politics

ICE officer under review for alleged mental health struggles, violent behavior amid deadly shooting case in Maine.

United States President Donald Trump’s border czar says the vetting of an immigration officer involved in the deadly shooting of a Colombian native in Maine is under internal review after the officer’s relatives revealed to The Associated Press that he had a history of serious mental health struggles and violent behaviour.

Tom Homan said on Sunday that if the allegations against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer are true, “I don’t think he should ever have cleared vetting.”

“There’s several things under review,” Homan said on CNN about the officer, Army veteran David Brouillette. “The training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section.”

Questions about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) rush to hire, train and deploy thousands of new ICE officers to carry out Trump’s immigration crackdown have come into stark focus after back-to-back deadly shootings of immigrants in Maine and Houston.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin ordered a pause in vehicle stops after the Maine shooting, but Trump almost immediately reversed course and insisted the stops resume as a necessary tool in his campaign to round up and deport immigrants without current legal status.

DHS did not immediately respond on Sunday to a request for comment about the internal review.

ICE mandates body cameras during vehicle stops

Homan said that “changes have been made” and that acting ICE director David Venturella has issued a new directive that body cameras must be in use if officers make a vehicle stop.

“Right now, on all vehicle stops, there’s at least one body camera on site to record the entire event,” he said.

He said Venturella “sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video”.

It is unclear if the steps the department is taking will be enough to quell the concerns coming from certain Congress lawmakers over DHS training and tactics as it tries to reach Trump’s mass deportation goals.

Lawmakers push for answers

Lawmakers from both parties have raised concerns.

Democrats pressed ICE officials during a closed-door briefing for the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee last week, leaving some with more questions than answers.

Lawmakers were told during the briefing that there have been 56 complaints of excessive force against ICE officers – 32 were cleared, and one was referred for disciplinary action.

No discipline had yet been handed out, the lawmakers said they were told. The rest of the incidents are still under investigation.

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, has pushed for the use of body cameras and ensured funding for the effort. She had said it was “extremely unfortunate” that the officer involved in the shooting in her home state was not using a camera.

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Barack Obama romped to victory Saturday in the South Carolina Democratic primary, a landslide powered by African American voters energized by a chance to elect the nation’s first black president.

The win, the most lopsided of the campaign, gives the Illinois senator a big lift heading into the coast-to-coast balloting Feb. 5. He once more demonstrated strong support among young and change-minded voters, who helped set another record turnout.

“The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders,” Obama told a boisterous crowd in Columbia that repeatedly interrupted his remarks with cheers. “It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it is not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future.”

The outcome of the Democratic contest, after a week of racially charged campaigning, also suggested divisions that flew in the face of Obama’s message of unity. The Illinois senator won 4 out of 5 black votes in the state Saturday versus 1 out of 4 white votes, according to exit polls.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, who split most of the white vote, finished second and third, respectively. Clinton and Edwards ran even among white women; Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and a South Carolina native, carried a plurality of white men.

Obama made significant inroads with one group of white voters: He carried half those younger than 30.

He also fared well on issues. Half of voters cited the economy as the major problem facing the country; Obama was that bloc’s clear favorite. He enjoyed an even bigger edge among voters naming healthcare or the war in Iraq as the country’s biggest problem.

Clinton left the state about the time the polls closed at 7 p.m., but called Obama from her plane to congratulate him before taking off. Nearly final returns showed Obama with 55% of the vote, Clinton with 27% and Edwards with 18%.

Appearing hours later in Nashville, Clinton thanked South Carolina residents, then talked about the landslide of votes coming Feb. 5, when voters in more than 20 states — including California — will go to the polls.

“I want to tell you how excited I am that the eyes of the country turn to Tennessee and the other states that vote on Feb. 5,” the New York senator told a crowd of several hundred at Tennessee State University. “Millions and millions of Americans will have the chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted.”

Edwards, who carried South Carolina in his 2004 bid, vowed Saturday night to stay in the race “to give voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in this democracy.” He planned to campaign today in several states with Feb. 5 contests.

For months, Clinton was the leader in South Carolina polls, but that began to change as Obama’s campaign gathered strength. His support among black voters exploded after his Jan. 3 victory in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, and his win Saturday was bigger than many analysts had expected.

Speaking at a victory rally at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center, Obama declared: “After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, we have the most delegates and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we’ve seen in a long, long time.”

Sounding themes similar to the speech delivered after his Iowa triumph, Obama decried a politics that foments division. “I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina,” he said. “I saw South Carolina.”

Giddy, the crowd chanted, “Yes, we can!” and “Race doesn’t matter!”

But at the same time, Obama took veiled swipes at Clinton and her husband, the former president, over the acrimony of the last week, saying, “We are up against the idea that it is acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election.”

South Carolina, which was given the privilege of an early-voting slot to promote diversity in the Democratic race, was the first contested state with a large black population. Exit polls indicated that more than half of those who turned out Saturday were African American, up slightly from four years ago, and many had an eye on history.

About noon Saturday, 17 consecutive African Americans leaving a polling place in working-class Orangeburg said they had voted for Obama.

“It tells me that people and times are changing,” said Sarah Favors, who has taught for 25 years at historically black South Carolina State University. “And to see it happening here in South Carolina tells me that things are really changing, because people here like things to stay the same.”

There were 45 pledged national delegates at stake in Saturday’s voting, with Obama projected to win the most. But more significant was the momentum that comes with victory, which has gone back and forth between Obama and Clinton on virtually a weekly basis since his strong opening win in Iowa’s caucuses.

The two can now claim a pair of victories.

“This was a big win for Obama,” said John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who is not affiliated with a campaign. “It shows this is going to be competitive all the way to the end.”

It could be ugly, too. South Carolina, a state with a history of incendiary elections, is where an already nasty contest turned raw and racial.

Obama and Clinton clashed in the harshest debate of the campaign: He derided her service “as a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart,” she accused him of doing the legal bidding of a Chicago slumlord. Their venom carried over to the airwaves.

The Clinton campaign broadcast a radio spot suggesting Obama was at heart a Reagan Republican. Obama responded with an assertion that Clinton would “say anything to get elected.”

Clinton left the state for two days midweek and placed her campaign in the formidable hands of her husband, who won South Carolina in his 1992 White House run. Critics accused the former president of injecting race into the contest through a series of veiled remarks; he angrily denied the assertion, and campaign strategists said they were pleased with his prominent role.

But interviews with voters leaving their polling places Saturday suggested a backlash. About 6 in 10 said the former president’s campaigning was important in shaping their decision; of those, nearly half went for Obama, according to the survey conducted for television networks and the Associated Press.

Moreover, Obama handily defeated Clinton among those who made their minds up in the final three days of the campaign, when coverage of the former president dominated the news.

“It was a choice between old and new, and people wanted new,” said Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter and former state Democratic Party chairman.

But aides to candidate Clinton said Saturday that the former president would continue to campaign on his wife’s behalf as the race shifts to what is in effect a national presidential primary.

Up to now, the nominating fight has been a series of single-state battles in discrete regions: Iowa in the Midwest, New Hampshire in the Northeast, Nevada in the West and South Carolina below the Mason-Dixon line.

Florida Democrats vote Tuesday, but that contest has been diminished by a candidate boycott stemming from its violation of party rules forbidding such an early vote. The focus from here out is Feb. 5, when more than 20 states hold nominating contests. At stake will be nearly 1,700 national convention delegates, well over half the number needed to secure the nomination.

Despite cloudy, chilly weather, South Carolina Democrats posted a record turnout Saturday — more than 532,000 voters — continuing a pattern in this election season.

Unlike the race in Iowa, a mostly positive contest that buoyed many Democrats, South Carolina left a sour tang.

“A tough competition is good,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant watching from the sidelines. “But we have to come together in the general election. There are three qualified candidates. We would be better off debating their different leadership styles than ripping each other’s faces off.”

—

mark.barabak@latimes.com

—

Times staff writers Maria L. LaGanga in Columbia, S.C., James Rainey in Orangeburg, S.C., and Peter Nicholas in Nashville contributed to this report.

—

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

S. Carolina results

Democrats

Barack Obama … 55%

Hillary Rodham Clinton … 27%

John Edwards … 18%

99% of precincts reporting

The island has weathered a US oil embargo since January and is enduring one of its worst economic crises ever.

Cuba’s president has accused the United States of carrying out “genocide” against his people and seeking to seize the Caribbean island nation.

President Miguel Diaz-Canel lashed out during a rally on Sunday commemorating the start of the Cuban Revolution in 1953. His anger was a reaction to Washington’s continued pressure, which has included a crippling oil embargo that has produced regular blackouts and economic hardship.

“I denounce that Cuba is the victim of a cold-bloodedly calculated genocide,” Diaz-Canel said in Pinar del Rio at the event marking the 73rd anniversary of the uprising against former dictator Fulgencio Batista.

US relations with the communist-led island have long been tense, but have deteriorated further under US President Donald Trump.

Washington imposed an oil embargo on Cuba on January 29, causing daily blackouts of more than 20 hours.

The US, Diaz-Canel said on Sunday, was engaged in “economic strangulation” through its actions.

Employers have been forced to reduce workdays, industrial production has stopped, and water and medicine shortages are hitting a country already suffering from previous US sanctions and financial reforms that caused inflation.

Payment companies Visa and Mastercard, Spain’s Melia hotel chain, and Air Canada and Air France have all exited the country amid the crisis.

“Cuba is today waging a historic battle … against the walls of a genocidal policy whose objective is to suffocate an entire people in order to appropriate the country,” Diaz-Canel said.

Trump said he would “take over” Cuba, following the US abduction of former Venezuelan president and Cuban ally Nicolas Maduro in January.

Last week, a US State Department report accused Cuba’s government of running an espionage and influence network against Washington and Latin American neighbours.

In May, the US indicted former president and revolution leader Raul Castro – brother of Fidel – of murder and other crimes for his alleged part in the downing of two civilian airplanes operated by Miami-based exiles off the Cuban coast in 1996.

Cuba’s government has rejected the accusations and denounced Trump’s rhetoric. Talks between the two countries have largely stalled, Cuban officials said in June.

The Cuban Revolution, led by brothers and later leaders Fidel and Raul Castro, culminated in the Batista government’s fall in 1959. Former President Raul, 95, was unusually absent at Sunday’s rally.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to eliminate a foundational safety principle that has for 50 years minimized the radiation people in the United States are exposed to and that has been adopted around the world.

Currently, facilities such as nuclear plants, hospitals or academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure radiation exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” — the ALARA principle. The NRC proposal would abandon that philosophy while keeping a separate standard on maximum radiation exposure.

The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, while ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical under those limits. Research shows radiation exposure increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, a risk that increases as the dose increases.

The dose limits are not changing. But the NRC, which regulates civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “graded approach” that includes several actions facilities must take depending on the potential dose of radiation to workers. More rigorous radiation protection measures would be required when approaching dose limits to ensure they aren’t exceeded.

This comes as President Trump attempts to quadruple domestic nuclear energy production because of surging electricity demand amid a data center and artificial intelligence boom. Reforming the NRC is one way Trump is trying to speed up nuclear reactor development. He instructed the federal agency in an executive order last year to “adopt science-based radiation limits.”

The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months.

NRC Chairman Ho Nieh said the commission is not lowering the bar on safety.

“We’re just removing the ambiguity,” he said in a call with reporters. “But the standard for exposure to workers and the public, those are not changing. We’re just putting in place greater clarification.”

Nieh doesn’t expect major changes within the nation’s existing fleet of large, traditional reactors. But companies designing and building new, smaller reactors could move faster with a clearer picture of the radiation protection requirements, he said.

Could radiation doses creep higher?

The NRC said radiation exposure limits are set well below levels associated with health effects, and it expects remaining standards and industry practices to keep radiation doses far below the limits. There’s incentive to do so — it’s more expensive and time-consuming to work in areas with higher radiation because access must be restricted and more surveys are required.

The nuclear industry’s trade association agrees with the NRC.

“We will always continue to look at what can we do to reduce the dose to workers, and maintain our doses to the off-site public as low as possible,” said Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. “It’s not like we’re just going to throw open the doors and let everything run up to the limits.”

ALARA created a “moving target” for regulation, said Justin Friedman, a nuclear energy consultant who previously spent three decades at the U.S. Department of State. Getting rid of the rule would allow NRC scientists to make more rational decisions about appropriate levels of manageable risk, he added.

Some experts question cutting ALARA

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that some parts of the NRC proposal could raise permissible radiation doses in certain cases, while still staying below the cap. Lyman highlighted a proposed revision to radionuclide emissions standards, in particular.

Radiation exposure to the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. A typical dose of radiation from a chest X-ray is 10 millirem.

The NRC wants to increase its radionuclide emissions standards from a conservative, 10 millirem per year dose to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house at the property line for a nuclear plant.

The NRC says actual doses to the public would remain far lower because, in reality, people live farther from nuclear sites and benefit from dispersion in air and water.

The NRC should improve, rather than eliminate, ALARA, Lyman said, to protect the public and workers. ALARA has become a political target because some people mistakenly believe radiation exposures have to be as low as possible no matter the cost, Lyman said. In reality, it allows trade-offs.

Katy Huff, a former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said in some cases, the requirement may be challenging to regulate. Additional clarity would improve the regulatory environment without harming the public, added Huff, a professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

However, Huff said, she thought the NRC was going to clarify what “reasonably” means in ALARA without scrapping it. She said she’s open to being convinced the graded approach will be just as effective.

One expert sees a mixed bag

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, chartered by Congress to provide independent scientific guidance, has not formally weighed in yet. Council President Kathryn Higley said she likes some things in the 180-page document but thinks others are problematic.

The NRC should look at the whole picture for managing risk, she said. For instance, if a worker at a nuclear power plant were to enter an area where airborne radioactive materials are present, in keeping with ALARA, they might wear full personal protective equipment with respirators, said Higley, professor emeritus at Oregon State University. That makes them move slower, potentially subjecting them to heat stress that could hurt them more than a low dose of radioactivity, she said.

A concern with the proposal, Higley said, is that it maintains the current occupational dose limit for adult radiation workers at 5 rem, or 5,000 millirem, per year. With ALARA in place, the average dose to workers has been well below that cap.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends an occupational dose of 2 rem per year on average. The NRC previously found it wasn’t justified to match that, because workers were exposed to less than that and changing regulations is costly.

Higley said the U.S. may need to align with the international community if ALARA is going away.

McDermott writes for the Associated Press.

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that in nearly half of U.S. states halted President Trump’s executive order to create a federal list of eligible voters and limit delivery of mail ballots only to people on that list.

The ruling Saturday by judges of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s effort to move forward with the mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states that sued ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Trump issued an executive order in March for the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.

Trump has claimed the proposed changes are necessary safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting, but state election officials argued they were ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump’s order in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. They argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the authority to set election rules.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani agreed and halted Trump’s order from being implemented for the Nov. 3 elections, but only in the states that have sued.

Trump’s executive order is part of his ongoing campaign to restrict voting access and raise doubts about the integrity of the election system before the November midterms.

The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately return an email seeking comment Sunday about the court ruling.

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

Five years after Tunisian President Kais Saied suspended parliament and attained sweeping powers, the country remains sharply divided, grappling with a severe economic downturn and a worsening political deadlock.

Saied’s supporters continue to view the measures taken by him in July 2021 – when he suspended parliament and dismissed Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi – as a necessary “correction” to save the country. The opposition says that since then, state institutions have collapsed, promises have gone unfulfilled, and there has been an unprecedented concentration of power in his hands.

Speaking to Al Jazeera’s Ma Waraa al-Khabar (Behind the News) programme, political and economic experts debated the legacy of Saied’s five-year rule, painting a picture of an economy hindered by a poor business climate, populist policies, and a lack of clear vision.

An economy in free fall

Since Saied assumed near-total control of the levers of power five years ago, Tunisia’s economic indicators have largely plummeted.

Ridha Chkoundali, an economics professor at the University of Tunisia, said that the investment rate in the country has dropped from an average of 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) between 2015 and 2019 to just 8 percent in 2023.

Chkoundali attributed this sharp decline to an environment that drives away investment, exacerbated by a significant burden from taxes, which have risen by five percentage points since 2015.

Taxation, he argued, is no longer used to stimulate investment but simply to collect revenues at the expense of economic growth.

The crisis has hit ordinary Tunisians the hardest. Food inflation has reached nearly three times the general average, severely eroding purchasing power. Meanwhile, unemployment has surged, particularly among university graduates, pushing many to leave the country for better economic opportunities abroad.

Mohamed Abbou, a former minister of state and former secretary-general of the Democratic Current party, argued that the crisis is rooted in Saied’s style of governance, adding that the rule of law has been replaced by a climate of intimidation and threats.

“Tunisia has lost all credibility,” Abbou said. “Everyone fears the situation in Tunisia because there is no rationality… there is no stability in laws, taxes, or anything else.”

Abbou particularly criticised Saied’s approach to international finance, pointing out that the president rejected a deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) purely to maintain a populist image. At the same time, he quietly implemented many of the IMF’s harsh austerity demands, such as halting public sector hiring and reducing imports.

However, supporters of the current government argue that it is unfair to blame Saied’s administration entirely for an economic crisis that predates his rule.

Political analyst Souhaib Mezrigui says the current situation is the result of an absence of any clear economic or social vision over the past 10 years. He placed blame for the current crisis squarely on the political class that has ruled Tunisia since the 2011 revolution.

Protests and political prisoners

Tunisia’s economic stagnation has manifested into tangible anger on the streets. Coinciding with the five-year anniversary, thousands of Tunisians rallied in the capital’s Habib Bourguiba Avenue on Saturday, protesting against deteriorating living conditions, rolling water and electricity cuts, and a backsliding in democracy.

Organised by a coalition of opposition parties and the “Nafas” civil initiative, the crowds called for Saied to “leave” and revived the 2011 democratic revolution’s rallying cry: “The people want the fall of the regime”.

A central demand of the protests was the release of political prisoners, who have filled Tunisia’s jails since Saied began his crackdown on dissent. Among the most prominent detainees is Rached Ghannouchi, the 85-year-old former parliament speaker and Ennahdha leader, who was recently sentenced to life in prison.

Ghannouchi’s health has rapidly deteriorated in detention. He recently fainted in Mornaguia prison, where temperatures reportedly reached 52 degrees Celsius (126 degrees Fahrenheit). Rights groups and families of detainees, such as opposition politician Ahmed Nejib Chebbi, have repeatedly warned about the dire conditions inside the detention facility and the toll it is taking on elderly inmates.

Imed al-Khamiri, a spokesman for the Ennahdha party, told Al Jazeera that the continued detention of political figures and opposition leaders remains a “disgrace to the Tunisian state”.

US lawmaker calls for sanctions

Saied’s consolidation of power has also drawn renewed international condemnation. Marking the anniversary, US Representative Joe Wilson issued a scathing statement, accusing Saied of transforming the Arab world’s only constitutional democracy into a “one-man dictatorship”.

Wilson accused the Tunisian regime of phenomenally increasing corruption, destroying opportunities for the youth, and shifting its alliances to become a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Noting that Saied’s government has even jailed US citizens, Wilson urged the US State Department to issue a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisory for Tunisia.

“I will also continue to work to pass the Tunisia Democracy Restoration Act imposing sanctions on Saied and his inner circle,” Wilson stated on the social media platform X, adding: “Democracy in Tunisia will win in the end. Madmen tyrants will not last.”

Reporting from Sacramento — A war between a healthcare union and the dialysis industry it wants to organize has morphed into one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in California history.

Proposition 8, sponsored by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers, would shrink the profits of hundreds of dialysis clinics across California. If enacted by voters, the measure would require clinics to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state on business revenues that exceed 115% of certain costs to deliver care.

A coalition led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, the two companies that control a combined 72% of the dialysis market in California, has given $110 million to a campaign to beat the measure — contributing to the most money raised for such a campaign in state history.

Opponents view Proposition 8 as an existential threat to the dialysis industry and its patients, and say the 95,000-member SEIU-UHW is using the ballot measure to deliver an ultimatum to its foes: Acquiesce to the union’s demands or pay for an expensive campaign.

“Proposition 8 puts California patients at risk in an effort to force unionization of employees,” DaVita Chief Executive Kent Thiry said in a statement. “There is an established and accepted process for employees to vote a union up or down. Instead of following that process, SEIU-UHW is pursuing a dangerous initiative that puts patients at grave risk.”

Thiry’s group warns that dialysis clinics may open for fewer hours, or would shutter altogether if the measure becomes law.

Dave Regan, head of SEIU-UHW, says his union wants to rein in a dialysis industry he says is “predatory.” The union has raised $18.8 million for the Proposition 8 campaign.

DaVita and Fresenius reported billions in operating income last year and have been accused by critics of various tactics to increase profitability, such as steering patients to private insurance or not giving employees enough time to adequately clean stations.

DaVita has been ordered to pay damages and settled lawsuits for more than $1 billion in the last five years, including $253.5 million in damages awarded in June to the families of two patients who died of cardiac arrest after receiving care at its California clinics. The company has said it would appeal that decision.

“The reason Prop. 8 is on the ballot is because they have a terrible business model and they’re gouging patients and insurers,” Regan said.

After years of expensive squabbles in the Capitol, Regan traveled to Denver, home to DaVita headquarters, to meet with Thiry for the first time on the eve of the June deadline to withdraw ballot initiatives this year.

Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced), the leader of a moderate bloc of Democrats in the Legislature, acted as intermediary. Gray said he spent weeks trying to bring the two sides together in hopes of breaking a stalemate and finding common ground.

But the eleventh-hour conversation over dinner came too late to negotiate a cease-fire and call off the proposal.

Regan initially described the visit as a “social meeting” he attended at Gray’s request. He later said the timing was coincidental and he never intended to strike a deal with Thiry to pull Proposition 8 from the ballot.

“Nothing consequential even came up,” Regan said. “Nothing was proposed. There was no kind of an agreement of any sort and it was a social discussion.”

Thiry said it “was definitely not a social meeting,” but declined to elaborate.

Now voters are left to decide the fate of the 80,000 patients who receive dialysis treatment at nearly 600 licensed clinics each month in California, according to figures from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

SEIU-UHW argues its measure will provide an incentive to dialysis companies so they invest more money into patient care. Under the measure, clinics could keep more of their profits if they increase costs for care.

Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition campaign, said the industry believes that voter approval of Proposition 8 would force most clinics in California to operate in the red.

“You can’t keep doing that week after week, month after month, year after year,” she said. “This is going to devastate the clinics in California and, by extension, all the patients.”

An analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal advisor, said reducing revenues would make for-profit clinics “less profitable or could even be unprofitable.”

Proposition 8 excludes the salaries of managerial staff and some overhead charges from the cost calculation for patient care, which would further reduce profits.

“This to me is classic labor trying to, not just regulate a business, but affect how they operate,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who is not involved in the Proposition 8 campaign.

Scrutiny of dialysis clinics sparked a legislative proposal to establish staff-to-patient ratios in the industry for the first time. The bill, sponsored by SEIU-UHW, stalled in the state Legislature last year.

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed another bill this year aimed to halt an alleged dialysis industry practice of encouraging patients to sign up for private insurance and funneling money to nonprofits to help patients pay off premiums. Dialysis corporations make most of their profits off group or individual insurance plans, which are billed much more than Medi-Cal or Medicare for the same services.

“Right now they have every financial incentive to keep staffing and other direct patient services at a bare minimum because then they reap every dollar in profit margin,” Regan said.

SEIU-UHW has a history of turning to the ballot amid labor disputes.

Regan called off a pair of ballot initiatives in 2012 to limit charges for care at private hospitals and require nonprofits to spend at least 5% of revenues on charity care after the California Hospital Assn. agreed to a partnership that could help the union’s organizing efforts.

The partnership soured and the union filed two measures the next year to limit prices for care at private hospitals and executive salaries at nonprofit hospitals.

The union pulled the initiatives back in 2014 as part of a new agreement with the hospitals to campaign together to raise Medi-Cal reimbursement rates in exchange for an easier path to organizing thousands of potential union members, among other provisions.

A Sacramento judge shot down another SEIU-UHW ballot initiative to cap hospital executive pay in 2016. That same year, the union pushed a ballot initiative to increase pay for workers, which helped spark a legislative deal to raise California’s minimum wage.

This year alone, the union filed 11 ballot initiatives in California — seven at the local level and four statewide initiatives. Most of the initiatives failed to qualify or the union abandoned its effort.

One of the local measures would have placed revenue caps on the Watsonville Community Hospital. The union withdrew the initiative after it reached a collective bargaining agreement with the hospital, said Duane Dauner, the former chief executive of the California Hospital Assn. and a leader of the campaigns against the local initiatives. The hospital also agreed to form a committee to monitor and control pricing, said Sean Wherley, a spokesman for SEIU-UHW.

SEIU-UHW also sponsored five local initiatives in cities with Stanford Health Care community clinics. Measure F in Palo Alto and Measure U in Livermore, the only two to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, would limit the amount of money hospitals can charge for patient care. Stanford claims the union pushed the measures to pressure its hospitals to make it easier to unionize.

Wherley said the union is not organizing at Stanford’s healthcare facilities.

“He thinks initiatives are the solutions to bypass ordinary labor relations activity and tries to literally force the hospitals, doctors, dentists and others into unionization or he will proceed,” Dauner said of Regan.

Gray, the state legislator, pointed to several state policy battles this year, including a ban on soda taxes and a deal on consumer privacy protections, as examples of other special interests using the ballot as leverage.

“I support direct democracy, but I certainly think the initiative process, by everybody, has been used in ways that certainly weren’t intended,” Gray said.

Regan said SEIU-UHW didn’t qualify Proposition 8 to pressure the dialysis industry to strike a deal. He said the union wants to improve healthcare, and ballot initiatives are an effective way to make important policy changes.

He pointed to 17 minimum wage and Medicaid expansion initiatives the union supported in other states since 2016 that he said were not linked to organizing efforts.

“Most of the stuff that we do is in pursuit of the common good, whether it’s the minimum wage or Medicaid expansion,” Regan said. “The dialysis industry should be required to do more than criticize the union because they don’t want to talk about their business models or profits.”

Get the latest California politics news »

taryn.luna@latimes.com

Follow @tarynluna on Twitter and sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter.

July 25 (UPI) — India’s education minister resigned Saturday amid a scandal that led hundreds of thousands of young people and students to the streets in one of the country’s largest protests.

Demonstrations began in New Delhi in early June, after it came to light that answers to one of the country’s most prestigious college-entrance exams, taken by millions of students, had been leaked.

At least a dozen students died by suicide after the government announced they would have to retake the exam.

The protests, organized by the youth-led Cockroach Janata Party, swelled to hundreds of thousands of people across the nation early this week, forcing the hand of Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s government.

“This is one of the most historic days for our country,” one protester, Rochelle Cope, told The Guardian. “For the first time in 12 years, someone from the government has been held accountable for wrongdoing. And it wasn’t political parties that did this — it was the people.”

The education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, said in his resignation letter “the events of the past ten days have saddened me deeply.”

“During this period, individuals holding responsible positions also tried to mislead many students and create obstacles, which caused me deep anguish,” he said in a statement.

Pressure began to grow this week after police brutally cracked down against protesters, using tear gas and batons to clear them out.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi said he would raise the issue in India’s parliament, holding Home Minister Amit Shah “directly responsible for the violence inflicted.”

“He authorized the firing on our students, authorized the use of lethal weapons, and authorized the use of pellet guns against them,” Gandhi told the BBC. “That’s a fundamental issue.”

Modi’s government announced late Saturday that the education ministry would be assigned to Pralhad Joshi, who’s already the minister for consumer affairs, food and public distribution, as well as new and renewable energy.

Following the education minister’s resignation, leaders for the protests instructed the crowd to disperse.

“All our demands have been accepted, so we request the protesters to withdraw immediately and return home peacefully,” Saurav Das, a spokesperson for the Cockroach Janata, told reporters.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Ahmed al-Sharaa discusses regional security, Lebanon’s crisis and domestic challenges.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has revealed that Damascus is actively working to reach a security agreement with Israel with the participation of several countries.

Speaking in an exclusive interview on Al Jazeera’s Al Muqabala programme, the full interview, to be broadcast at 19:00 GMT, al-Sharaa said he hopes the deal with Israel could serve as a gateway to a comprehensive peace.

He also assured that such an agreement would not compromise Syria’s right to the occupied Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally occupied since 1973.

He said Syria is avoiding any clashes with Israel, and that a security arrangement could pave the way for a broader and more comprehensive resolution to the crisis.

It comes after repeated Israeli incursions and strikes in southern Syria, since al-Sharaa came to power in December 2024 following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Lebanon’s crisis and regional fears

Al-Sharaa also confirmed that Syria has no intention of launching any military intervention into neighbouring Lebanon, despite repeated rumours on the issue.

Instead, his government is currently discussing ways for Lebanese authorities to help the country overcome its current crisis and steer it towards safety.

Southern Lebanon is currently being occupied by Israel, amid months of fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces. The Lebanese state is seeking to reclaim these occupied territories and have a monopoly on all weapons in the country.

Furthermore, he declared Damascus’s firm support for restricting weapons and containing decisions of war and peace exclusively to the Lebanese state.

Al-Sharaa stressed that addressing the Lebanese crisis requires more than just a security approach but a comprehensive solution tackling a range of issues.

Any descent into chaos in Lebanon would have direct and immediate repercussions on Syria, and the potential expansion of the US-Israel war on Iran in the region would lead to a severe regional fall-out, he warned.

Sanctions, the SDF and missing persons

On domestic and economic fronts, al-Sharaa argued that merely lifting the economic sanctions imposed on his country by the US and other countries would not be effective unless Syria was also removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Addressing the internal agreement with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurdish and Arab armed groups that controls parts of northern and eastern Syria, the president acknowledged a delay in its implementation.

However, he affirmed that the government remains fully committed to the agreement and continues to bet on its ultimate success.

Al-Sharaa also announced that Syrian authorities have established a special committee to manage the issue of people missing during Syria’s war, between 2011 and 2024.

The UN estimates that around 100,000 people were forcibly disappeared during the war, while Syria’s National Commission on Missing Persons believes as many as 300,000 Syrians could be missing.

Al-Sharaa said the committee will operate strictly according to international standards, working in close cooperation with countries that possess specialised expertise in this field.

SAN FRANCISCO — Every election produces a campaign strategist whose victory bestows upon them, for at least a little while, the unofficial title of reigning political genius.

James Carville, Karl Rove, David Axelrod and Stephen K. Bannon have all worn the crown.

For many years, and many election cycles, California’s reigning political genius was Clint Reilly.

In an age before the internet, before social media, before the cable-TV chat shows and before Carville and the like, Reilly came as close to celebrity as a political operative possibly could. He was the subject of fear, admiration, contempt, envy and lengthy newspaper and magazine treatments.

His cherry-red Jaguar, Italian suits, designer eyewear and seaside mansion made Reilly an influencer before there even was such a thing. (A connoisseur of the finer things, he served visitors coffee in bone china when they called on his San Francisco office.)

“It used to be that political consultants and political mechanics were something that only a handful of people thought about,” said Eric Jaye, one of generations of campaign strategists who were trained or inspired — directly or indirectly — by Reilly. “Clint was the original star consultant who made news himself and shaped the political discussion.”

Reilly, a working-class product of Oakland who crossed the Bay and scaled the heights of San Francisco business, culture and politics, died earlier this month at age 79.

For someone who never held political office — a 1999 bid for San Francisco mayor was a notable flop — Reilly wielded considerable influence.

A list of the many Democrats he helped elect — among them Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer — reads like a scroll of modern California history. At one time, the sitting mayors of both San Francisco and Los Angeles were clients of Reilly.

He wasn’t flawless as an election strategist. Like any political operative, he had his share of defeats.

Reilly’s particular genius lay in the methodology — vertical integration — he brought to campaigns. Typically, one consultant would handle television advertising, another direct mail, another polling, another big-picture strategy, and so on.

“Everything was in-house with Clint and, at least in San Francisco, he was the first to do that,” said Jerry Roberts, who was a scruffy reporter for the city’s alt-weekly when he met a shaggy-haired Reilly more than 50 years ago. At the time, campaigns were a sideline for Reilly, who supported himself selling doodads and other salvaged wares in a movable flea market he operated on Fisherman’s Wharf.

“It was a smart business model,” said Roberts, who went on to lead two major California newspapers.

It made Reilly very rich.

In 1988, he managed what, at the time, was the most expensive political campaign in California history, a $64-million effort by the insurance industry to beat back a Ralph Nader-inspired reform initiative. Reilly lost, but his firm cleared at least $6 million on that contest alone — or about $17 million in today’s dollars.

“So that’s where our premiums went,” one guest observed with a low whistle as he arrived at the state-of-the art headquarters Reilly built not long after the Proposition 103 campaign. (Naturally, he threw an open house; for all his affluence, Reilly never did entirely shake the proletariat chip on his shoulder.)

A onetime seminarian — he left three years shy of being ordained a Catholic priest — Reilly was no saint.

He was hot-tempered, profane and egotistical. He embraced the nickname “Satan,” which a former client affixed after Reilly went to work for an archrival, as a reflection of his reputation for intimidation and mastery of the political dark arts.

In one fit of pique, Reilly took the unheard step of firing a client — Feinstein — via faxed press release because, he said, the former San Francisco mayor lacked the requisite fire to run for governor. The two eventually reconciled, though Feinstein stuck with members of the team that replaced Reilly and helped guide her to successive terms in the U.S. Senate.

If Reilly was at times overbearing — and known for being the kind of hellacious boss who gave employees night sweats — he was also generous and a genuine bleeding heart.

Before his career took off, Reilly volunteered for the United Farm Workers and lived an ascetic life, sheltering in church halls, as he ministered to the poor. Once he established his high-end consulting firm, Reilly retained his political staffers at no small expense, even during the lull between campaigns, rather than hiring and firing them as seasonal workers, which was the norm.

After leaving professional campaign consulting in the mid-1990s, and making a substantial fortune in real estate, Reilly gave prolifically to various charities and assorted civic caucuses. He started a charitable foundation of his own, Bay Scholars, which helps poor and underserved youth attend Catholic high schools throughout the area.

In 1987, when Reilly arguably resided at the height of his power and influence, he took on Pelosi as a client.

She was running for a rare open congressional seat in San Francisco and, though well known in political circles as a prodigious Democratic fundraiser and high-level activist, Pelosi was a blank slate to many voters. Reilly came up with a slogan that played on Pelosi’s Washington connections and many important friendships: “A voice that will be heard.”

More than that, he made a key tactical decision in the waning days of the campaign.

Pelosi was one of 14 candidates, several of them well-known Democratic officeholders. Ignoring Pelosi’s objections, Reilly sent out a mail piece to the city’s vastly outnumbered Republicans suggesting that a Democrat was bound to win the congressional seat and arguing that Pelosi was the best — or, at least, not the worst — of the bunch.

On election day, Pelosi lost the Democratic vote to Harry Britt, who succeeded Harvey Milk on the Board of Supervisors after Milk’s assassination. Still, Pelosi prevailed, by less than 4,000 votes out of nearly 108,000 cast. The winning margin was her Republican support.

The rest, as they say, is history.

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s most influential member prior to his retirement, has watched quietly for eight years as a new conservative majority took charge.

He was troubled by partisan gerrymandering, but a year after he stepped down, a 5-4 ruling closed the federal courts to challenges to state voting maps that allow one party to rig the elections in its favor.

Though he believed abortion was a moral wrong, he cast the crucial vote in 1992 to uphold Roe vs. Wade and the principle that a woman, not the government, had the right to decide on ending an early pregnancy.

Four years ago, that decision was overturned on a 5-4 vote.

While Kennedy has refrained from commenting on the current court or President Trump, he has written a memoir that tells his life story and explains the reasoning behind the major decisions of his era.

It has become common for the justices to write books, but they steer clear of writing about the work of the court. Kennedy’s book, “Life, Law & Liberty,” is, like the justice, the exception to that rule.

An Irish Catholic from Sacramento and a Reagan Republican, Kennedy had a generally conservative voting record over 30 years on the high court. But he had a distinct view of liberty and justice.

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” he wrote in 2015.

Kennedy rejected the “rigid” view that the Constitution’s promises of liberty and equal protection of the law, as well as the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, were limited to their “original” meaning in the Bill of Rights of 1791 or the 14th Amendment of 1868.

After all, slavery and segregation were legal for much of American history, and women were not protected from discrimination by the promise of “equal protection” in the 14th Amendment.

Kennedy remained open to new rights and liberties. The goal, he wrote, was “a decent society in which the Constitution and the rule of law treat all with dignity and equality.”

He was the justice who made the difference in several areas of law, none more significant than in LGBTQ+ rights.

He wrote the court’s four major rulings rejecting discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2015, he spoke for the 5-4 majority to uphold same-sex marriages nationwide.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “Many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples.”

They “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” he concluded in Obergefell vs. Hodges.

He also believed that teenagers who commit crimes are not as culpable as adults. He wrote a court opinion in 2005 ending executions for murderers who were under age 18 at the time of their crime.

Five years later, he wrote the court’s opinion holding it was cruel and unusual punishment for judges to impose a sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole for a teenager’s crime that did not involve homicide. In the case before the court, a Florida teen was given a life term for committing an armed robbery and a home burglary prior to his 18th birthday.

Kennedy marked his 90th birthday on Thursday and says his favorite topic of conversation is not the nine justices but his nine grandchildren. He still goes to the court some days and says he is worried by the tone in Washington and around the country.

“It is too partisan and confrontational,” he said in a recent interview with The Times. “I’m concerned that the divisiveness may be reflected at the court.”

Democracy requires “reasoned and respectful debate,” he said, not personal attacks and name calling.

Kennedy may be the last justice of his kind, said Washington University law professor Daniel Epps, a former Kennedy clerk.

“I don’t think we’ll see another justice who is so ideologically unpredictable and who votes against his party of appointment in some of the hugest cases in our lifetimes,” he said. Kennedy emerged from “an appointments process that was less polarized, where there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans and a Senate filibuster, which all made it possible for moderates to be appointed.”

While Kennedy describes himself at times as a small-town lawyer from Sacramento, he knew the two California governors, both Republicans, who reshaped the Supreme Court.

Kennedy’s father was a friend of Gov. Earl Warren, and young Tony played with Warren’s children. He also worked as a young page in the state Capitol when Warren was governor.

He was a high school senior in 1954 when Warren, the new chief justice, spoke for a unanimous court to strike down racial segregation in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education.

He and his father agreed the ruling was long overdue. It also provided an early lesson in how justices can uphold the fundamental principles of the Constitution despite intense opposition in much of the nation.

He said he later learned a second lesson. The Brown decision was “a historic step forward” but it “just a beginning” in the fight against entrenched racial injustice.

In writing the same-sex marriage case, Kennedy cited Warren’s opinion in the 1967 case of Loving vs. Virginia which struck down the bans on interracial marriages in 16 states.

As as young lawyer, Kennedy worked on special projects for Gov. Ronald Reagan and admired him greatly. He was just 38 years old when, at Reagan’s behest, he was appointed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As president a decade later, Reagan had appointed Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court and elevated William Rehnquist to be the chief justice. But his third nominee — Judge Robert Bork — was voted down as too conservative by the Senate.

Reagan invited Kennedy to the White House and offered him the nomination. Kennedy recalled telling Reagan that he and his wife Mary were happy in Sacramento where all their friends and family lived. We don’t know anyone in Washington, he said.

President Reagan gestures toward Judge Anthony M. Kennedy’s family after nominating Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1987.

(Dennis Cook / Associated Press)

In his best imitation of Reagan’s voice, he recounted the president’s response: “You know me. And you know Nancy.”

Kennedy accepted the nomination and was confirmed in February 1988 by a 97-0 vote, the last justice to win unanimous approval from the Senate.

His three decades on the court were shaped in part by his relationship with Scalia.

Kennedy and his wife bought a house in the same northern Virginia neighborhood where Scalia lived. In their early years on the court, they appeared to be friends and allies.

They broadly supported freedom of speech. To the surprise of many, they cast the deciding votes in 1989 to rule that the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn an American flag in protest.

A year later, Kennedy and Scalia dissented vehemently when the court ruled the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and its corporate supporters could be barred from advertising their support for state candidates.

The decision triggered a decades-long dispute that ended with the Citizens United ruling in 2010. Kennedy spoke for a 5-4 conservative majority to rule that corporations, unions and other groups were free to spend money independently to oppose or support candidates.

But when the court was closely split in major cases, Kennedy was likely to be in majority while Scalia wrote scathing and increasingly personal dissents.

“I would hide my head in a bag,” Scalia wrote in dissent in the same-sex marriage case, rather than join an opinion “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

Kennedy was put off by a different jab. Scalia said the justices do not represent the full country. For example, the court lacks a “genuine Westerner (California does not count),” he wrote.

Since Scalia’s death, his influence has grown especially with the younger generation of conservatives.

Two of Trump’s appointees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — were clerks for Kennedy in 1993, but they are far more likely to cite Scalia and his views on interpreting laws or the Constitution. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s third appointee, was a clerk for Scalia.

While Kennedy did not respond to Scalia’s harsh dissents, they hung over their last year together on the court.

One day in early February of 2016, Scalia stopped by Kennedy’s office to talk.

“Nino said he had come to regret deeply the tone of his Obergefell dissent and its personal references. He apologized for being intemperate,” Kennedy wrote. “Neither of us is big on hugging, but we hugged, both of us smiling.”

They agreed to get together for dinner with their wives when he returned from a hunting trip to Texas.

A week later, Scalia’s wife Maureen called to tell them of his death.

“Nino and I spent 28 years on the court together,” Kennedy wrote. “We sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed, but I respected him and miss him very much.”

SACRAMENTO — As the architect of a one-time tax on California billionaires, Dave Regan says he’s pushing the measure to raise $100 billion to protect low-income patients, workers and hospitals from President Trump’s cuts to healthcare.

The behind-the-scenes negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office in June to pull the measure off the ballot, however, revealed another possible goal, according to two sources familiar with the talks who requested anonymity to share details of the discussions with The Times.

Regan, the president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, asked for union contracts with two hospitals in San Diego and Fresno and a clinic in Imperial County, among a list of sweeping demands to grow his union, in exchange for rescinding the measure, the sources said.

The union leader denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, calling the allegations “categorically false.”

“We are trying to solve a problem,” Regan said. “The problem is to prevent a catastrophe in California’s healthcare system. We put forward a proposal. Nobody else has offered a solution, and none of what you are referencing happened.”

The talks failed to result in a deal and the measure will appear as Proposition 40 on the November ballot, leaving California voters to decide pivotal tax policy that has roiled the Democratic Party and opponents worry could ultimately reduce revenue for the state budget.

The terms Regan allegedly laid out raise the question of whether he intended for the billionaire tax to go on the ballot, or if it was designed as a leverage play to expand his union, which represents more than 120,000 workers and is among the largest healthcare unions in the nation.

Regan, who has been elected to five consecutive terms as union president since 2011, has a record of launching ballot initiatives at the state and local level to use as leverage for union expansion and to thwart his political opponents.

His foes say that this year he went too far.

“It’s no secret in Sacramento that the ballot initiative has been used this way by UHW as a weapon,” said Francisco Silva, president of the California Primary Care Assn., which represents community clinics. “They’ve been very vocal about it and we think it’s a bigger risk to the safety net than any benefit that it brings.”

Known as a stubborn negotiator and a brash personality, Regan has filed multiple ballot initiatives against the healthcare industry.

His opponents say his strategy centers on launching initiatives that would hurt employers, which forces them to come to the table to negotiate. Regan’s union then requests union contracts or other concessions that could pave the way for a collective bargaining agreement. If employers resist, the initiative advances to the ballot. Voters consistently reject his measures, but companies still spend millions of dollars campaigning against them.

Over the years, Regan has proposed multiple measures that would have limited charges and executive salaries at hospitals and dropped the initiatives after landing temporary deals with the California Hospital Assn. that could help his union’s organizing efforts.

This year, UHW agreed to call off an initiative to again cap compensation for hospital leaders, and the hospital association rescinded its dueling proposal to require the union to seek approval from its members to spend more than $1 million on a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Regan led and lost measures against the dialysis industry in 2018, 2020 and 2022 as he struggled to force dialysis companies to recognize his union and negotiate a contract.

Silva accused Regan of using the same playbook in negotiations around another measure on the November ballot, Proposition 44, which would restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics.

Regan drafted Proposition 44 to require that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which he said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers. But Silva said the measure dramatically reduces funding for other essential services in the community care model, such as community outreach, education, overhead costs, technology and medical equipment investments, and programs that bring people living on the streets into the healthcare system.

About 70% of the patients community clinics serve are insured through Medi-Cal, and the rest are either on Medicare or uninsured, with a small portion on private insurance, Silva said. The measure would result in layoffs and clinics being forced to close, and ultimately reduce access to care for low-income Californians, he said.

“One of the things that stands out that really highlights the abuse of the ballot initiative process in this instance is that the substance of what’s on the ballot has nothing to do with what he wants to negotiate with us,” Silva said. “The request was to guarantee 25,000 workers, or else.”

Regan also denied that he asked the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan’s opponents say his strategy runs afoul of the purpose of direct democracy and pushes the bounds of legality.

During negotiations on the billionaire tax, essentially put the onus on Newsom to force unrelated private hospitals and clinics to unionize their employees, the sources said.

Despite a desire to call off the tax measure, Newsom’s office couldn’t provide guarantees to satisfy Regan’s demands, according to those sources.

California legislators changed state law in 2014 to provide more flexibility around initiative negotiations and to allow proponents to pull measures off the ballot after they gather enough signatures and qualify for the election, said Mary-Beth Moylan, an associate professor of law at McGeorge School of Law.

State law also prohibits a proponent of an initiative from bargaining for money or a thing of value in exchange for abandoning their measure, which hasn’t been tested in court, she said.

“I think the intention behind the law allowing the ballot measures to be negotiated off was that the negotiation would be for the Legislature to do the thing that you’re bringing about in the measure,” Moylan said. “It is not to use it as leverage for obtaining something else.”

Regan’s wealth measure retroactively applies a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

He and advocates of his proposal cast it as a solution to the healthcare cuts from the Trump administration. It comes as the progressive message on wealth inequality has gained support in California and beyond.

“What’s remarkable about the situation is that everyone — the governor, the Legislature, the healthcare industry — everyone agrees that the ‘One Big Beautiful’ bill is going to result in 3.5 million people losing healthcare coverage, 150,000 frontline healthcare workers losing their jobs, community clinics and hospitals closing, and all of us who buy or receive our healthcare through job-based insurance are spending more on premiums, deductibles, and copays because the legislation defunded healthcare and in return gave yet another round of huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,” Regan said. “That’s why we have put Proposition 40 forward.”

Newsom contends that Regan’s solution won’t work.

Instead of paying more California taxes, billionaires would simply pick up and move to another state with a lower tax rate before the start of the year, the governor warned. The state budget is dependent on income taxes the rich pay on stock market and similar profits.

A report from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University estimated that the tax would generate only $40 billion, not the $100 billion proponents claim, largely because of an expected exodus of billionaires. Overall, the tax would result in an estimated loss for the state of $24.7 billion, with the permanent decline in future income tax revenue due to billionaire migration eclipsing any gains from the one-time levy, according to the report.

Regan rejected the findings of the report and cast doubt on the amount of taxes that billionaires actually pay in California.

Newsom sought to negotiate with Regan to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot before the beginning of the year. At the time, Regan said he wanted an extra $20 billion for healthcare in 2027-28, which is beyond Newsom’s time in office and not something the outgoing governor could promise, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.

Regan said he never asked for $20 billion in funding for healthcare to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot. He said he was open to hearing alternative solutions that never came.

“But did we ever make a proposal, or did we ever receive a proposal for something different?” Regan said. “The answer is no.”

In the spring, Newsom began working to form a coalition against the initiative that includes Planned Parenthood, doctors and firefighters while billionaires launched a series of counterproposals.

In an unusual split within labor, major unions such as the California Teachers Assn. and the State Building and Construction Trades Council oppose the measure. Teamsters California and AFSCME California joined Regan. The SEIU California State Council and California Federation of Labor Unions have yet to take positions.

Under California law, proponents had until June 25 to rescind measures that earned enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Negotiations picked up again to remove the measure from the ballot shortly before the deadline. Two sources said Regan’s demands changed and allegedly had nothing to do with raising money to offset federal healthcare cuts.

Sources said Regan said he wanted union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax.

Newsom’s office said they couldn’t force private companies to do anything. The governor’s aides offered an alternative plan to dedicate around $7 billion over several years to healthcare funding in California, which didn’t move Regan.

“There were no negotiations,” Regan said about the billionaire tax.

Days before the deadline to pull the wealth tax measure from the ballot, UHW announced an offer to reduce the billionaire tax from 5% to 2% of net worth that the union said Newsom rejected. Sources said the compromise was first offered in a press release and did not reflect any serious negotiation.

Regan set a goal to add 25,000 new members by this year and has so far added around 8,000, according to the union’s website.

In exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, sources said one of Regan’s demands was for Newsom’s office to get involved with battles for union contracts at hospitals in Fresno and San Diego and a clinic in the Imperial Valley.

The union is tied up in labor disputes over recent attempts to unionize facilities in two of those places — Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego and Innercare, a community clinic in El Centro.

The dialysis industry became a ballot target for Regan three election cycles in a row as he attempted to unionize its workers.

The battle is on pause after dialysis companies agreed to not oppose a $25 minimum wage increase for healthcare workers and UHW agreed to not target the industry in legislation or ballot measures through the end of this year, but the fight turned DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care into major political donors in state campaigns.

California’s billionaire class is also increasing its presence in state politics.

Billionaires pushed two measures on the November ballot that seek to neutralize the billionaire tax and block new taxes on personal property and assets and require audits of new programs funded with special taxes.

The billionaire tax has also become a national rallying cry for the political left, drawing the high-profile support of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others who are fed up with wealth inequality. Opponents of Proposition 40 have questioned whether any of the solutions Regan proposed would have been enough for him to remove the measure from the ballot and avoid the wrath of progressives who backed the tax.

Sacramento political observers say the unintended consequences of Regan’s tax measure are already reshaping California politics.

“When he did the billionaire tax, all these people who never engaged in politics finally woke up,” said Jim DeBoo, a Democratic consultant and former chief of staff to Newsom. “And they aren’t going away.”

The measure is causing a rift within the SEIU California State Council, an umbrella organization that represents more than 700,000 workers from all SEIU unions including UHW.

The billionaire tax only benefits healthcare. SEIU, which also represents workers in the public sector, nursing homes, child care and other service industries, has become a target of California’s wealthiest new political players despite most of its union members gaining nothing from the measure.

Billionaires and their companies, including Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Tim Draper, Google and Meta have spent nearly $30 million on a successful campaign to oppose SEIU-backed progressive candidates or boost moderate Democrats in legislative races. The same donors spent only $50,000 on independent expenditures in legislative races in the entire 2024 election cycle.

Shaudi Fulp, a political strategist working with Larsen and Draper, said a new governor and lawmakers present an opportunity to build fresh governing coalitions around issues that matter most to Californians.

“California is entering a unique moment of transition,” Fulp said.

The billionaires’ strategy is whittling away at SEIU’s influence in the state Legislature, where the state council has historically used its endorsements and army of volunteers to boost progressive candidates aligned with their cause. Moderates backed by billionaires beat nearly every SEIU-endorsed candidate in more than a dozen races in the June primary, with record spending knocking union candidates out of the top two in places such as Bakersfield and Orange County.

The SEIU California State Council declined to comment for this story.

The battle over the billionaire tax is also expected to become the most expensive ballot measure campaign of the election cycle, if not ever. The opposition is poised to exponentially outspend UHW.

“Look, the only thing that stands down a bully is when you punch him in the face,” said Brandon Castillo, a political consultant who has represented healthcare providers against UHW on more than a dozen initiatives. “You can’t sit back and continue to take punches or nothing will change.”

Staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

Thousands marched in Tunisia’s capital to demand the resignation of President Kais Saied five years after he suspended parliament. Protesters revived the 2011 revolution’s slogan ‘the people want the fall of the regime’ as they decried democratic backsliding, economic hardship and political repression.

Flavio Bolsonaro, son of disgraced former Brazilian President Jair, has launched his bid to unseat President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Flavio is vowing to carry forward his father’s legacy and has won right wing support from Argentina’s President Milei.

July 25 (UPI) — A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration cannot implement tighter rules for mail-in voting in the mid-term elections this November.

The ruling, handed down by the First U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Saturday, will prevent his administration from creating a list of eligible voters and from requiring the U.S. Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots to people who are not on the list, The Hill and Bloomberg News reported.

The three-judge panel rejected the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings in late June and early July that an executive order issued in April to expand the federal government’s role in managing elections could not be put into effect.

The April 1 executive order was condemned by critics at the time as an attempt by President Donald Trump and the administration to interfere with the mid-term elections, and led to 23 states and the District of Columbia to file suit to stop it.

The appeals court said in its ruling that the federal government failed to make its case for lifting the federal government’s injunction, which was partially based on the lower court preventing the executive order from going into effect.

“To be sure, the injunction prevents the federal Defendants from enforcing the EO in the Plaintiff states’ upcoming primary and general federal elections in September and November,” the judges wrote.

Trump, who continues to falsely claim that he won the 2020 election, signed the order under the guise of election integrity based on his also false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The fraud allegations center on ineligible people casting mail-in ballots, of which Trump and his administration have not shown happened in significant numbers during the 2020 election.

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to build a state citizenship list based on federal date, to send the lists to state elections officials to verify mail-in ballots go to eligible voters and for the USPS not to send out absentee or mail-in ballots to people who do not appear on the lists.

Yemen’s Houthis say they have targeted oil facilities in Saudi Arabia owned by Aramco, in the latest escalation between the two sides. Saudi authorities say they intercepted the missile and drone attacks. Yousef Mowry has more details from Sanaa.

Right-wing candidate Flavio Bolsonaro attracts foreign support, but struggles in polls ahead of matchup with President Lula.

Flavio Bolsonaro has inaugurated the official beginning of his Brazilian presidential campaign, touting support from right-wing figures such as Argentinian President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro and long considered the presumptive candidate of Brazil’s political right, launched his formal bid challenging President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Saturday.

“This is more than a party convention,” Bolsonaro said in remarks to his father’s Liberal Party.

“This is the beginning of the toughest battles of our life. A fight between good and evil.”

Recent polls have shown Bolsonaro trailing the left-wing Lula, as his bid for the presidency struggles to right itself after a number of setbacks and scandals.

While Saturday’s event included endorsement remarks from right-wing heavyweights such as Milei and Netanyahu, few prominent Brazilian politicians were in attendance.

Centre-right parties have largely kept their distance, and Flavio’s father – currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for a coup attempt following his loss to Lula in 2022 – was present at the convention only in the form of a video made with AI.

Milei delivered ‌a fiery speech criticising Lula and declaring that Bolsonaro can “save” Brazil from socialism.

The Argentinian president flew to Brazil the night before the event and met on Saturday with Sao Paulo Governor Tarcisio de Freitas.

“We will continue offering our testimony everywhere against the lies of socialism,” Milei said.

Netanyahu offered support via a short video message.

“Flavio, my friend, I want to congratulate you on the official launching of your campaign,” Netanyahu said in the recording, according to the Brazilian outlet Metropoles. “You’re a great champion of Brazil, you’re a great champion of the friendship between our peoples.”

Lula’s Workers Party is set to hold its own convention on August 2, confirming the 80-year-old president’s re-election bid.

Bolsonaro and his allies have also suffered from criticisms that they have tried to use their ties to the administration of US President Donald Trump to boost his campaign, inviting US intervention in a variety of issues that many Brazilians see as a form of foreign meddling.

Like his father, Flavio has also raised alarm by repeating false claims about the reliability of Brazil’s election infrastructure, seen as a pretext for possible efforts to deny the legitimacy of the voting process in the event of a loss to Lula.

The AFP news agency reported on Saturday that Brazil had denied visas to a pair of Trump administration officials who sought to meet with the country’s election authorities to discuss “freedom of expression related to the elections”.

July 25 (UPI) — The lieutenant governor of Hawaii was indicted this week for allegedly being bribed by a lobbyist aiming to help a company receive a contract for COVID-19 testing.

A grand jury on Friday indicted Hawaii Lt. Gov. Sylvia Luke, a former state representative and the lobbyist, among others, for setting up a scheme to contribute $70,000 to Luke’s campaign in exchange for the contract, the Aloha State Daily reported.

The lobbyist, Tobi Solidum, offered the to Luke to retain a contract with the state, and allegedly was looking to bribe her in the future after she accepted two $5,000 checks at the beginning of the scheme.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green told Fox News that, in light of the indictment, Luke should depart from office.

“The attorney general announced significant developments in her department’s corruption investigation and has provided an update on their findings,” Green said.

“The lieutenant governor needs to consider formally resigning to address this matter and so that the state of Hawaii can move forward,” he said.

Luke, Solidum, former state Public Utilities Commission chair Leodoloff Asuncion Jr., and state Department of Transportation airports administrator Ford Fuchigami all were indicted for involvement in the scheme.

The indictment alleges that that Luke accepted two checks for $5,000 in January 2022 at a Morton’s Steakhouse, with the promise of two more payments of $35,000 each.

Although Luke has acknowledged accepting the $5,000 checks, she I miss that she never received additional money and never acted on what she was paid for.

July 25 (UPI) — The Trump administration admitted that it canceled nearly $8 billion in grants slated for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely” on whether a state voted for Kamala Harris for president, it was reported Friday.

In a recent court filing, a lawyer for the Energy Department said none of the axed projects lost their funding “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor.”

The Trump administration attorney added, “The 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

The government’s admission, first reported by The New York Times, came out as part of a July 15 court filing in a class action lawsuit over the slashed grants.

The Department of Energy selected 600 grants for cancellation and sent the list to the Office of Management and Budget, which terminated 284 of them in October.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” OMB Director Russell Vought wrote on X.

Despite also being recommended for cancellation from energy officials, the OMB left untouched hundreds of projects in places that voted for Trump, court documents show.

“The inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State,” Trump administration lawyers wrote.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, called the move “unprecedented Trumpism and something we should never become numb to.”

“Trump admits he’s ripping the rug out from under hardworking families so he can get revenge on the Americans who didn’t vote for him,” the New York democrat added. “It’s sick and deranged. His ego is so fragile, he’ll punish families already struggling to put food on the table for a little bit of vengeance.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said, “This mass partisan retribution is appalling, outrageous, dangerous, lawless, unconstitutional, unpatriotic and a massive offense against the Republic.”

“Every elected official must denounce this imbecilic deep betrayal of America,” Raskin added in a statement. “And the illegally impounded funds must be restored and released immediately to the blue states.”

Ezola Foster, Pat Buchanan’s running mate on the Reform Party ticket, collected workers’ compensation payments for nearly a year for a mental disorder she now says she did not have.

The disability claim, which was contested by her employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District, capped a checkered career in which Foster struggled financially as a result of bad business deals and twice resigned as a teacher after becoming embroiled in controversy, according to court records and interviews.

Foster applied for workers’ compensation in 1996, shortly after refusing to return to her job as a typing teacher at Bell High School.

“I have two choices to survive,” Foster said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Since it wasn’t physical, they make it mental, don’t they? If I don’t have a broken leg or they don’t see blood, or I’m not dead, they said I have to be crazy. And I would have been to go back there.”

The real reason she could not return to work, she said, was that her outspoken opposition to illegal immigration had made her a target of what she claimed was hatemongering and physical threats at an overwhelmingly Latino school.

The diagnosis of a mental disorder–which she declined to specify–was worked out “between my doctor and my attorney. . . . It’s whatever the doctor said that, after working with my attorney, was best to help me,” she said.

But although she claimed a mental disorder to receive the benefits, she strongly asserted that she has no mental problems and never did.

“I am perfectly sane,” Foster said.

Queried further about the matter, Foster asked whether a story was being done about her. She then told a reporter that it was his decision “if you want to put down there I pretended to be crazy when I’m not.” Shortly afterward, she hung up.

In a statement, Bay Buchanan, the candidate’s sister and executive co-chairwoman of the campaign, said: “Ezola Foster is an outstanding individual. Pat could not be more proud of his choice for vice president. As for her personal life from many years ago, we have no comment or concern.”

Buchanan, a conservative commentator and former speech writer for Richard Nixon, is battling a rival Reform Party faction for $12.6 million in federal campaign financing that goes to the party’s nominee. The party was founded in 1992 by billionaire industrialist Ross Perot.

When Buchanan picked Foster, his aides hailed her as a proponent of family values. Commentators saw the choice of Foster, an outspoken black conservative, as a smart political stroke that gave Buchanan an ideological soul mate and a buffer against charges that his rhetoric is racially inflammatory.

Records obtained from the state Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board show that Foster applied for benefits based on a mental condition. The precise claim, however, was blacked out of the public records, and attorneys for Foster have opposed a request by The Times to obtain the complete file. The appeals board has scheduled a hearing for Monday. She collected benefits until becoming eligible for retirement at age 60.

The disability claim was the final act in a long-running saga of Foster’s difficulties with the Los Angeles school district. District records show that in 1984 she resigned her teaching job at Jordan High School in South-Central Los Angeles. Her record there included one incident in which she filed a complaint with the teachers union charging a colleague with spreading rumors about her.

“It was so bizarre,” said Don Baer, a retired teachers union official who investigated the complaint, which he found merited no action. “I tried to drop it out of my memory bank.”

As Foster tells it, she fell out of favor because she stuck up for students who were being failed based solely on absences, a practice she contends violates state law.

After fighting off a forced transfer, Foster said, she faced so much hostility that she had to demand a transfer. It was denied.

“The only way I could get a transfer was to leave the district,” she said.

She returned to teaching in less than a year when she got the job at Bell.

After about a decade at that school, she filed suit against the district. According to the suit, two teachers inflamed the school against her after she appeared on the nationally televised “McNeil/Lehrer News Hour” in 1996 to argue for legislation that would have allowed states to prohibit schools from enrolling illegal immigrants.

On the show, Foster said she believed that illegal immigration was the primary cause of overcrowding in the Los Angeles school system.

“They called me a racist, a liar,” Foster said. “They called me a Nazi.”

Foster also charged that students under the supervision of a teacher threatened her with death and threw frozen soda cans in her direction when she spoke at an anti-immigration rally sponsored by Voice of Citizens Together. The group contends that Mexican political leaders and agitators in the U.S. are conspiring to reclaim Mexican sovereignty over the Southwest.

Despite her entreaties, Foster said, school officials took no action to investigate the threats or protect her.

Her suit sought damages for “serious physical ailments, emotional distress, fear, anxiety, depression and loss of self-esteem.” A Superior Court judge dismissed the suit without a trial.

Court records and other documents show that other aspects of Foster’s life have been complicated.

For example, court records show that Foster filed for divorce from her husband, Charles, in 1983, shortly after he had completed the adoption of her son by a previous marriage. The petition indicated the couple were separated for about a year and cited irreconcilable differences.

But in the interview, Foster laughed off the notion that she had wanted to divorce.

“We’ve never had that kind of problem,” she said.

“I have had some bad advice given to me legally in the past,” she said. “Maybe that was part of it.”

Real estate records trace two transactions in which the Fosters fared badly.

In 1986, the Fosters ran into trouble with a small house in South-Central they owned as an investment. The couple eventually sold out, receiving only the value of their debts.

A second real estate investment turned out worse. The Fosters bought a Long Beach duplex in 1993, intending to live in one unit and rent the other. Three years later, they defaulted on their mortgage.

“We didn’t realize that it was in a gang-infested area,” Foster said. “When we were taken there, you couldn’t tell. We went in the day, not at night when all the activity and the shooting went on.”

Foster said the gangs targeted her because of her prominence in the media. “With my speaking out against gang activity it was very unsafe for us,” she said. “We had to get out of there quickly.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Profile:

Ezola Foster

* Age: 62; born Aug. 9, 1938, in Texas.

* Education: Bachelor’s degree in business education, Texas Southern University, 1960; master’s degree in school management and administration, Pepperdine University, 1973.

* Career highlights: Founder and president of Black-Americans for Family Values, 1987 to present; teacher in Los Angeles school system, 1963-1996; ran unsuccessfully for California Assembly, 1984 and 1986.

* Religion: Member of a Congregationalist church.

* Family: Married to Chuck Foster; three children.

* Quote: “We all know the American nation is the most compassionate on Earth, but we have opened up our homes to immigrants and we have welcomed more immigrants than all other countries combined. How much more compassionate can we be? We want to be compassionate, but we want to cease being stupid.”

AMARILLO, Texas — When Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for Texas governor, began her campaign last year, candidates weren’t talking about — or hearing about — data centers that power artificial intelligence.

But with barely three months until November’s contest, the perceived threat to rural life, ranchland and dwindling water supplies could become a defining issue for her long-shot challenge to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, dividing conservative rural areas that have traditionally served as a counterweight to Democrats’ urban strongholds.

The backlash to energy-guzzling server warehouses is also shaping other statewide campaigns from Arizona to Ohio to New York, and even giving Democrats a glimmer of hope in Texas, where Republicans have dominated for three decades.

“There is this little issue that I recently started hearing about that I wanted to tell you about, in case you don’t know,” Hinojosa quipped to a Democratic Party-organized crowd of about 160 seated on fold-out chairs at an Amarillo social club in Texas’ panhandle. “It’s this issue of data centers.”

The crowd booed, and she went on: “They are owned by the richest men in the world. We’re all footing the bill. There are no rules. It is the wild west of data centers.”

The fast growth of massive data centers has already upended races for local offices across the country, often uniting conservatives and liberals in revolting against projects in their midst.

People don’t like the secrecy surrounding the projects or the prospect of air, noise, water and light pollution. They fear electric bills going up, wells going dry and losing open space, farmland or forest.

Now the ripple effects have spread to top-of-the-ticket races, where incumbents and challengers are trying to show that they hear an angry electorate.

In Ohio, Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown aired a television advertisement attacking Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted as the “face of data centers in Ohio” as people gather signatures for a statewide referendum to outright ban their construction.

In Wisconsin, a Democratic candidate for governor, Francesca Hong, is pledging to “tax the rich, fund our schools and stop AI data centers” as she campaigns for her party’s nomination in a crowded primary.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is facing heat from some voters who feel like he’s been too welcoming to tech behemoths. Sam Burleigh, a Democrat whose rural community is fighting off data center projects, accused Shapiro of “allowing these data centers to come in and take over acres and acres of prime farmland.”

Texas is fertile ground for data centers

Any political unrest may be felt most acutely in Texas.

The state is poised to overtake northern Virginia as the largest global data center market by 2030, according to a report by commercial real estate giant JLL. It has lots of land, lots of energy and a friendly regulatory environment under Republican leadership.

In rural west Texas and its panhandle, gargantuan data centers are under construction, including one near Amarillo touted as the world’s largest. Some come with designs for natural gas-fired turbines to power them.

Rumors are flying about others popping up — Google, which is building four data centers in northwest Texas, sponsored moderated conversations with officials and business elite in Lubbock and Amarillo in recent weeks — and it is sowing an outcry across small cities, tiny towns and sprawling ranches where people vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Google says its investments are advancing American innovation, fortifying cybersecurity and boosting energy capacity, while President Trump has made data centers a top priority to help the U.S. compete against China for AI superiority.

But tech giants and developers can be secretive about their plans, making it impossible to know what will be built or what sort of pollution they’ll create, critics say. Some worry that data centers will destroy rural Texas’ low cost of living and sully sunsets and sweeping views that stretch toward the horizon.

Others say construction and an influx of workers are already causing havoc for ranchers and towns, driving up rents, snapping up farmland, illuminating the night sky, clogging roads and turning parts of rural Texas into industrial zones.

Opposition crosses partisan divide

Democrats are prominent among the data center critics, but so are Republicans, including Texas’ sitting agriculture commissioner, Sid Miller. They say there are many more Republicans who are quieter because they fear publicly opposing their governor and party.

“They’re upset with Greg Abbott,” said Suzanne Bellsnyder, a former Republican activist from Spearman who writes a syndicated column that advocates for rural Texas. “Whether that translates into voting against him, I don’t know.”

Abbott has aggressively advocated for big projects in Texas and, in November, he helped make Google’s announcement of a $40-billion investment there, saying, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development.”

Compounding that, Texas counties don’t have zoning authority — precisely the local land planning authority that communities around the country are increasingly using to fight off data centers.

Abbott seems to recognize that data centers are dividing his base. In recent weeks, he ordered regulators to take steps to ensure Texans weren’t paying higher electricity bills because of data centers and promised to push a legislative agenda next year to impose regulations on data centers.

At an East Texas campaign stop, Abbott said that includes taking away the state’s billion-dollar-plus-per-year tax break and preventing data centers from being built in “rural Texas neighborhoods.”

Hinojosa and others derided Abbott’s words about “rural Texas neighborhoods” as meaningless — “doublespeak that makes no sense to anyone,” Hinojosa said — and lacking urgency or seriousness.

“Now we have this gold rush of data centers in our communities,” Hinojosa said in an interview, adding that “people want a say, and I think that’s fair.”

As governor, she said she’d block a permit for a data center if it wasn’t a good deal for Texans or residents hadn’t gotten a say in the matter.

Abbott tries to soothe concerns

Abbott’s campaign season turnabout on data centers doesn’t seem to have soothed many.

Of great concern is the prospect that data centers will consume massive amounts of water and worsen drought conditions for ranchers and farmers in a state where water shortages already crippled the sugar cane industry.

“Oh, I guarantee you, it’s on everybody’s mind,” said Giles Dalby, a cattle rancher and a Republican county commissioner in west Texas.

Dalby, who raises Angus and Brangus cattle on ranchland that’s been in his family for 125 years, pointed to fast-growing cities where water authorities have had to go to greater lengths to procure water, including the “water wars” between San Antonio and ranchers several years ago.

Texas is increasingly steamrolling over landowner rights in the quest for public water, Dalby said, and that could mean that data centers get in line ahead of ranchers when shortages or rationing worsen.

Clayton Tucker, a rancher and the Democratic nominee for state agriculture commissioner, said his campaign events are consumed by talk of data centers. It doesn’t matter whether he’s meeting with Democrats or Republicans.

“This is the most cross-partisan issue I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tucker said.

Meanwhile, protest groups are springing up, including one in Lubbock that is led by Republicans. The founders, Stephen Sanders and Hallie Bertrand, like some other Republican opponents of data centers, say it’s possible or even certain they won’t vote for Abbott, although they may not necessarily vote for Hinojosa.

There is still time for Abbott to push through major legislation before the election and “be a hero,” Sanders said.

The big question is whether enough rural voters will turn against Abbott to give Hinojosa a shot. It’s hard to tell, Bertrand said, especially when some know nothing about the issue.

“They’ll just hit that button, Republican all the way down,” Bertrand said. “But I think it’s a step towards something that we have not seen in Texas in a long time, with people on the right switching to the left. Or scooting a little closer to the middle, maybe.”

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

We know from statements issued by the 2015 National Assembly Delegated Commission, the 2026 National Assembly, and the State Department that August 1 was set as the launching date of a roadmap leading to a political transition in Venezuela.

The incentives for the various actors to accelerate or delay this political negotiation process are clear. The Venezuelan interim government (as the State Department statement refers to it) will have an interest in delaying the process as much as possible to prolong its time in power and preserve the current state of affairs. For the 2015 National Assembly Delegated Commission, it offers a window of opportunity to gain relevance and demonstrate its ability to accelerate the agenda that Dinorah Figuera announced before any other actor. The Trump administration will want this process to proceed at a pace that does not jeopardize its control of the country until the elections (and perhaps even after). It is in María Corina Machado’s best interest for the situation to develop in a way that allows her to gain control and create the conditions for her to be the opposition candidate in the upcoming presidential elections.

Other, less prominent actors will try to influence the process. We have already seen AD leader Henry Ramos Allup trying to position himself, for example, to defend Machado’s participation, as did Henrique Capriles, and other voices will surely emerge along those lines in the coming days. Those aspiring to a new National Assembly and new elections for governorships and mayoralties will certainly also try to influence the process.

But let’s turn to the most relevant conversation, with just under two weeks until August 1: what could be the institutional path to achieving this political transition through free elections?

A new National Electoral Council (CNE)

Since the elections are administered by the National Electoral Council, it would seem that the first step should be, precisely, to elect a new CNE board.

Choosing a reliable one could be the first challenge. What has been offered previously is insufficient: a majority of three or four people close to or allied with the government and one or two “independents” or those close to the opposition. A board is needed that complies with Article 296 of the Constitution, composed of “five people not affiliated with political organizations.”

This CNE must begin with an essential task: the purging and updating of the Permanent Electoral Registry. It is crucial that Venezuelans abroad be allowed to vote and that the necessary logistical and diplomatic conditions be established to make this possible.

A new Supreme Court

Under the Venezuelan constitutional system, the decisions of the CNE can be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ). Directly by the Electoral Chamber. Indirectly by the Constitutional Chamber.

Therefore, the appointment of new justices to both the Electoral Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber is necessary at the outset of this process. Article 263 of the Constitution clearly outlines the requirements for becoming a Supreme Court Justice. In May of this year, the Supreme Court Law was amended to increase the number of justices from 20 to 32. The Constitutional Chamber (the most important chamber) is composed of seven justices. This increase means that 12 new justices must be elected. Furthermore, a significant number of the current 20 justices are of retirement age.

This, as with the CNE, is debated and decided in the National Assembly, whose majority is controlled by Jorge Rodríguez. It would have to be a decision by chavismo, or the result of a political rupture, for the political rights of the non-government-controlled population to be considered both when electing CNE board members and when appointing Supreme Court justices. This relates to the next point.

Restoring civil and political rights

For several years, Venezuela’s main political parties and actors were subjected to confiscation and persecution through various administrative measures, such as those issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic to disqualify candidates, and even judicial measures to replace the boards of directors of opposition parties like COPEI, Primero Justicia, and Acción Democrática. It is essential to compile a report detailing all these measures and establish an action plan to reverse them, allowing political parties and leaders to operate and return to Venezuela.

Then, reforms must be made to those laws and administrative regulations that, long before January 3rd, restricted freedom of expression and the conditions for holding elections, such as the Constitutional Law Against Hatred, the Simón Bolívar Law, and the Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic. The same must be done with respect to the resolutions of the CNE that have restricted political and civic participation in the electoral processes. Furthermore, cases where it has been argued that the 2026 Amnesty Law is inapplicable, such as that of María Corina Machado, must be reviewed.

Given that the incentives of the actors in this process are not and will not be aligned, as shown above, it is crucial to immediately establish timelines for the phases of the process, beginning August 1. This will allow us to gauge the level of commitment among the parties to move forward with the transition.

There are certainly conditions attached to this process that are not public, and that will shape its phases and pace. However, we must begin a public conversation about ideas for addressing this crucial phase of political life starting August 1.