessment, continuing a recent pattern of distancing Bush from the controversies that have dogged Olasky.

“He’s an outside, informal advisor,” said Dan Bartlett, a Bush spokesman. Bartlett noted that Bush had contact with Olasky only twice, though both times proved significant.

One came in 1996, when Olasky helped lead a task force to figure out how Bush could implement faith-based programs in Texas. The second was in 1999, when he worked on another Bush task force to do the same thing, but on a national level as part of his run for the presidency.

Olasky’s journey to prominence has been a long, strange circumnavigation between ideological poles, from Marxist to church elder.

Born in Massachusetts, Olasky grew up in a Jewish home, attending Hebrew school and celebrating his bar mitzvah at 13.

But a year later, the intellectually precocious youth told his parents he was actually an atheist. By the time he entered Yale, Olasky was running toward the left at full tilt. He protested the Vietnam War. He staged a five-day hunger strike. By 1972, he signed up to become a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA.

Then one night, while reading a passage from Lenin, Olasky asked himself the sort of question that keeps college students up at night: What if Lenin is wrong? What if there is a God?

Olasky decided God deserved a second look and began a slow process that culminated with his conversion to Christianity in 1976. He and his wife began attending a conservative Christian church they picked out of the phone book and never looked back.

Gingrich Helps Put Olasky in Spotlight

In 1983, Olasky arrived at the University of Texas, where he taught journalism.

In 1992, he published “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” the product of research into turn-of-the-century nongovernmental charities and their effectiveness. After a few thousand sold, the book seemed destined for the dollar bin at Books-a-Million.

But then, a rising Republican powerhouse from Georgia–Gingrich–discovered Olasky’s work. In his first speech in 1995 as speaker of the House, Gingrich hailed Olasky in the same breath as Alexis de Tocqueville as models for the future of the GOP.

Olasky, suddenly, was a GOP darling: in demand on the morning talk shows, running a think tank with Arianna Huffington, and advising the 1994 Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate–Bush.

But the spotlight didn’t really begin to burn until the pitched primary season between Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In February, Olasky wrote an article accusing a group of conservative writers of being uncomfortable with Bush’s open embrace of religion. He implied they were “proselytes in the religion of Zeus”–a reference to a Tom Wolfe book.

As it turned out, all three writers were Jewish–which Olasky said he didn’t know at the time. Some Jewish organizations jumped on the seeming slight as an attack by a Christian conservative on Jews; others said they found no offense.

Olasky, himself a journalist who edits the Christian newsweekly World, smelled politics: “At least some of the people who are very partisanly motivated were trying to find ways of hurting Gov. Bush,” Olasky said.

Recently, Olasky’s writing has drawn scrutiny from women’s groups, in particular a passage from a 1998 religious newsletter interview in which he talked about the biblical tale of Deborah and Barak.

In the story, Barak says he will not go into war unless accompanied by Deborah, who was serving as a leader of Israel at the time.

“God does not forbid women to be leaders in society, generally speaking, but when that occurs it’s usually because of the abdication of men,” Olasky said. “As in the situation of Deborah and Barak, there’s a certain shame attached to it. I would vote for a woman for the presidency, in some situations, but again, there’s a certain shame attached. Why don’t you have a man who’s able to step forward?”

Women’s Groups Abhor Remarks

Olasky said the quote has been taken out of context and that he has no problem with a woman as president of the country or a corporation, though his own church forbids women to serve as elders.

That’s still not good enough for many women’s groups, who find Olasky’s statements offensive, no matter what the context.

“I hope he keeps talking and talking,” said Loretta Kane, a NOW vice president. “I hope he gets lot of media coverage saying he’s one of George W. Bush’s advisors.”

A provocative, sexually suggestive ad by GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is drawing heat from his fellow Republicans while drawing millions of viewers online.

Two young women sit on a bed, with an LGBTQ+ flag in the background, with one urging the other to try a new experience.

“I can’t believe I’m doing this,” one woman says, and the other replies. “Don’t be nervous. It’s not that bad … Just try it. Look, give me your hand. Close your eyes, and I’ll do all the work.”

She leads the hesitant woman’s hand to mark her ballot for Hilton rather than Democrat Xavier Becerra, the front-runner in the race, and says, “Now lick it,” referring to the mail ballot envelope.

Fellow Republicans as well as several Democrats denounced Hilton over the messaging.

Two members of Hilton’s GOP “Golden Ticket” on the Nov. 3 ballot lashed out about the ad’s content.

“I emphatically denounce the use of young women as a political tool,” Michael Gates, the Republican candidate for attorney general who has frequently appeared alongside Hilton at campaign events, wrote on X. “California families deserve better, and as AG, I will fight every day to protect our girls, young women, and parental rights.”

Sonja Shaw, who is running to be the next state superintendent of schools, castigated Hilton, the state Republican party and its chairwoman for promoting the ad, which had been viewed by nearly 5 million people as of Saturday afternoon.

“Shame on you … for reposting and cheering this creepy, weird, disturbing garbage,” Shaw wrote on X. “This is a clear example of exactly why good people are walking away from the Republican Party. As a mother and someone who has fought to protect the innocence of children, this crosses a line. We have lost our way. Embarrassing.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), an openly gay member of Congress, and state Democratic Party chairman Rusty Hicks also condemned the ad.

“This is a bizarre and desperate ad from a person who has attacked the LGBTQ+ community and stands with Donald Trump,” Garcia said. “Hilton is losing and more interested in AI slop than actually talking about issues Californians care about.”

Hilton acknowledged the ad has provoked strong reactions, but it underscored the foundation of his campaign — that many Californians may be put off by his party affiliation but want change given the state’s myriad problems, such as growing unaffordability, that have taken place under a Democratic lock of every statewide office and the state Legislature.

“We’re just saying, you know, just try it,” he said in an interview. “It’s a provocative and humorous way of making a point, right? Which often the best communication does.”

He also said the ad does not conflict with his beliefs about restrictions on gender-affirming care and on youth sports because those would only apply to people who are not adults.

A spokesman for Becerra, who led Hilton 58% to 33% in a recent UC Berkeley/Los Angeles Times poll, was gleeful about the rift the ad was creating among Republicans.

“MAGA is melting down over Steve Hilton’s creepy ad because they’re finally seeing him for the sellout he really is, willing to abandon his own twisted values to get ahead,” said Jonathan Underland.

However, some conservatives who were dismayed by the message stood by Hilton’s side.

Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, a Christian nationalist, called the ad “grotesque” and said it promoted lesbianism among young women, on a Facebook Live post Saturday. However, he said he still supports Hilton over Becerra. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Hilton is scheduled to speak on Monday to a chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBTQ group, at a brewery in Palm Desert. The organization did not respond to requests for comment.

Former California GOP chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said that while the ad wasn’t for her, she understood the campaign’s desire to expand its reach to different voters.

“Does the ad speak to me? No. He’s not going after my vote. He already has my vote. He’s trying to think of new and creative ways to make people who wouldn’t normally feel like voting for a Republican feel safe to do so,” she said. “He’s going out of his comfort zone and going for people that wouldn’t normally feel comfortable voting for him.”

Californian Fred Karger, who made history in 2012 as the first openly gay person to run for president, had mixed views about the ad, calling it shrewd yet hypocritical. And he questioned its effectiveness.

“The audience that he’s targeting there — the hipster, young hipster, lesbian audience — probably has a 1% chance of voting for him,” Karger said. “So it’s kind of a long shot. But it is a clever ad.”

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. That includes financial assets, investment accounts, intellectual property, personal belongings and other assets used for retirement or financial planning.

It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.

Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, because the two measures conflict with one another. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proposition 42 could reduce state tax revenue but it’s unclear by how much, according to the office’s analysis. Currently, the state does tax certain personal property such as vehicles. It doesn’t tax people for owning financial assets like stocks and investment accounts but does tax income from them.

California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and the California School Employees Assn. all oppose the measure. They argue that it will make it harder to pass tax hikes to pay for police and fire departments, fix and repair local roads, staff local schools or backfill federal healthcare cuts.

They also argue that Proposition 43 skirts the California Supreme Court’s opinion on the threshold.

Gubnatorial candidate Xavier Becerra opposes Proposition 43. In a statement, he called corporations “special interests” that want the proposition to pass in order to block new taxes.

“Prop. 43 would hand special interests the power to block the resources our communities count on most: fire protection, safe roads, good schools,” Becerrra said.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Jarvis taxpayers group that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

History was made this week on Capitol Hill when a female senator womansplained sports to a male senator, and surprisingly, the gender-shaming reversal did not cause the universe to collapse on itself.

During a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, MAGA’s manhood cloak was breached when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) revealed that Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) had mixed up the names of basketball teams in an unsuccessful attempt to perjure former Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Smith was testifying before the committee because he had led the investigations into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and retain classified documents. Several Republican lawmakers have said that Smith overstepped his duties and launched a “witch hunt” against Trump and his allies.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaks during a 2020 event in Las Vegas.

(Ethan Miller / Getty Images)

Schmitt was trying to suggest Tuesday that Smith improperly colluded with Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis on their separate criminal cases against Trump by placing the former special counsel on Willis’ home turf of Atlanta in 2024.

But a watershed Watergate moment this was not. If Schmitt’s effort to ensnare Smith was set to a musical score, it would have been far more “Curb Your Enthusiasm” than “Mission Impossible.”

His gotcha moment became a schooling by Klobuchar on basketball, turning the tables on the age-old art of mansplaining. For those who need a quick definition, it’s when a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing way, with sports usually at the top of that talk-down-to-her list. He assumes she knows less than he does, even if she’s versed on the subject.

Klobuchar is an avowed sports fan and the daughter of respected Minneapolis sportswriter Jim Klobuchar and a former prosecutor known for her sharp questioning. The combination proved unfortunate for Schmitt during the hearing when he tried to catch Smith in a lie.

The Republican senator asked Smith, “Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on Feb. 3, 2024?”

Smith, whose normally commanding presence has launched countless memes, appeared genuinely perplexed. “What city would that be in?” he asked.

“Atlanta,” replied Schmitt.

Smith denied he was there.

“So your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on Feb. 3, 2024. Is that correct?” Schmitt said.

“I have no recollection of that,” a bewildered Smith said.

As evidence, Schmitt introduced text messages from Smith’s security detail about seating arrangements for a game, displayed on a poster board that was taken down so quickly that Smith and various senators said they didn’t have time to read it.

“I think you’ve already perjured yourself,” said Schmitt, a former Missouri attorney general who then used the rest of his time to condemn Smith for subpoenaing the communications of Republican lawmakers while investigating Trump.

“You have weaponized the Department of Justice against political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country,” Schmitt proclaimed. “You will go down as a total dirtbag.”

Klobuchar, who was up next to question Smith, asked if the poster board could be produced again.

“I’m a former prosecutor too, and I have never seen anyone just say, ‘What do you think of this?’ and put it down,” she said.

Schmitt’s evidentiary board was produced again, and this time for more than a few seconds. There was no mention of Atlanta in the text messages.

One could almost hear the sound of Schmitt’s perjury trap crumbling under Klobuchar’s heel.

“Could it then be that it was the University of Iowa, [which] is the ‘Hawkeyes,’ could that be it?” she asked Smith. “That might be the confusion over the names of the team.”

Then she addressed Schmitt: “Perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. I think people should have their facts straight before they accuse people of being a ‘dirtbag,’ and not get the teams wrong.”

Leave it to a man to confuse the Atlanta Hawks, an NBA team, with the Iowa Hawkeyes of women’s college basketball. Perhaps his emotions got in the way.

Smith said he attended the game in Maryland to see the Hawkeyes’ supremely talented star, Caitlin Clark. Regardless of his whereabouts, Republicans contend that Smith was on a political witch hunt after then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland appointed him to oversee the twin investigations into Trump. Smith’s team scrutinized the retention of national defense information and classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, as well as the president and his allies’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and impede the peaceful transfer of power.

When Trump won the presidency a second time, Smith moved to dismiss both cases because Department of Justice policy prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Now, it’s game time for Judiciary Committee members who’d like to put Smith on the ropes. There’s just one new rule: Don’t talk sports around the ladies. They deliver a knockout punch.

The California Taxpayers Assn., the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and others back the proposition. They say it would result in the government spending taxpayer dollars more wisely while improving transparency.

The bulk of the contributions to support the proposition have come from Building a Better California, data from the California secretary of state’s website show. Top contributors to Building a Better California include Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder; John Doerr, chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins; and Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google.

Proposition 41 “requires more accountability, transparency and trackable progress of programs funded by our taxes, so that we stop funding failure and start funding successful outcomes,” a website for the proposition states.

WASHINGTON — More than three weeks have passed since the deadline for extending or revoking temporary protections against deportation for around 170,000 immigrants from El Salvador.

The Trump administration still hasn’t reached a decision, plunging the Salvadoran community into uncertainty and raising questions about what has prompted the delay.

The deportation reprieve is known as Temporary Protected Status. About 1.3 million people from 17 countries had TPS when President Trump returned to office last year, and Salvadorans make up the largest group of remaining beneficiaries.

When the TPS expiration deadlines approached for other groups, the administration reached a decision within days of a deadline. Haitians lost their TPS protections and were encouraged to leave the country. Some have been deported.

For now, Salvadoran immigrants are stuck. Many have been able to keep their jobs, though others were laid off in the absence of an official work permit extension.

Last month, administration officials said an announcement on TPS for Salvadorans would come “at the appropriate time” and that they would retain work authorization in the meantime. Asked for updated guidance Friday, a Homeland Security spokesperson provided the same statement.

The Department of Homeland Security had been prepared to end TPS protections for Salvadorans but was stopped from doing so by the White House, Politico reported.

So what’s causing the limbo?

One theory focuses on political considerations — that extending the deportation reprieve could have made the administration appear weak on immigration to its conservative base, just ahead of next month’s consequential midterm election.

Another theory holds that ending TPS would shock El Salvador’s economy, which is heavily reliant on remittances from Salvadorans in the U.S. President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, advocated for more time, according to Politico.

In addition, the White House was warned that canceling TPS for Salvadorans would disrupt construction projects in Washington, D.C., the New Yorker reported and a source with knowledge of the warnings confirmed they had occurred.

A White House official, in a statement, said that “any assertion Washington D.C. construction projects had anything to do with a decision about El Salvador TPS are false.”

The Washington region has the second-largest Salvadoran population in the U.S., after Los Angeles, and the construction industry relies significantly on workers with TPS.

Trump is overseeing a sweeping aesthetic makeover of the nation’s capital, including his controversial 90,000-square-foot, $600-million ballroom complex at the White House. The president also ordered a facelift for the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, renovations at Lafayette Square, a public park across from the White House and the application of 23.75 karat gold leaf to four bronze and granite statues.

Contracts at sensitive locations such as the White House typically include requirements that workers be U.S. citizens. A White House official said there is no one with TPS status working on the East Wing Modernization construction project.

Asked about those working on the president’s other projects around the district, a Department of Interior spokesperson said contractors are obligated to ensure everyone working on any project is legally permitted to work in the U.S.

“The Department has not had any conversations about TPS or how it relates to construction projects around the city,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement.

People with TPS do work in other federal facilities.

Lauren Truslow is chief executive of 3D Enviro, a Virginia company that does hazardous materials abatement with a handful of workers affected by the TPS expiration for El Salvador. She said that after her employees’ federal badges expired last month, they were eventually reinstated until Oct. 9 — but not before missing several days of work.

TPS allows immigrants to obtain work permits and other documents. The uncertain status of TPS has led to sometime conflicting actions by government agencies or employers.

Advocates for TPS holders said some states have refused to renew their driver’s licenses, while others renewed licenses for different lengths of time. Truslow said some of her employees were only able to get federally noncompliant driver’s licenses, which they can’t use to get into federal facilities.

“At least they’re here in this community and they weren’t forced to leave,” she said. “I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I think there were ramifications with the decision and still there’s uncertainty.”

Truslow said the government agency her company works with is unrolling a new process. After next week, her workers on that project can seek an approval extension for their badges that would last until March.

For construction companies, getting rid of TPS “would be a disaster,” said Arnoldo Diaz, co-coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, an advocacy group. “D.C. can’t function without TPS.”

Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, has had ongoing conversations with Homeland Security and White House leaders about TPS. What sets Salvadorans apart, she said, is the decades of experience many bring to the construction industry, which would be impossible to quickly replace.

“Many are managers and business owners themselves, running large projects,” she said. “It’s a level of skill set and longtime loyalty that cannot be replaced overnight. Because the president has been in this industry for five decades, he instinctively knows that.”

That economic consideration, coupled with polls showing that Latino voters think Trump has gone too far with immigration enforcement, “are the much larger considerations than the president’s own pet projects,” Shi said.

Roxy Mejia, political director of a local painters union in Washingon, said 67% of the 1,500 members are Latino and many of them Salvadoran TPS holders.

Mejia said she and her father immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 1985, before TPS existed. He worked on the Pentagon renovation after 9/11.

Under this administration, some Salvadorans with TPS have been declining government contract jobs out of fear of being detained, she said.

“Even the contractors have lobbied with us to keep TPS extending, because they would lose a lot of manpower in this area,” she said.

EXCLUSIVE

In exclusive Al Jazeera interview, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud says attempts to pull Somalia into Middle East crises won’t succeed.

Somalia will not accept Israeli presence in the country “under any circumstances” and will resist any attempts to be pulled into the Middle East’s crises, its President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud tells Al Jazeera.

Speaking in an exclusive interview, Mohamud said that Israel was planning to establish a naval base in Berbera and use the city’s airport, adding that its real aim was to get closer to the Gulf states and Iran.

Berbera is a port city on the Gulf of Aden coast in Somaliland – the self-declared republic in northwestern Somalia that Israel recognised last year, but which is claimed by Mogadishu.

Berbera faces Yemen across the water near the strategic Bab al-Mandeb strait. The Iran-aligned Houthis have previously enforced a blockade on Israel-linked ships in the area.

“We will overcome the challenges posed to our country by Israeli moves,” Mohamud said in his wide-ranging interview.

He added that the Israeli plans fall under the “Greater Israel” project – referring to a term for various proposals, often rooted in biblical interpretations, for Israeli control over territory beyond its current borders. Some versions extend from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Israel has not adopted it as official policy, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an August 2025 interview that he felt connected to the vision, prompting condemnation from Arab governments.

The Somali president described Israel as a “destabilising force” that does not abide by international law.

He also criticised Tel Aviv’s recognition of Somaliland in December.

No country other than Israel recognises Somaliland, while the region’s own residents are completely opposed to an Israeli presence, Mohamud said.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 and has governed itself independently for more than three decades. But it had not secured recognition from any United Nations member state until Israel’s move.

Fight against armed groups

The Somali president told Al Jazeera the United States remains his country’s strongest partner in the fight against “terrorism”, and added that al-Shabab has no presence in the major cities, leaving no possibility of the group taking control in Somalia.

Al-Shabab is a Somali armed group that emerged from the Islamic Courts Union in the mid-2000s and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2012. It has fought Somalia’s federal government for years, holds territory in parts of southern and central Somalia, and has carried out deadly attacks, including in Mogadishu and in neighbouring Kenya.

Regarding the East Africa region, Mohamud said Somalia’s relations with neighbouring Ethiopia are good, and Mogadishu does not object to Addis Ababa gaining access to the sea through Somali territory.

Ethiopia has been landlocked since Eritrea became independent in 1993 and relies largely on Djibouti’s ports for trade. In January 2024, Addis Ababa signed a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland on sea access, which Somalia condemned as a violation of its sovereignty. Somalia and Ethiopia later agreed to ease tensions.

Houthis ‘destabilising’ region

Mohamud also accused Yemen’s Houthis of “destabilising” the region and disrupting navigation in the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

His comments come as the group attempts to build on its lightning offensive that captured the country’s Red Sea coast last month.

Thus far, Yemeni government forces have been able to hold their positions on the front lines and even claimed to have inflicted heavy losses against the Houthis.

The Houthis have also intensified their attacks on Saudi Arabia, but the kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has promised not to compromise on its security, saying the Yemeni rebels chose “chaos and destruction, threatening the Yemeni people and the region”.

The full interview with President Mohamud will be broadcast on Al Jazeera Arabic on Sunday.

As a candidate in 2022, Cohen said she’d conduct audits of homeless spending, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Employment Development Department if elected. However, her office didn’t do audits of homeless spending, a spokesperson said.

Cohen said her office sought funding from the governor and the state to conduct homeless audits but was denied. Her office clarified the request was for money for high-risk audit investments but didn’t specifically mention homelessness.

Cohen also acknowledged that she didn’t conduct reviews of the DMV and EDD, because, she said, other agencies were doing those audits and she didn’t want to duplicate their efforts.

After Cohen’s election, her office found itself in a public dispute over the state’s annual comprehensive financial report, a summary of California’s spending.

The report, published each year by the controller’s office, is used by credit agencies to monitor the state’s fiscal health and for years has been published months after it is due. Cohen blames other departments’ delays in turning over data as part of the reason for its chronic lateness.

The state auditor, a separate agency that reports to the state Legislature, launched its own audit about the timeliness of the report. In a 2025 letter, the auditor accused the controller’s office of spending more than a year “resisting an independent review” of the delayed report, which almost led to a legal showdown between the agencies.

Cohen, in an interview this year, said she succeeded in getting the report published closer to its due date. Her office also disputes the state auditor’s version of events.

Also this year, Cohen’s press officer secretly was recorded by a woman who pretended to be on a date with him. In the recording, the officer is heard saying that the office’s auditing team was cut by the state and that the office doesn’t have the resources to proactively perform audits. The recording was procured by conservative activist group O’Keefe Media.

Cohen called the recording illegal and declined to comment. The officer didn’t respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Hours before Nithya Raman took the stage at Jewish Federation L.A.’s mayoral forum this week, Mayor Karen Bass’ campaign blasted out a press release accusing the council member of skipping a City Council Jewish Heritage Month event to appear on Hasan Piker’s livestream.

The Raman camp’s response: “The Mayor is deliberately spreading misinformation that the public record directly contradicts,” said Liz Garcia, a campaign spokesperson.

Piker is a left-wing streamer on the platform Twitch and a fierce critic of Israel. Raman appeared on his stream on May 15, where he asked her if she thought Israel was committing genocide in Palestine. She said she did.

That same day, Raman missed a Jewish Heritage Month event at City Hall. Debbie Paperman, who is on the executive board of Democrats for Israel Los Angeles, said Raman told her that she had not been feeling well.

The Bass campaign, citing the fact that Raman appeared on Piker’s stream the same day, fired off an email to reporters claiming the councilmember had lied about her reasons for missing the Jewish heritage event.

The Raman campaign said that Raman was, in fact, ill.

Video from the May 15 council meeting shows Raman was present at the start of the meeting, but no longer at her seat during the heritage event, in which Councilmember Bob Blumenfield celebrated Jewish athletes. More than an hour later, Raman was back in council to make a speech and introduce other speakers for Hapa Day, celebrating people of mixed Asian and Pacific Island heritage, during which she said she wasn’t feeling well.

Raman’s team said she was still at City Hall during the Jewish Heritage Month event, but that she left council chambers due to her illness.

She felt better later that afternoon, the Raman camp said, allowing her to appear on Piker’s show.

Paperman said she wasn’t convinced. “It happened that you were sick for the multiple hours this was going on and you happened to get better to go on this psycho’s stream?” said Paperman. “I don’t believe that.”

Piker, meanwhile, shot back at the mayor for using his name to try to dissuade voters from supporting Raman.

“Karen Bass is deploying the same nasty tactic that Donald Trump used recently at a press conference, wondering out loud why any Jewish person would vote for Democrats, due to my presence in the big tent,” he told The Times in a text message.

Piker said he will vote for Raman, though he supported Bass against billionaire Rick Caruso in 2022.

“I was also a fan of [her] past work in Cuba,” he told The Times. “Karen Bass used to be quite the radical.”

Bass swings up in new poll

Bass will need to rely on undecided Republican and conservative voters to propel her to a mayoral victory, a new poll paid for by a group supporting her found.

The incumbent mayor is trailing Raman by 4 percentage points, 39% to 35%, with a quarter of the electorate still undecided, according to the initial results from an FM3 Research poll that was commissioned by the Central City Assn.’s PAC, an independent expenditure group supporting the mayor.

When the pollsters gave likely voters additional, critical information about both candidates, Bass shot up by 5 points and took a narrow lead over Raman, 40% to 39%, with 21% undecided, according to FM3.

“The undecided voters — including many that say they will refuse to make a choice between Bass and Raman by Election Day — are disproportionately: Republicans, conservatives, 65+, homeowners, Democratic women over the age of 50 and those who do not hold a college degree,” wrote the research company in a polling memorandum.

The poll surveyed 809 likely L.A. voters from Sept. 21-28. It has a 3.5% margin of error.

“The mayoral race remains a statistical tie,” said Nella McOsker, the president of the Central City Assn. “Our poll demonstrates that some of the most reliable voting blocs swing to Bass once they fully learn both candidates’ records.”

A poll conducted between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20 by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found Raman was ahead 39% to 28%.

Raman allies engage in trash talk

A woman walks out of her home carrying a full garbage bag, then starts venting about the high cost of trash pickup.

“Karen Bass has nearly bankrupted L.A., so the city doubled my trash fees. Isn’t L.A. expensive enough?” the woman says angrily, before slamming the lid on a black trash bin.

That message is at the heart of a campaign video created by Streets For All, a transportation advocacy group now spending about $1.2 million to promote Raman and tear down Bass.

That ad is missing a key piece of information: Raman voted to hike those trash fees several times last year, even as two of her council colleagues spoke out against them.

“I was one of two no votes,” said City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who is supporting Bass’ reelection, in an interview. “She never once pushed back.”

Rodriguez called the ad misleading, saying it implies that Raman was an opponent of the fee hikes.

Michael Schneider, who runs the Streets For All campaign committee, defended the 14-second spot, saying council members hiked the trash fees to make up for bad budget decisions made by the mayor — including her support for a $2.6-billion upgrade of the Convention Center.

The council boosted the trash fee to $55.95 per month last year for small apartment buildings, up from $24.33. For single-family homes, the monthly fee was also hiked to $55.95, up from $36.32.

The city’s budget advisors said the increases were needed in large part because the monthly fees had not been increased in 17 years. As a result, L.A.’s residential trash customers were not being charged the full cost of garbage pickup, leaving the city budget to cover the difference.

“Kick it in the Park” gets Olympic makeover

L.A.’s summer of 2026 will be remembered for stifling heat, innumerable Dodgers injuries and, especially, World Cup watch parties.

Teams, corporate sponsors and the city of Los Angeles welcomed in the world, producing large crowds and kumbaya moments — with fans of opposing teams partying side-by-side in (relative) peace and harmony.

Mayor Karen Bass’ “Kick it in the Park” events drew a total of 45,000 fans over the length of the quadrennial soccer tournament. A survey of about 2,000 of them registered overwhelming support for the free shindigs.

Paul Krekorian, executive director of the mayor’s Office of Major Events, declared victory in a meeting with City Council members this week. He also said that substantial planning is already underway to bring the city even more viewing parties and “activations” during the 2028 Olympics.

While the city hosted a maximum of three viewing parties a day during the World Cup, it plans to stage as many as 15 a day when the Olympics come to town. A list has been drawn up of possible locations for the festivities — spread around every corner of the city and distant from Olympic venues to avoid overcrowding.

Among the possible viewing party locations: MacArthur Park, the Greek Theatre, Pan Pacific Park, Leimert Park Plaza, Koreatown, Penmar Recreation Center, Echo Park Lake, Angels Gate Park and the Watts Towers.

Given the welter of Olympic events, it will be a challenge to schedule the parties, whose centerpieces are usually big screen projections of the live events, with food and live performances often thrown in.

State of play

— SPLIT ON GAZA: Bass and Raman split on Tuesday over whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza during the Israel Gaza war. The two candidates gave their opinions during a forum hosted by Jewish Federation Los Angeles. Raman said she agrees with the experts who use the term, while Bass said she would not use the term genocide to describe Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza.

— WILDFIRE FAILURES: A long-awaited independent investigation commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom offered the most in-depth review of the Jan. 7, 2025, Palisades and Eaton fires, describing the chaos and poor communication that made firefighting, rescues and evacuations even more difficult. The 724-page report also cited the Los Angeles Fire Department’s failure to fully extinguish the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which reignited days later, and Los Angeles County’s failure to provide timely evacuation alerts in Altadena.

— ESTAMOS CON WHOM?: Recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that likely Latino voters favor Councilmember Raman over incumbent Bass by a wide margin — 45% to 21%, with 34% undecided. That’s an even bigger lead than Raman had over Bass with voters overall in the most recent Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll.

— VOTER GUIDES: The Times released its much-anticipated voter guides for the November election this week, including a mayoral guide and a guide to the Council District 9 race, among many others.

— OLYMPIC OBSCURA: The nonprofit organizer of the 2028 Summer Olympics, LA28, has provided less information in its annual reports than it agreed to in a 2021 contract with the city. The group has stopped reporting the contracts it signs over $1 million, leaving taxpayers with less information about the work going into the Games. LA28 says it has provided all necessary info.

The city also asked LA28 to take out a $650-million insurance policy, and agree to cover any potential losses above that amount, should the Games be canceled by a calamity.

— LAPD BLUES: Secret recordings documenting LAPD officers making racist comments have renewed questions about whether the force, which is now less than 50% white, has made forward progress on stamping out prejudice in its ranks.

— STORM’S BREWING: L.A.’s sanitation agency is bracing for the coming ‘Super’ El Niño, which could wreak havoc with the city’s Hyperion sewage treatment plant.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program went to East Hollywood in Hugo Soto-Martínez’s district on Tuesday, where they moved 61 people indoors near Beverly Boulevard and Madison Avenue. On Thursday, Inside Safe moved 27 people indoors near Louvre Street and Ralston Avenue in Pacoima in Rodriguez’s district.
• On the docket next week: On Wednesday, the City Council’s transportation committee will be discussing an independent evaluation of the city’s Vision Zero Program.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

For the second election in a row, Brazilian voters face a choice between left-wing candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family.

The country’s fractious election is set to take place during a wave of successful far-right candidates across Latin America and a sensitive time in Brazil’s modern political history.

Former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his loss to Lula in 2022. The conviction of Jair Bolsonaro and several military officers raised questions about the resilience of Brazilian democracy, revived several decades ago following a period of rule by a United States-backed military dictatorship.

An explosive corruption scandal has implicated prominent figures and institutions across the political spectrum, and observers have expressed concern about possible US intervention.

Polls suggest Lula, the current president seeking a fourth non-consecutive term, and Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, are in a virtual tie in a simulated run-off.

Who are the candidates, what issues have been front and centre, and what could the election mean for Brazil? Here’s what you need to know about Brazil’s 2026 presidential elections.

When is the election?

The first round of voting in the Brazilian presidential election will take place on October 4 from 8am to 5pm Brasilia time (11:00 to 20:00 GMT).

If no candidate wins the first round outright, the top two candidates will proceed to a run-off vote on October 25.

Who is Lula?

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known simply as Lula, is the country’s current president and the candidate for the Workers’ Party, or the PT.

The 80-year-old has been a central figure in Brazilian politics for decades, serving two four-year presidential terms between 2003 and 2011, and his current term, which began in 2023.

His time in office has been defined by an effort to pair political democracy, restored after a US-backed military dictatorship that ruled the country for several decades until the 1980s, with material improvement for the country’s poor through a series of social programmes meant to address inequality.

Lula has also sought to forge ties between developing, non-Western countries on the global stage.

“He has come to embody the institutionalisation and consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera in a phone call.

Who is Flavio Bolsonaro?

Flavio Bolsonaro has emerged as the heir to his father’s status as leader of Brazil’s political right and Lula’s main challenger in the 2026 election. Bolsonaro is running as the candidate of the right-wing Liberal Party.

The 45-year-old is the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Flavio has pledged a hard stance on crime and insecurity and close collaboration with the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has designated several criminal groups in Brazil as “terrorist organisations”.

He has also promised to rein in inflation and government spending, with an adviser stating that he would implement a debt ceiling if elected.

Flavio Bolsonaro has also sought to turn his father’s conviction into a story of political persecution, denouncing his trial as illegitimate and seeking his release from prison.

“I ask God for the opportunity to walk up the ramp of Planalto Palace next year alongside President Jair Messias Bolsonaro, so that he may place the presidential sash across my chest,” he said at a campaign event in September.

“The Bolsonaro family’s pitch is that the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive, and that we need a sharp turn away from this status quo,” said Pagliarini.

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” he added.

What issues have defined the race?

As with many recent elections across the region, crime, insecurity and cost of living issues have dominated the Brazilian election. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A Quaest survey from September 7 found that 31 percent of respondents cited violence as their biggest concern, followed by 20 percent who said corruption, 19 percent who said the economy, and 12 percent who said health.

While Brazil has seen decent economic growth and low unemployment and inflation during Lula’s third term, those mild gains have been paired with explosive levels of household debt and concerns about the rising cost of living.

A report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning US-based think tank focused on economic issues, found that extreme poverty in Brazil fell by about 40 percent between 2022 and 2024, unemployment dropped to historic lows, and the country’s economic growth significantly outpaced that of most of its neighbours. But the analysis also found that households were strained by a sharp uptick in the cost of servicing debt. All in all, analysts say they amount to a view of the economy that is neither catastrophic nor particularly satisfying.

Pagliarini says that both candidates have tried to steer the election onto more favourable terrain for their issues of choice, with Lula portraying Flavio Bolsonaro as a willing accomplice in US efforts to undermine Brazilian sovereignty, and Flavio Bolsonaro accusing Lula of being corrupt and weak on crime.

What do the polls say?

Analysts say that polls reflect the state of Brazilian politics: deeply polarised but unenthusiastic.

“The general vibe is that this is a very downbeat campaign,” said Pagliarini. “There’s not a lot of enthusiasm either way, and it’s hard to tell at this stage who that favours.”

Most surveys show a close race, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Flavio Bolsonaro that tightens further in a hypothetical run-off.

A Quaest survey from September shows Lula with 37 percent of voter intention against Flavio Bolsonaro’s 33 percent, while an AtlasIntel survey from the same period showed Lula winning 46 percent to Flavio Bolsonaro’s 43 percent.

A Datafolha poll found Lula with 40 percent and Flavio Bolsonaro with 36 percent.

Polls also show Flavio Bolsonaro favoured over Lula on issues of inflation, combating corruption, and crime and drug trafficking, while Lula is seen more favourably on issues of poverty and inequality, foreign affairs and health.

What challenges has each campaign faced?

An explosive corruption scandal, focused on disgraced banker Daniel Vorcaro, has raised questions for both campaigns and implicated members of the country’s political and economic elite across the political spectrum.

Reports found that Flavio Bolsonaro had solicited substantial funds from Vorcaro, ostensibly to finance a documentary – The Dark Horse (or O Azarao) – about his father.

Lula’s former finance minister, Guido Mantega, has also said he helped arrange a meeting with Vorcaro, Lula and the head of Brazil’s central bank to discuss banking policy. Lula has said he told Vorcaro there would be no political interference in his bank’s case, only a “technical investigation conducted by the central bank”. The Reuters news agency confirmed the meeting.

The scandal has also embroiled the country’s Supreme Court, with Alexandre de Moraes, whose central role in Bolsonaro’s coup trial turned him into a subject of ire for the political right, facing questions about his own links to the banker.

De Moraes has in turn accused a justice appointed by Bolsonaro of wrongdoing, with the court considering probes into the conduct of both justices.

What are the concerns about US intervention?

Concerns that the Trump administration could intervene or seek to influence the outcome on behalf of Bolsonaro have also loomed over the election.

The US president has frequently threatened to cut off economic assistance to Latin American countries if his preferred candidate fails to win. Trump had also used sanctions to target members of the Brazilian judiciary involved in the case against the elder Bolsonaro, which he portrayed as a “witch-hunt”. Trump also placed heavy tariffs on Brazil in a bid to have the case thrown out.

The country’s government denied visas to two US officials who sought to travel to Brazil, saying they planned to cast doubt on the integrity of Brazilian elections. Lula’s government has warned the US against meddling in the country’s domestic affairs.

Trump has himself used false claims of rampant fraud to justify efforts to remain in office despite his election loss in 2020.

A group of 31 Democratic US Congress members recently sent a letter to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticising “an apparent effort to interfere with, and potentially undermine” Brazilian elections.

The Reuters reported that Brazilian intelligence officials also briefed a French and German delegation in September about possible interference in the election by outside powers such as the US and Russia. The officials said that US interference ranged “from lawfare to interference that is openly acknowledged”.

Organizations publicly opposing Proposition 44 include the California Medical Assn., the California Hospital Assn., which represents hospitals and health systems, the Assn. of California Healthcare Districts, which represents the state’s 76 public healthcare districts, the California Teachers Assn., the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate, the state Democratic Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and Reform California, a conservative advocacy group.

Opponents say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted in the 90% of revenues, prompting clinics to cut programs to avoid financial penalties. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation alone, an additional expense that could leave up to 88% of clinics operating in the red.

Opponents also say the measure adds an expensive layer of bureaucracy to the state’s budget and grants elected officials — in this case, the attorney general — authority to determine which services clinics can offer.

Fewer City Council meetings

McOsker, who represents the Harbor Area and parts of South L.A., said he’d like to spend less time on the 110 Freeway getting downtown and more time serving his community directly. He called the frequent council meetings the “most nonproductive part of my week.”

Many cities, including Long Beach, San Diego and Sacramento, have councils that meet just once a week, McOsker noted, adding that the council still could meet more frequently if needed.

Fewer meetings also would make it more likely for the council to settle issues at one meeting, he said — a benefit to constituents who show up at meetings only to see a vote on their issue deferred to another day.

Fewer meetings also may encourage people to instead attend council committee hearings, McOsker said, which often discuss measures in more detail and allow for robust public comment.

Rob Quan, an organizer with the watchdog group Unrig LA, opposes the amendment but said he would support fewer meetings if the council made other changes to improve public access to city government, including releasing meeting agendas further in advance and scheduling committee meetings in the evenings when more people can attend.

But Quan expressed skepticism the council would make those changes.

Rodriguez noted that Measure EE also includes a measure to raise fines for city ethics violations, which she described as a cynical attempt to shift the focus away from the reduced requirement for meetings.

“My big problem with EE is that it’s a ruse of reform,” she said.

Referendum signatures increase

Amendment EE also would make it harder for voters to overturn City Council actions through the use of ballot referendums.

To qualify a referendum for the ballot, petitioners must collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election. Amendment EE would increase this threshold to 15% of ballots cast.

For example, 929,000 votes were cast in the 2022 mayoral general election — meaning referendums need about 93,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. With a 15% threshold, nearly 140,000 signatures would be needed.

McOsker said the change makes the number of signatures needed for referendums and voter initiatives consistent in the city charter. Both methods should have enough support from the public to make it to the ballot, he said.

“Measure EE seeks to make the ballot box powers equal to either overturn or to adopt legislation,” he said.

Quan took issue with that, noting that with ballot initiatives, organizers have four months to collect the required signatures. With a referendum, they have just 30 days.

“It is going to be functionally useless. There is going to be nobody that has the money to pull this off in 30 days,” he said.

The city’s most recent referendum effort came last year, when business groups sought to repeal the $30 minimum wage for tourism workers. The effort fell about 9,000 signatures short despite backing from Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, the American Hotel and Lodging Assn. and others.

More power to police and fire watchdogs

The L.A. Police Department inspector general and Fire Department independent assessor provide civilian oversight over their respective departments. Amendment EE would remove the ability for the police and fire commissions to stop an audit by their independent inspectors.

“As an independent entity, it is important for them to be able to proceed with the work that they deem appropriate,” McOsker said.

Quan said the reform is potentially helpful but said he knows of no instances in which commissions blocked an audit. Quan speculated that this was included — at the very top of the ballot measure — as a sweetener to help sell the less palatable provision to reduce the number of required council meetings. “It’s a really marginal reform,” he said.

Ethics commission changes

Amendment EE would increase civil fines — those imposed by a judge through the court system — to the same level as administrative fines levied by the ethics commission.

McOsker said the higher penalty should lead to fewer violations.

Quan said this was another marginal change, noting that under Charter Amendment ER, approved by voters in 2024, the ethics commission can impose fines of up to $15,000. Under EE, private citizens or others filing ethics suits in civil courts could seek fines of the same amount.

In addition, Amendment EE would ban ethics commissioners or the executive director from running for City Council or the LAUSD Board of Education for five years after they leave office.

McOsker acknowledged that there hasn’t been a precedent, but said “we need to anticipate the potential that someone could get on the commission and take a look at the seat they want and use their position to improve their chance of getting that office.”

A final change proposed by the amendment would clarify the definition of a “stakeholder” in the charter as it relates to who can sit on a neighborhood council, which makes recommendations to the City Council but lacks formal legislative power.

Stakeholders currently are defined as anyone who lives, works or owns real property within the neighborhood boundaries, or community organizations like chambers of commerce or nonprofits.

Kay Hartman, president of the Palms Neighborhood Council and chair of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition’s subcommission on charter reform, said there was “no substantive change” to neighborhood councils in the amendment.