politics

Journalists prepare to strike as politicians push through changes that critics say threaten independence.

The Czech Republic’s governing coalition has advanced changes to the funding of public media, despite criticism that it could weaken broadcaster independence.

In a rare overnight vote in the early hours of Saturday, the coalition voted to send the bill to committees for further discussion.

The changes include scrapping the 205 crown ($9.45) household broadcasting fee, and replacing it with funding from the state budget.

The populist government of billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis, backed by the far-right SPD party, has frequently criticised public and private media coverage of its policies and accused some outlets of bias.

Babis promised to scrap the broadcasting fee before taking office last December, and says his three-party government is now fulfilling that pledge to voters.

Public media employees staged a strike against the move in June, saying it would make broadcasters vulnerable to government pressure.

Opposition parties have compared the changes with reforms under neighbouring Hungary’s former Prime Minister, Viktor Orban.

Babis has said the new funding model would be fairer to poorer households and encourage outlets to become more efficient.

“There is no war for independent media,” Babis said on Facebook late on Friday. “There is no fight for democracy and no nationalisation of media is being prepared.”

The proposal would cut funding for Czech Television and Czech Radio by about 15 percent and keep nominal funding unchanged for several years.

Public media are among the most trusted news sources in the Czech Republic, with Czech Television the most-watched broadcaster across several age groups.

A civic group has called a public protest for Sunday, while journalists and other employees at the broadcasters announced a strike for November 3.

More than $351 million in political donations has been poured into a high-stakes contest about a proposed wealth tax on the November ballot, making it one of the most costly campaigns in California history.

About 90% of the money is being spent to defeat a statewide initiative to impose a new tax on the assets of billionaires, a multifaceted opposition effort bankrolled primarily by ultra-rich Californians being targeted by a measure that supporters call an economic reckoning.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would levy a one-time, 5% tax on many assets of California billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1.

Millions of dollars continue to flow into the campaigns of three intertwined ballot initiatives at the center of the debate: Proposition 40, and Propositions 41 and Proposition 42, which would neuter the Proposition 40 through strategic, esoteric tax law changes.

“The pro-40 campaign picked a fight and then came to that fight with a butter knife against a nuclear arsenal,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who is not involved in any of the wealth-tax-related ballot measures. “Because they’re so well funded, in today’s multifaceted media world, they are able to show up everywhere from network TV to inside video games. That is a very, very large advantage few campaigns ever get to have.”

But, Stutzman warned, money does not guarantee a win.

In the most expensive ballot measure fights in California history, $463 million was spent on two gambling proposals 2022. The initiatives pitted some of California’s most successful Native American tribes with gaming interests against gambling corporations, including online sports gaming companies DraftKings and FanDuel. Both side’s measure failed.

People attend a rally against Proposition 40 at the Iron Workers Apprenticeship Training Center on Oct. 5 in La Palma.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

The tax measure was crafted by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West in response to federal healthcare funding cuts signed by President Trump last year that are expected to reduce California’s healthcare budget by $100 billion, burdening the state’s most vulnerable residents.

“Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ slashes healthcare funding, with major coverage cuts scheduled to hit after the midterms,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff. “More than 3 million Californians could lose their health insurance. Hospitals and emergency rooms face closure. Patients will die unnecessarily when the care they need is no longer there. Proposition 40 is an emergency response to that looming disaster.”

The proposition’s supporters raised $34.3 million, nearly all of it from Jimenez’s union.

The two other measures, Propositions 41 and 42, would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes.

Proposition 41 supporters say the measure aims to cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits for new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that exempt their revenue from a state spending limit. Backers of Proposition 42 argue it would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other forms of personal savings.

Advocates for the billionaire tax say both are well-financed smokescreens to undercut Proposition 40.

Opposition campaigns to the wealth tax as well as the two countermeasures have received enormous donations from several of the state’s billionaires. But Building a Better California, the main funder of efforts to defeat the wealth tax, noted that its allies included Democratic and Republican politicians, prominent labor groups and business leaders.

“It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy,” the group said in a statement.

Among the largest donors opposing the wealth tax are billionaires Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google who has donated more than $100 million to anti-wealth-tax efforts, and former Google leader Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist L. John Doerr, who each kicked in $40 million.

Brin, Schmidt and Doerr did not respond to requests for comment.

US tech entrepreneur Sergey Brin and Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto arrive for the 2026 Met Gala celebrating “Costume Art” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in May.

(ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)

The spending disparity also reflects a divide among Democrats and their allies, many of whom support wealth taxes, but argue that the way Proposition 40 was written is disastrous to California’s volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said that while her organization would support a nationwide or a California wealth tax, their primary concerns are about 40’s impacts on the state budget and healthcare in the state.

“We are opposed to this particular proposal because we think it does more harm than good,” she said, adding that after what her organization “faced last year having to scramble for dollars because of [federal funding cuts] we are committed to work with the stakeholders facing cuts and not harming the budget and finding revenue in a smart way.”

The cash imbalance between supporters and opponents of the billionaire tax is vast. Those opposed to the measure raised $316.7 million, while proponents raised nearly $34.3 million.

The Fair Games Coalition, made up of community leaders, labor organizations and advocates, announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood in January.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The supporters of the wealth tax spent nearly all of their money gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot. They had $1.6 million on hand as of Oct. 17.

Now, as voters cast ballots, their campaign appears reliant on public events and media coverage, such as of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) recent rally in support of Proposition 40 in downtown Los Angeles.

“What you are showing people from coast to coast and all over is that, yes, we can take on the greed of the oligarchs,” he said, calling it the most important ballot measure in the country. “Yes, we can create an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”

Facebook creator and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg was among the California billionaires Sanders name-checked in his remarks. After Zuckerberg told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company substantially reduced by being forced to sell enough of his stock in the social media giant to pay the proposed levy, the company on Wednesday announced the creation of a new, non-voting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens as President Trump speaks to reporters at the White House on Sept. 29.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Ap Photo/jacquelyn Martin)

The pro-wealth-tax campaign is sending voters emails and texts and has an online presence.

“Remember: it’s not enough to vote YES on 40. You also need to vote NO on 41 + 42,” read an email sent to voters on Tuesday. “Don’t be fooled: Props 41 and 42 are billionaire-funded initiatives designed specifically to undermine Prop 40, the California Billionaire Tax.”

Meanwhile, the anti-40 and pro-42 campaigns are inundating voters on television, streaming services, in mailboxes, through online influencers and even in digital video games such as Sim City.

Jimenez said voters will see through the blizzard of campaign messaging.

“The billionaires think voters are stupid. They think they can bury the facts under millions of dollars in advertising and disguise Prop. 42 … as protection for ordinary taxpayers,” she said. “Their spending also makes our case for us. When billionaires can afford to spend millions a day protecting their fortunes, voters can see that billionaires have plenty of money to spare.”

Sheri Sadler, a veteran Democratic media buyer, questioned how much voters were hearing about the rationale for the proposed billionaire tax.

“The yes side is severely lacking in getting their message through while the no side is dipping into different kinds of pockets,” she said.

Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said that beyond voter confusion about the competing ballot measures, it is certain to face legal challenges, notably about the retroactive nature of the tax, which would apply to any billionaire who lived in California as of Jan. 1. She described that as “the biggest legal pressure point.”

“It’s kind of a mess,” she said.

Times staff writer Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.

Buying a home in California requires a colossal amount of money — and coming up with a 20% cash down payment of $180,000 for a median price home is a staggering hurdle for many would-be buyers.

That down payment amount is based on the statewide median $900,000 price tag for a house, according to recent data from the California Assn. of Realtors. In Los Angeles County, the median price for a single-family home is $935,000. In Orange County, it’s $1.5 million.

Proposition 37 on the Nov. 3 ballot would allow the state to amass a $25 billion down payment assistance program for middle-class households. For perspective on the enormity of the measure before voters, one of the state’s existing down payment programs, California Dream For All, launched several years ago with $500 million, just 2% of the funding involved in Proposition 37.

The ballot measure would allow qualified prospective homebuyers to borrow up to 17% of the sales price of a new home, contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

The program would not be funded by taxpayers, but instead by the interest charged to borrowers on their down payment loans, also referred to as second mortgages. The measure has garnered widespread support, including from Gov. Gavin Newsom, statewide unions and mayors from Santa Monica to San José.

“Prop. 37 is a historic opportunity to expand homeownership opportunities for generations of working families — at zero cost or risk to taxpayers,” Newsom said in a statement.

But Proposition 37 carries a significant caveat: Any home purchased through the program must be new construction, which could limit its potential reach because of the high cost of building, some critics said.

Also, the proposition does not spell out the terms or interest rates on the loans, which would be worked out if the measure is approved. And some have questioned whether there will be sufficiently robust interest from investors to buy the state-issued bonds that will be used to fund the down payment loans.

The concept of down payment assistance is not new. Cities and states, including California, have long offered such programs to low- and middle-income homeowners, either in the form of loans or grants, and there are reportedly more than 2,700 such programs across the country.

Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York all have programs to help homebuyers afford a down payment. Since 2021, New York has dispersed $70 million in down payment assistance. In Massachusetts, more than $146 million has been doled out in down payment help to homebuyers since 2020.

How the program would work

Under Proposition 37, down payment loans would work like any other, and would carry an interest rate and payback period — all of which would be determined by the California Housing Finance Agency.

To qualify, borrowers would need to have lived in the state for at least a year and earn no more than 200% of the local median income; in Los Angeles County, for example, that equates to a family of four earning no more than $216,200 a year.

Borrowers don’t have to be first-time homebuyers, which is often a requirement of down payment aid programs. But they would need to live in the home.

The program would restrict the price of qualifying homes, depending on the county where someone is trying to buy. A general estimate, though, is that would-be homebuyers would be limited to houses costing between $1 million and $1.5 million and the homes, more importantly, would need to be new construction.

While Proposition 37 has little opposition, and is supported by unions, chambers of commerce and organizations representing builders, the League of Women Voters opposes the ballot measure, concerned it would saddle residents with too much debt and that the terms of these loans are opaque, the details worked out only after the vote.

New homes only

Only buyers of newly-built homes would be eligible for these loans. That could include existing commercial buildings that had been converted into homes, such as condos or townhomes.

This provision is uncommon as many existing down payment assistance programs don’t strictly limit the type of home someone can buy — only the sale price. Bob Hertzberg, former Senate Majority Leader and the architect of the proposal, said he wanted Proposition 37 to spur new construction.

“The problem is we have to increase supply,” Hertzberg said. The shortage of homes in the state is estimated to range anywhere from 840,000 to upwards of 3 million.

By creating more demand for new homes, he said, the hope is that builders will respond en masse.

But some groups are wary of this logic. One analysis, funded by the Proposition 37 campaign, estimated that this program could result in the building of 190,000 homes in the state, although the report’s author said it was “impossible to know” the true number given the various factors that impact housing.

Matthew Lewis, director of communications for California YIMBY, an organization that advocates making it easier and cheaper to build homes, said high prices make it clear that the demand for homes already exists and that Proposition 37 does little to address a bigger issue: the cost of building.

“In concept, [Proposition 37 is] a great idea,” Lewis said. “The thing we’re concerned about is, California is still way behind on its housing production goals, so there’s the risk of an unintended consequence of instead of having 10 people bidding on a house, now you’ve given a couple folks down payment assistance, and so there’s now 12 people bidding on the same house.”

To drive builders to construct eligible homes, the measure would allow them to opt into a “qualified builder” option. As long as they adhere to price caps, agree to certain labor requirements and fix repairs that arise, they’re protected from lawsuits from buyers concerning defects 10 years after construction of the home.

Homebuilders say even given some relief from litigation, they aren’t sure Proposition 37 would push construction into overdrive.

“There are so many more things the state, city and county could do to help add more supply [of homes],” said Paul Schon, a developer who builds apartments in L.A. County. He said tackling permitting times and red tape involved in building would have a greater impact. “This is minor,” he said.

Interest rates could be a tough sell

Many down payment assistance programs offer interest-free loans to homebuyers, including an existing program run by CalHFA.

But in order to be self-funding, the fixed-rate loans offered through Proposition 37 would carry interest. If passed, the state would issue revenue bonds, selling them to investors and using that money to issue loans to homebuyers. The investors are repaid with the interest paid on the loans.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, CalHFA would decide the total amount of bonds to issue and over what period of time.

Revenue bonds are generally viewed as riskier than other types of government bonds, in part because they’re backed by the promise of revenue from a specific project — in this case, payment by individual borrowers. That means interest rates on these loans could be higher than borrowers might like or be able to afford.

Hertzberg said he’s talked to investors who may be willing to buy these bonds at cheaper rates, given the crushing issue the funding is trying to solve. This would keep interest rates down for borrowers. He said he’s appealing to foundations and socially-minded tech leaders.

One of the biggest financial backers of the measure is the political nonprofit Building a Better California, which has been fighting the billionaire’s tax with help from wealthy donors, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

Hertzberg, for his part, refused to name any organization or person who may be interested in buying the bonds that would fund this program.

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

Michigan’s Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed, is many things to many people.

He represents change, part of a new generation of outspoken leaders who aren’t afraid to challenge the status quo.

He represents possibility: As the son of Egyptian immigrants, his trajectory is the American dream realized.

And he represents a threat to those who fear that his Muslim faith means he can’t possibly love America. El-Sayed is a handy bogeyman for Republican politicians who seek to scare their constituents into voting for them instead of the foreboding Arab name on the ballot.

But for people like me — American Muslims, or anyone with roots in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia or other Muslim-majority regions — El-Sayed embodies the exhausting experience of having to explain yourself over, and over, and over …

We know what’s truly going on when someone discovers our lineage, then apropos of nothing asks, “How do you feel about the Oct. 7 Hamas attack?” In previous eras it was, “What are your thoughts about 9/11? The Iranian hostage crisis? The PLO?”

Regardless of the decade, the underlying question was the same: How American are you, really?

For generations, the insinuation has been that your loyalty lies somewhere else and that you have a predisposed soft spot for groups such as ISIS or Al Qaeda. Beneath that Taylor Swift-loving exterior, there must be a Bin Laden fighting to get out.

It was disappointing but hardly surprising when El-Sayed was asked at a recent town hall in Caro, Mich., if he would “disavow the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The questioner, who identified himself only as Tommy, was referring to a century-old Islamist movement with branches that have been designated as terrorist organizations by various countries and U.S. administrations.

It’s worth noting that El-Sayed was born and raised in Detroit, not Egypt or Jordan. He attended the University of Michigan medical school, not a radical madrassa, and received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oriel College, Oxford, where he completed a doctor of philosophy in public health (not bomb making).

El-Sayed answered the question without hesitation. “Sure, yeah, absolutely,” he said, then swiftly turned the tables and began interrogating the motives of his interrogator.

“You’re asking the question because implicitly, you assume that I’ll have dual loyalties, right?” El-Sayed said. “You assume that I wouldn’t disavow, or that I’ll have some higher order allegiance than to the Constitution, correct? Tommy, is that what you imply?”

The candidate spent four to five minutes laying bare the political motives behind what was clearly designed to be a “gotcha” moment.

His opponent in next month’s election, former Rep. Mike Rogers, has claimed without evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood funds El-Sayed’s campaign and that his family members have terrorist links. The attacks are on brand with a wider Republican strategy around sinking El-Sayed. Fearing a blue tsunami might flip the crucial swing state, Rogers and his allies have leaned heavily into Islamophobic attacks against the progressive Democrat.

It’s a campaign tactic endorsed at the highest levels. President Trump has referred to El-Sayed as a “radical jihadist” and claimed he is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, mispronounced his name, infused it with nonsensical babble and called him “Muhammad Al-Fayad.” Trump has defended his racism by stating: “I’m the president. I can call him whatever the hell I want.”

El-Sayed preferred to talk about another president while addressing Tommy’s question at the town hall. He recalled that John F. Kennedy faced similar scrutiny during his 1960 presidential campaign when asked whether his Catholic faith would make him loyal to the pope and Vatican rather than the U.S.

“His answer, famously, was that he was not running to be a Catholic president,” El-Sayed said. “He was running to be president that happened to be Catholic. I’m not running to be a Muslim senator. I’m running for the U.S. Senate and happen to be Muslim.”

The standoff between El-Sayed and Tommy (who has since been outed as Thomas Teepell, the son of a Republican strategist and a former staffer to Republican Sen. Josh Hawley) has gone viral and is now being referred to as a 2026 election Rorschach test because both the right and left believe they prevailed.

It’s unclear to me how anyone might see El-Sayed’s evisceration of Teepell’s means-to-an-end question as a victory for the right. Perhaps it comes from eight years of watching Barack Obama weather insidious and overt racist attacks with the patience of a Shaolin monk. El-Sayed reacted, therefore they won?

On the left, El-Sayed’s articulate defense was widely applauded, but there were still criticisms that he may have come off as condescending. Liberal podcasters and influencers opined that El-Sayed should have just let it slide — for the 1,000th time.

Such an easy solution when it comes from those outside the sphere of suspicion.

But the reason we’re even having this conversation is because El-Sayed is challenging the norm. His rise to a formidable candidate who is willing to publicly dismantle loaded questions like Tommy’s represents progress wrought by successive generations of immigrants who’ve had to explain themselves ad nauseam.

Our parents and grandparents went out of their way to avoid those kinds of questions by taming their accents, changing their hard-to-pronounce names or eating their “ethnic” lunches outside the break room. The hope was that they’d melt into the proverbial pot with as little friction as possible.

My father, who emigrated from Iraq, did what all his Arab friends did here in L.A. — fit in. They used Brylcreem to tame their thick hair, listened to Johnny Cash and used terms like “guys and gals” as if they’d just stepped out of an Elvis movie.

As the next generation, I made it a point to openly embrace what my dad often downplayed — that we are Arab and Muslim. But given the post-9/11 climate, it came buffered with calming disclaimers: We are not a threat. Al Qaeda does not speak for Islam. And dolma is delicious, dammit.

El-Sayed’s refusal to brush off questions aligning him with terrorists may or may not cost him the election, but it’s a victory for all of us who’ve been defusing suspicion since we were kids.

The clip from the town hall ends with El-Sayed asking Thomas if he’s a Christian who has tried to live by Christian doctrine. Thomas affirmed. Then El-Sayed asked, “Do you disavow any attempt to read any religious doctrine into the laws of our country?” Thomas responded, “I do not.”

El-Sayed replied, “I think it’s you who needs to understand the Constitution, not me.”

EDINBURG, Texas — Clad in pressed jeans and cowboy hats, dozens of riders on horseback and drivers in pickups kicked up dust along a dirt road in Edinburg, near the southern tip of Texas. They were there for a cabalgata, a traditional horse procession, with a political message: Send Tejano singer Bobby Pulido to Congress.

Some were lifelong Democrats. Others had voted for President Trump two years ago. But on this Saturday, they all rode for Pulido, a Democrat trying to flip a House seat Trump carried by 18 percentage points in 2024.

Among them was David Lopez, 54, astride his brown horse, Black Jack. He voted for Trump because he saw him as a good businessman. But now, Lopez says the president’s tariffs have hurt his truck and trailer repair shop in nearby McAllen, and business is down about 20% from last year.

“I am voting Democrats all the way. Trump is no longer doing a good job,” Lopez said. “We need to find a way to make it out of this together.”

Lopez is part of a shift rippling through Latino communities across the country. Two years after helping return Trump to the White House with a Republican-controlled Congress, Latino voters are souring on the party in power, fueled by frustration over rising costs and the administration’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement.

People cheer while listening to congressional candidate Bobby Pulido at an Oct. 16, 2026, rally in Mercedes, Texas.

In 2024, Trump won the support of 48% of Latino voters, expanding Republican gains with a group that has long leaned Democratic. Now, that support is cratering. The president’s approval rating among Latino registered voters has fallen to 24% from 38% at the start of his second term, polls show.

Among Latinos who voted for Trump, 65% say they plan to back Republicans on Nov. 3, while more than a third said they were ready to vote for a Democrat or were undecided, according to a Pew Research Center poll released this month.

More broadly, Latino voters favor Democrats in House races 51% to 24%, and those who sat out the 2024 election are leaning toward Democrats. Those shifts could help decide control of the House, in part because Republicans in Texas and Florida redrew their congressional maps betting that their 2024 gains among Latino voters would last through the midterms.

Bobby Pulido, a Latin Grammy winner and Democrat running for Texas’ 15th Congressional District, sings at the Bert Ogden Arena on Oct. 17, 2026, in Edinburg, Texas.

Nowhere is that test sharper than in the borderlands of the Rio Grande Valley, where voters say that Trump has failed to deliver on his economic promises and that his administration has gone too far on immigration enforcement, an issue they wanted addressed, but humanely.

In more than two dozen interviews in the Latino-majority region, voters say they are driven less by party loyalty and more by frustrations that they have been taken for granted, and want to elect politicians who take their votes seriously.

They say it has become harder to keep up with rising costs, including for the diesel that fuels their trucks and their weekly grocery runs. Builders say construction projects have ground to a halt as workers are detained or deported. And small-business owners say sales have dropped, either because customers are afraid to leave their homes or because tariffs have driven up their costs.

1

2

1. Sebastian Guevara, 65, poses for a photo at a political rally on Oct. 16, 2026, in Mercedes, Texas. “Trump forgot about Latinos as soon as he won,” he said. 2. Luis Sustaita, 49, a mariachi musician who had voted Republican in previous years, says he will be voting for Bobby Pulido.

Nidia Olivarez, 48, and her husband, Arnulfo, 55, voted for Trump in 2024 but have grown frustrated with how he has handled the economy and immigration raids in their community. This year, they’re backing Pulido over GOP Rep. Monica De La Cruz in Texas’ 15th Congressional District. But not because they’ve had a change of heart about the Democratic Party.

“We are only voting for Pulido, not other Democrats,” Olivarez said. The couple are still unsure whether they’ll support any Republicans.

For them, the vote is personal. They’ve long loved Pulido’s Tejano music and like that he’s a familiar figure in their community. They trust him, she said. They’re less sure about the Republicans at the top of the ticket: Ken Paxton, the Senate nominee running against Democrat James Talarico, and Gov. Greg Abbott, who is seeking reelection.

“We want to see who continues to show up in the area,” Olivarez said. “That matters to us.”

People cheer during Tejano singer Bobby Pulido’s last song “Desvelado” during a concert in October in Edinburg, Texas.

Latino voters in Texas are increasingly willing to consider candidate over party, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston.

“They are not just looking for what party to align with. They want to know that they can trust the person they’re voting for,” Rottinghaus said.

That dynamic will play a role in the competitive races for Texas’ 15th, 28th and 34th congressional districts and in the Senate seat, which has proved to be one of the most expensive and high-profile contests this year. In a sign of GOP concerns, Trump and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly traveled to Texas this month to rally voters.

In recent weeks, Trump has brushed off polls that show him losing ground with Latino voters.

“I think we are doing great, I won Hispanics,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I’ve done more than any other Republican in history, I got tremendous Hispanics.”

In early October, Trump was asked about Latino voters who say they feel betrayed by his administration’s immigration and economic policies. His message to them was that “we have to do what we have to do,” in reference to his immigration crackdown.

1

2

3

1. People dance during Bobby Pulido’s concert. 2. A man rides his horse before a parade in support of Bobby Pulido on Oct. 17, 2026, in Edinburg, Texas. 3. Bobby Pulido, in brown vest and white cowboy hat, upper left, takes a photo with rallygoers after speaking on Oct. 16, 2026, in Mercedes, Texas.

Gloria Rodriguez, a social worker in Edinburg, has seen the impact the immigration raids have had on children. Since Trump returned to the White House, she has helped coordinate services for hundreds of kids whose parents or caregivers have been detained or deported. She worries many of them will develop post-traumatic stress disorders.

“Everything they are doing with immigration is too much,” said Rodriguez, 50, who is voting for Democrats down the ballot. Her 15-year-old daughter, Angelina, says she told her mother to vote for Democrats, in part because she is scared her friends will be deported.

Luis Sustaita, 49, a mariachi who owns a music store that sells instruments to school districts, is voting Democrat this year because he says he is disheartened by the values of the modern-day Republican Party.

“There are no old-school Republicans anymore. It is all MAGA,” said Sustaita, who lives in Weslaco. “They used to be about the people. Trump is all about himself and making himself rich.”

In South Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to court voters on a more personal level. It is about identity more than political affiliation in many ways.

In the majority-Latino 15th Congressional District, Pulido’s campaign slogan is “Not team red, not team blue — South Texas I am team you.” In an interview, Pulido added that his message to Latino voters is: “I hear you loud and clear, and I believe I share values with you.”

Rodrigo Pulido, 6, with his mother, Mariana Morales, cheers as his father, Bobby Pulido, sings the last song, “Desvelado,” during his concert at the Bert Ogden Arena on Oct. 17, 2026, in Edinburg, Texas.

De La Cruz, a former insurance agent and a staunch Trump ally, said Latinos are “tired of being taken for granted” and said Pulido “has some nice records, but he’s a product of the same corrupt system that got rich and made us poorer.”

“I grew up in South Texas watching the compadre system steal from us while our families struggled to get by,” De La Cruz said in a statement. “You work hard and want a little more for your family and safe communities. I cut your taxes, protected Social Security and Medicare, stood with Border Patrol agents, and I’m fighting every day to bring down gas and grocery prices.”

Whether that message will resonate with voters will be seen on Nov. 3.

Tina Treviño, 61, said she hopes “la raza” — a term used in the Mexican American community that is widely understood as “the people” — will deliver political change to Texas. She says the system is not working for Latinos, and believes Democrats will be able to bring that change.

“It’s about Chicano power,” Treviño said. “We need that more than ever.”

To his supporters, he is known as “King Bibi”; but to his opponents, he is the king of security failures and corruption.

Disputes over names aside, what is not in question is that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has left his mark on the country’s institutions, politics and social attitudes during a decades-long career that has been defined by Israel’s lurch to the right.

As he seeks re-election in Israel’s October 27 polls, analysts say his most enduring domestic legacy may be the right-wing, militaristic opposition that he has helped create and now faces.

Born in 1949, Netanyahu entered Israel’s central political stage in the early 1990s by fuelling anger at possible peace deals with the Palestinians and Syria.

Israeli political leaders have accused him of leading incitement that motivated the 1995 assassination of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was leading negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, by an ultranationalist Israeli. Netanyahu had led rallies in which participants depicted Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform and held signs of him in the crosshairs of a gun, while others shouted “traitor”.

The Likud Party leader denies any responsibility, but former security officials have said they warned Netanyahu before the assassination and asked him to dial down his rhetoric, only for him to refuse, according to Israeli media reports.

In 1996, Netanyahu’s populist tactics succeeded at the ballot box, making him Israel’s youngest prime minister. Netanyahu’s transactional leadership style gave prominence to extreme-right and religious parties that are now an indispensable part of his right-wing alliance.

Under him, religious courts have expanded powers, including over civil and business disputes. State institutions accommodate religious agendas and allocate record levels of funding to ultra-Orthodox schools and institutions.

Netanyahu inscribed his political ideology, especially on the identity of the state and the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, into law. In 2018, the Knesset passed the so-called Nation-State Basic Law, which states – among other things – that Israel is the exclusive state of the Jewish people and also makes advancing illegal settlements a national priority.

Human rights organisations in Israel petitioned the High Court to stop the legislation from going into effect, but the petition was rejected. International experts and rights groups cite this law, among others, as evidence of Israel committing the crime of apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians.

Netanyahu also re-engineered state institutions, including Israel’s security structures, appointing loyalists and political allies to senior positions. He also clashed with security chiefs that he deemed antagonistic. And in the aftermath of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack, which triggered Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu deflected blame and responsibility on the security establishment, prompting Ronen Bar, who was the Shin Bet chief in 2023, to sue him for defamation.

A major change to Israeli institutions that was spearheaded by Netanyahu during his 19 on-and-off years in power affected the judiciary, which is examining lingering corruption charges that could see him serve time in prison if he is convicted. Netanyahu, who is up against three separate cases of corruption filed in 2019, denies any wrongdoing.

Under his leadership, the Knesset adopted legislation that changed the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee to ensure greater political influence for the governing coalition.

Netanyahu called it “judicial reform” to stop what he often calls a “judicial dictatorship” ruling over elected officials.

Opponents called it a “coup” that sparked wide-scale protests: a push to curtail the independence of the High Court and give politicians influence over the courts and ministerial legal advisers.

In line with his efforts to subvert independent oversight, Netanyahu tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to fire the attorney general.

But he succeeded in dismissing the military’s advocate general for leaking a video of Israeli soldiers gang-raping a Palestinian detainee. The soldiers were also released and cleared of charges.

At the same time, Netanyahu is dogged by corruption cases dating back to 2019, which could see him serve time in prison if convicted

The prime minister, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes in Gaza, says his work is not over. He promises his supporters he will complete the overhaul of judicial review and press on with other highly controversial policies.

Netanyahu’s supporters and allies view him as a leader who delivers, and one who achieved what others could not. His opponents pledge to undo the damage Netanyahu caused over the past decades, pointing to corruption, social divisions and increasing international isolation as outcomes of his rule.

But undoing such formative changes, many of which are now law, may be easier said than done.

About 260 California billionaires would be subject to Proposition 40’s one-time 5% wealth tax according to the Forbes Real-Time billionaires list. Just 30 of those billionaires or their spouses, or 1 in 8, spent money opposing Proposition 40, the billionaire tax, according to a Times analysis of recent campaign filings.

Billionaires have individually contributed $293 million to oppose the tax measure and to support Proposition 41 and 42, which would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes, according to a Times analysis. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, has given $102 million, more than a third of all billionaire money against the measure. But this is less than 1% of his estimated tax bill.

Several billionaires also contributed to the political action committee of the California Business Roundtable, which is spending to oppose Proposition 40 and support Proposition 43. Peter Thiel gave $3 million, Eric Schmidt gave nearly $2.6 million, Marco DeGeorge’s wife, Kim, gave $1.9 million, Chris Larsen gave $750,000 and Douglas Leone and his wife gave $500,000.

Proposition 40 would apply the tax to billionaires who were California residents on Jan. 1, 2026, and the taxable amount would be based on their net worth on Dec. 31. The tax is payable over five years.

Altogether, these individuals would owe at least $107 billion in taxes, according to an analysis by economists Jasper Boll, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. Their research was published in the National Bureau of Economic Research in August. Saez and Zucman are also architects of the tax proposal.

This amount is 5% of their combined estimated wealth by Forbes as of Oct. 16 and factors in a certain amount of tax avoidance and evasion. Spread across all 39 million Californians, the $107 billion would be roughly $2,700 per person. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that the median household net worth in California was $303,000 in 2023.

The four richest Californians — Sergey Brin, Jensen Huang, Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg — would owe 40% of the estimated taxes to be collected from the billionaire tax, according to a Times analysis. Their wealth largely comes from ownership of stock in extremely high-value technology companies.

Their net worth would increase 5% in about four months if their stock investments continues to grow as they have since December.

California billionaire wealth grew nearly threefold from 2022 to 2026, according to Times analysis of Forbes data collected by Boll and his colleagues, and much of that growth was not taxed. Billionaires’ taxable income is small compared with their wealth, because most of that wealth is invested in public stocks, and gains aren’t taxed until the stock is sold.

Page and Brin disclosed no taxable income in three of the years since 2019. Many others had similarly no publicly disclosed income. For that reason, Boll and his colleagues estimate that the Proposition 40 one-time tax would raise more than $100 billion, “with comparatively minor impacts on income tax revenue” from some billionaires leaving the state.

Based on Meta’s filings, the economists estimated that Zuckerberg’s taxable income was about $947 million in 2025, just 0.4% of his net worth.

Over the summer, Zuckerberg shared with Meta advisors his plans to relocate outside California to avoid the possibility of a significant reduction in his control over the company as a result of selling enough stock to fund a 5% tax. The advisors determined that Zuckerberg’s leadership presence at Meta headquarters was essential to the company’s success. On Wednesday, Meta announced the creation of new, nonvoting Class C common stock, which will allow Zuckerberg to sell the amount he needs to pay his potential tax bill while maintaining his voting power in exchange for his commitment to remain in the state for eight years.

Researchers at the Hoover Institution estimate the revenue to the state to be closer to $40 billion based on reports of billionaires’ residential purchases outside the state before and after Jan. 1 and their estimate of unannounced residency moves.

Chris Hoene, executive director at the California Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan group, said the residency question hinges on the amount of time spent living in the state. “Purchasing property in another location does not mean that they have changed their residency,” he said.

Ultimately, the state’s Franchise Tax Board, responsible for administering the tax, will have to assess residency. Hoene says this task is “easier for them to do than people realize.” The board will also calculate the amount of wealth subject to the tax using publicly available stock information and private assessments of personal property, such as artwork and jewelry. Real property, pensions and retirement accounts would be excluded.

Opponents of Proposition 40 are concerned that the threat of wealth taxes will lead to billionaires continuing to leave the state, resulting in a long-term decrease in state income tax revenue. Forbes recently reported that Brin registered to vote in Nevada last year. Peter Thiel disclosed Dec. 31 that he opened a new office in Miami; Florida has no wealth tax or income tax. But in July, he purchased a $130-million mansion in Bel-Air.

“The reality is the income tax loss can never get anywhere near the scale of what the wealth tax gain would be,” Hoene said.

Ninety percent of that gain would be spent on healthcare services to fill a gap in Medi-Cal from losses in federal funding that the measure’s authors estimate would total $190 billion over the next 10 years. Medi-Cal provides healthcare coverage for one-third of low-income Californians, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes a California-only tax and has instead called for a national wealth tax. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, who are running to replace Newsom, have spoken out against the tax. Other opponents include the California Teachers Assn., the California Medical Assn., and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Supporters include Service Employees International Union, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the California Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor Unions AFL-CIO.

Times staff writer Queenie Wong contributed to this report.

It was less than a month before the Nov. 3 election when Los Angeles city attorney front-runner Marissa Roy realized she’d missed her lucky manicure.

A deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice, she had scarcely slept since her team clinched its historic $17-billion settlement with Meta in August. She’d been canvassing hundreds of voters and sounding out scores of deputy city attorneys in her bid to transform the troubled office where she’d launched her career in 2017 into the “largest public interest law firm” in L.A.

Between filming TikTok spots and prepping for formal debates, Roy has been fine-tuning her plans to avenge exploited tenants and claw back stolen wages, tame runaway civil liability, protect victims of child abuse and domestic violence, and join other elected attorneys in lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Nails didn’t make the cut.

“There’s just been too much to do,” Roy said of the chrome gel ritual she inaugurated as a volunteer for Eunisses Hernandez in 2022.

Marissa Roy outside L.A. City Hall. “I wanted the slogan ‘let’s sue it’ — that was violently nixed,” she said of her campaign.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Seen one way, Roy’s talismanic manicure is an object lesson for her fiercest critics: all flash and no substance, evidence the 34-year-old lacks the “gravitas” to be among the state’s most powerful elected lawyers.

But like the iridescent glitter in her campaign-matched chrome polish, the meaning shifts with the viewer’s perspective.

To supporters on the city’s restive left and the clique of California city attorneys eager to add Roy to their group chat, it’s a winking show of solidarity burnished through years of knocking on doors for fellow up-and-coming progressives. It was metallic blue for Hernandez, silver for Ysabel Jurado and ultraviolet for her own historic primary upset in June. Her backers see fierce loyalty reflected in the polish, a ritual she started while hunting salon wage thieves to sue.

“I wanted the slogan ‘let’s sue it’ — that was violently nixed,” Roy said of her campaign.

With her Democratic Socialists of America sass, bright amethyst blazers and Bollywood needle drops on Instagram, the lifelong Angeleno cuts a stark contrast to her rival, Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney, 58, who leapfrogged to a second-place finish in the primaries amid a stoic, law-and-order campaign that sometimes slipped into Spencer Pratt-style dystopian imagery.

McKinney’s boosters point to his extraordinary biography — from penniless orphan to director of special prosecutions in the country’s largest district attorney’s office — and celebrated courtroom prowess as evidence he is better suited to handle the 120,000 violations referred to the city attorney for potential charges every year.

“John has the experience, stature, reputation, and gravitas to do the job and will be both effective and respected,” said former Los Angeles City Atty. Burt Pines. “I do not have the same confidence in her.”

Campaign materials for the Los Angeles city attorney candidate at a canvassing event in Silverlake.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Roy’s allies counter that prosecuting misdemeanors is only a third of the city attorney’s job — and typically the less complex part. Whereas McKinney has never worked a civil case, Roy has managed multicity litigation and shares the credit for legal victories no attorney could secure alone. In the Meta case, Roy and her team had argued that the social media giant had intentionally designed its products to hook young children and repeatedly misled the public about known risks.

“She was one of the original four team members in California that stayed up until 2 a.m. filing the [Meta] complaint,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. “She helped develop our legal strategy, particularly our deception theory, which was our core theory of legal liability for the case.”

Similarly, while McKinney’s camp paints a lawman of singular personal ability, Roy supporters describe her as brilliant, driven, and eager to lift the best and brightest around her.

“She is tenacious and works around the clock,” said San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu.

She’s also infamously bubbly: When a canvasser door-knocked 9th Circuit Judge Richard Paez, for whom Roy had clerked, he reportedly asked the volunteer to give her a hug.

“She has a natural enthusiasm about her that is infectious,” said Mark Ramos, chair of Los Angeles County Democratic Party. “She’s [always] shown up, and showing up matters.”

Which matters more — individual virtue or collaborative ingenuity — now in effect divides the race for the most abstruse job in local politics: Four of L.A’s former city attorneys have endorsed McKinney, while California’s current top elected lawyers have largely lined up behind Roy.

A head-to-head match with McKinney was not what Roy envisioned last year when she launched her campaign to unseat the incumbent city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto. After charming L.A.’s major power brokers, she had hoped to win the primary outright and avoid a runoff so she could focus exclusively on the Meta trial in August.

“I had been planning for things to end in June,” she said.

Feldstein Soto was bogged down by scandal and soaring civil liability costs for the city. She also faced criticism for ducking challenges to President Trump’s policies, including the deployment of military troops to Los Angeles last year, a fight the city joined but did not lead.

By early spring, Roy had racked up endorsements from the state’s legal elites and leftist kingmaker Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). She earned the imprimatur of the city’s powerful Democratic clubs and its influential labor unions, while enjoying widespread support from a democratic socialist base.

Marissa Roy, left, candidate for Los Angeles city attorney, and Alyssa Acevedo, with Service Employees International Union canvass in Silverlake.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

L.A. voters want “the transformational leadership that they’re seeing in [New York Mayor Zohran] Mamdani, and also in Mayor [Daniel] Lurie in San Francisco,” said L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, a longtime friend of Roy’s and among her earliest endorsers. “Angelenos are increasingly impatient in wanting to see that change come to their city, too.”

Then, in April, Feldstein Soto slipped from unpopular to politically radioactive after hackers stole thousands of LAPD files from her office. That inspired a late-breaking police union endorsement and a surge of corporate cash for McKinney, boosting him to a second-place finish and knocking out Feldstein Soto in a historic rout.

McKinney touts the city attorney’s prosecutor role as a means to stem quality-of-life crimes and curb homelessness. Roy has promised to keep more Angelenos housed and protect their livelihoods through “affirmative litigation” — suits brought against slumlords and exploitative corporations under the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

“When you file these suits, you have complete discretion,” said Pines, the former city attorney who successfully lobbied the state to extend Los Angeles that power in 1977 and watched in dismay as Feldstein Soto left it to whither.

In recent years, affirmative litigation has become an essential tool for defending against punitive federal policy and recovering public funds, Pines and others said.

Seeing the San Francisco city attorney’s office sue to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage — a law that would have stymied her gay younger brother — inspired Roy to give up her elementary school dream of decoding ancient texts to pursue the law.

“Childhood Marissa spent recesses in the library buried in books about ancient Egypt,” Roy said. “It was San Francisco suing — that was when I began to become aware of the power of lawyers.”

Unlike her opponent, Roy grew up comfortably in Monrovia, largely shielded from the sacrifices her family made to afford her an elite education. The daughter of an Indian immigrant mother and a white American father, she graduated from Flintridge Prep and attended University of Southern California on scholarship.

While studying law at Yale, she interned in the affirmative litigation department in the San Francisco city attorney’s office — a program Chiu lauded as “an essential training ground for the next generation of government lawyers” in a recent law review article.

Roy and her supporters say those early experiences cemented her commitment to teamwork, which is central to the less glamorous, more costly side of the city attorney’s job: serving as general counsel for myriad city agencies and legal advisor to City Hall.

“There’s absolutely more collaboration and it’s more significant given the things we’re up against,” said San Diego City Atty. Heather Ferbert, a close ally of Roy’s.

John McKinney, a Los Angeles County prosecutor running against Marissa Roy to become L.A. city attorney, speaks during a news conference on May 5, 2026.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Ferbert and others pointed to a surge in lawsuits against municipalities over everything from sidewalk trip-and-falls to police misconduct — cases that can lead to seven- or eight-figure payouts.

“If it’s not extremely unusual, it doesn’t make it to the city attorney’s desk,” said Oakland City Atty. Ryan Richardson, who endorsed Roy.

As a deputy city attorney, Roy spearheaded a trio of major wage-theft suits just a month after she was admitted to the bar. Independent expenditure groups supporting McKinney spent more than $350,000 trying to strip her of that title because she was paid by a nonprofit — an common arrangement employed by government law offices across the U.S. — while the city attorney’s office itself gave her permission to use it, and lists her as such in its court filings.

McKinney has since sought to paint Roy as the second coming of George Gascón, the polarizing district attorney who was drubbed in 2024 — a move that assumes most voters are still thinking about Gascón, or are likely to see the graying “godfather of progressive prosecutors” in a raven-haired deputy attorney general.

“The only way you disprove that is by putting your head down and doing the work 10 times harder,” Roy said. “Voters are smarter than that. People in the coalition see these tactics and are tired of them too.”

The U.S. Justice Department expanded its efforts to intervene in California’s ongoing election Friday, sending letters to more than a dozen county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens.

The letters — which give officials 48 hours to act and threaten them with criminal punishments if they refuse — follow similar correspondence the Justice Department sent last week to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar’s office, calling for some 20,000 ballots statewide be set aside and left uncounted until state and local officials can prove that the voters are citizens.

When Weber and Logan balked, the Justice Department promptly sued them and the state in a case currently pending in federal court. The California officials have contended the Justice Department’s efforts are illegal.

The new letters, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, follow previous threats from Justice Department officials and President Trump warning that local California elections officials could face criminal prosecution for being “aiders and abettors to a federal crime” if they tabulate votes from the “likely noncitizens” the administration has flagged.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles said 57 of California’s 58 counties were served the letters, with the exception of Los Angeles, which had already received a notice.

“The letters speak for themselves. Any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy,” First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

Essayli wrote Friday evening on X that “California does not verify citizenship status. We did the work for them. We obtained the registered voter list and told them who we believe are noncitizens on their rolls.”

Essayli wrote that “knowingly processing noncitizen ballots is a federal crime,” and said authorities “will hold election officials accountable. No one is above the law.”

The Justice Department did not respond to an inquiry from The Times. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office declined to comment.

Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber, who is president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said, “From what I’ve been able to gather, most counties if not all of the counties are doing what I’m doing: Sat down with our counsel, went over everything,” Webber said.

Webber said two people with Justice Department credentials showed up at her office Friday and handed her a manila envelope with the letter inside demanding she comply within 48 hours to determine the citizenship of 81 people in her county.

“I can’t tell you anything other than I’m looking at it and doing my due diligence,” she said. “This is not normal protocol for us.”

Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, said she was also among those who received a letter. She said she had not yet responded as of late Friday, but was in contact with her county counsel and “colleagues around the state who received similar letters today.”

“The non-partisan Contra Costa County Elections Division administers elections according to all state and federal election laws, as well as the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. Our work is observable,” Connelly said. “This threat is not helpful and is intended to intimidate.”

The letter she received, from U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian, was full of threats of criminal punishment for tabulating votes from individuals whom the county is “on actual notice” may not be U.S. citizens.

Missakian, the top federal prosecutor in the Northern District of California, wrote that he was providing Connelly with a “subset” of “407 likely aliens” from the broader statewide list of 20,000 voters, and demanded that Connelly commit within 48 hours to working with Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security officials to identify who among those 407 “is a citizen and who is not.”

“That means sending us the nonpublic information associated with each suspected alien’s registration, which includes everything in your possession from the following: a social security number, a copy of a state ID or driver’s license or the information that appears on it, a copy of the voter registration application supporting the registration, and a copy or list of documents that were presented by the registrant at the time the person registered to vote or obtained their driver’s license if registered as part of motor voter,” Missakian wrote.

He also wrote that he was reaching out by letter “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications of continuing to send vote-by-mail ballots to those people on the list or tabulating ballots cast by them until citizenship can be verified.”

The Justice Department previously sued California for its voter records. A federal judge rejected the lawsuit, calling the demands a threat to democracy. The Justice Department has also lost similar cases demanding voter rolls in dozens of other states.

California Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement Friday that, “Donald Trump and Todd Blanche are trying to interfere in California elections.”

Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, added: No matter how many lawsuits they file or how many election officials they threaten, they do not have the authority to interfere.”

Padilla told local election officials, “We have your back.”

“The Trump administration is afraid and desperate,” he said. “Their attempts to take over our elections will fail.”

The Justice Department has received some records by subpoenaing state and county officials for the records of specific voters.

The letters were a topic of discussion among members of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials Friday, with officials working on how to respond.

Logan, L.A. County’s top elections official, sent an email to fellow association members saying he had seen a copy of the letter to some counties — which he condemned as misrepresenting facts and threatening elections officials “twelve days before the election” through a “posture of intimidation.”

Logan called the 48-hour deadline for responses “unenforceable,” and noted that the Justice Department was “demanding individual level data from the named counties similar to what it has previously only obtained through subpoenas.”

Logan’s office has also said that an initial review it conducted of a subset of the 20,000 voters the Justice Department initially flagged found many were born in the U.S., many weren’t actually registered and many had never voted.

NEW YORK — The reports erupt on social media every election year: Voters say they tapped a candidate’s name on a touchscreen voting machine, only for the wrong person to light up as their selection.

With some trial and error, and occasionally help from poll workers, the voters are generally able to cast their intended ballots. Nevertheless, some come away from the experience assuming the worst — that the anecdotal issues are proof of a partisan election-rigging scheme.

As early voting in November’s midterm elections gets underway in most states, with soaring turnout in many of them, the claims have returned in force, with voters — especially Democratic ones — in Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas documenting difficulties with the ballot marking devices.

Many voters have described their experiences on social media, with some falsely interpreting the troubles as attempts at election tampering to favor Republicans. The claims come as an AP-NORC poll shows many Democrats have lost trust in election results over the last four years, with many seeing the president interfering with the vote as a major concern.

Election officials say the touchscreen challenges are almost always the result of user error or an easily fixed screen miscalibration, and say the number of complaints this year isn’t higher than it has been in years past, despite the outsized attention on social media. They emphasize that voters can select a candidate as many times as needed, consult a poll worker for help and review selections before submitting their ballot.

Elections in the U.S. are decentralized, with thousands of election jurisdictions controlling the vote, each with different rules set by state and sometimes local governments. That structure makes the nation’s voting process extraordinarily complicated. It also shields it from widespread fraud.

“Almost all of the claims of vote flipping are understandable human error,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, who noted disinformation purveyors often seize on well-meaning concerns to sow doubt in the voting process. “Is there one of us who hasn’t had a butt dial or mistyped something on our phones? It is not nefarious.”

Many voters, including Dolly Parton’s sister, report issues

The complaints about touchscreen machines switching votes have gathered tens of thousands of likes, shares and views on social media in recent days, popping up in various high-population areas across the country, including Tennessee’s Williamson and Davidson counties, homes to Franklin and Nashville.

Stella Parton, the sister of the late country singer Dolly Parton, wrote in a Facebook post on Wednesday that at her polling place near Nashville she had to “go back three times and correct my vote” because it kept defaulting to Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn.

She added: “I’m putting this out here because when we vote, we take it seriously but we try not to hold up the long lines. Do it anyway. Don’t let them rig this election.”

Chad Gray, election administrator in Williamson County, said officials there had found no discrepancies in the voting equipment. If problems or questions do arise, he said, people from each party will examine the devices and make sure they are working properly.

Tennessee Elections Coordinator Mark Goins told WSMV in Nashville that the issues reported in his area were “not a vote-flipping situation.” “It’s more like an unintended touch that they may not even realize,” Goins said.

Another Facebook user explained in a video that when his mother-in-law attempted to vote for Democratic candidates in Kendall County, Texas, the machine kept selecting Republicans. He said she was ultimately able to vote as desired and contended that it could have been user error, but still concluded people were “jacking with our elections.”

Staci Decker, elections administrator in Kendall County, said “100% of the time” the issue can be attributed to a voter tapping the wrong part of the box onscreen or from voters tapping the screen too hard, causing it to become miscalibrated. She said her policy is for staff to recalibrate the screens every few days to ensure the accuracy of the touchscreen.

“This is part of an attempt at every election (especially the bigger ones) to scare voters away,” Decker said in an email. “Every single piece of equipment used in our election is tested before it can be used in an election.”

Reports of voting machine errors common during high-turnout elections

In South Carolina, where an X user said a machine made it hard for her to vote for Democratic Senate nominee Annie Andrews, state election officials haven’t seen any unusual increase in reports of voters having trouble making selections, said Sydni Bain, a spokesperson with the state’s election commission.

“We commonly receive some of these reports during elections, particularly statewide elections with high turnout,” she said. “We encourage all voters to be careful in making their selections and to review their ballot before it is cast.”

In Bexar County, Texas, where an X user reported having to tap the screen forcefully to get the machine to register her choice of Democrat James Talarico instead of Republican Ken Paxton for Senate, election officials said they couldn’t confirm any equipment issues.

“This could possibly be user error,” said John Moreno, the county’s assistant public information officer. “If a voter has concerns about their ballot, they should bring it to the attention of the on-site judge.”

Kristin Miles, president of the Texas Assn. of County Election Officials and election administrator in Bastrop County, said “vote-switching” claims come up every election cycle.

“Nearly every case comes back to the screen calibration on older touchscreen machines, not a change to anyone’s vote,” she said.

Officials emphasized that machines are tested before each election and that in most jurisdictions, there is a postelection audit that consists of a manual hand count of a sample of paper ballots.

Voting machine company explains what to do if you encounter problems

Voters across the country cast ballots in various ways, including with ballot marking devices that print a paper record or with paper ballots they fill out by hand.

The counties where most of the recent vote-flipping social media reports are concentrated use ExpressVote ballot marking devices from a company called Election Systems & Software. The machines let voters make their selections on a touchscreen. Then, a paper record is typically printed for review before the votes are tabulated.

Katina Granger, senior manager of public relations for the Nebraska-based ES&S, said the company works closely with election officials and provides technical support when needed but has not been made aware of any widespread issue with voting machines this cycle.

She said when a voter is having difficulty, they should ask a poll worker for assistance. If they’ve already printed a ballot that doesn’t reflect their intended selections, “they should notify a poll worker rather than cast it so the jurisdiction can follow its procedures for replacing the ballot.”

Swenson and Goldin write for the Associated Press. AP writers Anna Wilder in Austin, Texas, and video journalist Kristin M. Hall in Nashville contributed to this report.

BLAINE, Wash. — The Trump administration’s top border official defended plans to build a wall and other infrastructure in Texas’ Big Bend region despite mounting opposition against the project and a court-ordered pause on construction, saying his goal of fortifying the country’s borders was “non-negotiable.”

In an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott argued that the $46-billion wall project was justified despite a bipartisan coalition of landowners, local businesses and environmentalists who view it as a waste of taxpayer money that could be destructive to a region with historically low migrant crossings.

“Our No. 1 goal right out the gate is we have to know who and what is coming into the United States,” Scott said on Thursday. If the Big Bend region were left without a wall or other border infrastructure while other areas along the border get those fortifications, he said, “I am 100% convinced it will be completely overrun and destroyed.”

The fight over Big Bend has become a major test for how far the Republican administration is willing to go for the border wall, President Trump’s signature infrastructure project.

Scott, a former Border Patrol agent, was tapped by Trump to complete it.

His agency is responsible for executing a plan funded last summer by Republicans in Congress to line the roughly 2,000-mile border with Mexico with a mixture of 30-foot-tall steel walls, vehicle barriers, new roads and surveillance technology to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling.

The Trump administration says it is building about 12 miles a week. Scott, who gets daily progress updates, said it will be complete by the end of Trump’s second term. The primary border wall — some areas also get a secondary layer — will be done by the end of December 2027.

“We’re actually ahead of schedule,” Scott said.

1

2

1. Charlie Angell stands on an overlook of the Rio Grande river 2. Pamela Priddy, center, holds up signs with others during a weekly protest against barriers along the border in the Big Bend region, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2026, in Study Butte, Texas. (John Locher / Ap Photo/john Locher)

Big Bend is a test for the Trump administration’s plans for the wall

The wall plan has run into resistance in places like Big Bend. The Trump administration was dealt a major setback earlier this month when a judge ordered a pause on border wall construction in the region, citing what could be a likelihood that plaintiffs “will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction.” The administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift the order.

The ruling included any construction in Big Bend National Park, an area that has seen a loud bipartisan outcry, including from some Republican lawmakers.

After bulldozers were spotted in the park tearing up ground in August, Scott ordered a pause on all construction-related activity there while he went to talk to people in the region. He said the agency is making other outreach to locals to discuss how to build projects so they don’t mar the park.

“We’re talking through and figuring out what is the right solution for that area,” he said.

Scott said he can’t get into specific details on what the agency’s plans are for the park because of the numerous ongoing lawsuits, but he reiterated that the project won’t include tall steel walls.

He also said that the agency’s stated goal of protecting the country and knowing what’s coming in and going out is “non-negotiable.”

He said the region’s formidable natural barriers were not enough to prevent people from entering the country illegally through other more navigable points. And he expressed concern that cartels that control smuggling from Mexico into the U.S. would exploit any opening.

CBP has come under fire for immigration enforcement tactics

Scott leads an agency of 67,000 employees responsible for controlling who and what comes into the country through official border crossings like airports or seaports and stopping illegal smuggling and migration outside those official border crossing points.

The agency came under heavy scrutiny last year when its officers were sent into cities deep inside the country to help carry out Trump’s immigration crackdown alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Agents with the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol and Customs Enforcement patrol in a neighborhood after apprehending a person on Jan. 31 in St. Paul, Minn.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

As protests against an operation rocked Minneapolis, a Border Patrol officer and a CBP officer both fired shots in an encounter that killed a U.S. citizen, Alex Pretti. The shooting eventually prompted the Trump administration to wind down high-profile city-based crackdowns. A CBP officer who was the face of the missions, Gregory Bovino, who led a helicopter raid at a large apartment building and used chemical agents to confront demonstrators, retired earlier this year.

Scott said while CBP still helps ICE, it’s now less involved in immigration enforcement far from the country’s borders because ICE has since hired more officers to its ranks. Scott wouldn’t comment on the investigation into the Pretti killing, saying that it was being handled by the FBI and was ongoing. And when asked about Bovino’s tactics, he said the officer didn’t report to him during the operations.

Scott spoke to the AP just outside the border with Canada, where he met with border security representatives from other countries to share information about threats and trends. During his trip, he visited an operations center where he said Canadian and American law enforcement work together.

That border has far fewer threats than the U.S. border with Mexico. Scott said cartels in Mexico are increasingly sending drones into the United States to move contraband and keep tabs on Border Patrol agents. In Mexico, the cartels have been using drones to attack each other or Mexican law enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security, which includes CBP, recently announced temporary flight restrictions targeting unauthorized drone activity in a zone extending a mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border as a way to counter cartels.

“We want to make sure,” Scott said, “that threat does not come into the United States.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump illegally usurped Gov. Gavin Newsom’s command of the California National Guard by ordering a surge troops deployed into Los Angeles and across the state amid protests against the White House’s mass deportation program last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The two-one decision split the president’s own appointees to the court, with Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle siding with Judge Jennifer Sung of Portland, a Biden pick, and Judge Mark J.Bennett of Honolulu dissenting.

“The order exceeded the President’s statutory authority and encroached on Congress’s calling forth power, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” Sung wrote for the majority, calling Trump’s order “unconstitutional.”

The decision also appeared to foreclose what California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called “the Trump Administration’s transparent attempt” to preserve its right to call up California troops again under the same obscure statute — a novel legal maneuver administration lawyers said let the president seize command without invoking the far stronger Insurrection Act.

The 9th Circuit trio was among the first to weigh the law last June, after Trump federalized 4,000 National Guard soldiers in response to unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

California sued. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer quickly ruled to block the deployment. But Sung, Bennett and Miller stayed his order, finding that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That decision set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments, meaning courts had very little power to test the president’s rationale for sending troops into American streets.

At the time, the decision represented one of the president’s most sweeping second-term victories: a plug-and-play legal mechanism to deploy soldiers against civilians in cities across the country.

In Portland that fall, another 9th Circuit panel stayed U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s order to stand down troops, using the first trio’s precedent.

The Portland decision — based in part on data the Department of Justice later admitted was false — prompted an extraordinary filing by Judge Jay Bybee, who all but pleaded with the court to rehear the case and interpret the law differently.

“There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs,” Bybee wrote.

The issue quickly found its way to the Supreme Court, after a 7th Circuit panel found the president had provided “insufficient evidence” for deployment even under the 9th Circuit’s deference standard.

On Dec. 23, the Justices adopted a celebrated Georgetown scholar’s academic reading of the statute, saying it only allowed the president to commandeer national guard troops if the situation had already outmatched the standing army.

Federalized troops were ordered to leave Los Angeles in December.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit held that Trump’s claim that Los Angeles was in the grips of a rebellion last June “did not reflect a colorable assessment within a range of honest judgment.”

Using “the plain text of the statute,” and “dictionary definitions of the disputed term,” the majority found the president had not furnished evidence of a “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole” — nor anything close to it.

Instead, Justice Department lawyers had relied on subsidiary definitions of “rebellion” that the 9th Circuit warned would allow the president to call up troops to quell almost any resistance, including peaceful protests.

“Resistance that is not violent, armed, organized, and against the government as a whole generally does not require a military response,” Sung wrote.

“Because Defendants have failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to legally execute the laws in California, they have not carried their burden to show that the President had the authority to federalize California’s National Guard,” Sung wrote.

Foes of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely viewed as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, are launching television and digital ads this weekend in early primary states that criticize the governor’s opposition to the proposed billionaire tax on California’s November ballot.

The ad, funded by backers of the wealth tax, castigates Newsom for opposing Proposition 40, the ballot measure that would impose a 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets to offset federal healthcare funding cuts approved by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year.

“We’re all struggling with the high cost of healthcare. In California, Democrats are championing a one-time tax on billionaires that would save coverage for millions,” a narrator says in the 30-second ad. “So why [has] presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom betrayed his own supporters by trying to sabotage the billionaire tax? Maybe it’s because the same billionaires who oppose Prop. 40 also gave millions of dollars to Newsom. Gavin Newsom turned his back on working Californians. Will he do the same to you?”

The ad specifically calls out billionaires Stewart Resnick, who owns several businesses including Pom Wonderful, Fiji Water and Justin Wines; crypto executive Chris Larsen; former Google leader Eric Schmidt; and venture capitalist Michael Moritz, all of whom have backed Newsom’s political ambitions.

Newsom has argued that, although he supports wealth taxes, they ought to be enacted at the national level, rather than a state-by-state patchwork that could drive the rich to leave California, a state with a volatile budget heavily dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.

The primary funders of the ad are the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted Proposition 40; Saikat Chakrabarti, a climate change warrior and political advisor who made his wealth in part as a founding engineer at Stripe; and Ross Boucher, an early engineer at Stripe.

The ad buy is six figures but could grow, according to its backers. Among the states where the ad is expected to air are South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and New Hampshire.

Earlier this month, Newsom stumped for candidates in New Hampshire, his latest foray to early presidential primary states.

The ad launch comes amid a contentious, expensive battle over the proposed wealth tax, which has divided Democrats and their allies. Although Newsom is among Democrats who oppose it, the ballot measure was endorsed by the state Democratic Party and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Voters are closely divided about the measure.

WASHINGTON — First Lady Melania Trump has brokered an upcoming ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine in the war-ravaged Ukrainian city of Oleshky to allow for humanitarian aid and the evacuation of civilians, the White House announced on Friday.

The localized ceasefire is set to begin Thursday, with the American first lady saying in a news release that the situation there is “on the brink of disaster.”

The White House said Trump had initiated the discussions and that she and a representative worked directly with Russian and Ukrainian leadership to define the terms of the ceasefire.

Ukraine’s lead negotiator for the agreement thanked Trump for her involvement and said the deal would be “extremely challenging to implement.”

“Under our agreement: first a ceasefire will be put in place; second, humanitarian aid will be delivered to Oleshky; and third, civilians will be allowed to move freely out of Oleshky,” Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman, said in a video message posted online. “The operation will be carried out gradually and is extremely challenging to implement. I will therefore keep Ukrainian society informed and share the results of the operation.”

Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said Russian forces “will cease fire on the Kherson axis” starting at 4 a.m. TuesdayMoscow time “in connection with the humanitarian operation near Oleshky.” The Russian forces will also carry out “engineering reconnaissance” and ensure “safe movement of the humanitarian convoy” into the city, Gerasimov said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said Moscow was grateful to the first lady and that effort was discussed during the latest call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump, he said.

Peskov said “those who want to leave it would be able to do so.” He would not say whether those who evacuate will be taken to Russia or Ukraine-held territory. He also demurred when asked how long the evacuation will last, saying only it would likely take several days.

Saving children is first lady’s focus, president says

Melania Trump has made helping children in conflict one of her signature issues and hosted a U.N. Security Council meeting on the issue earlier this year. She has written Putin to work on efforts to reunite families with children who have been displaced by the war.

“What she wants to do is save children, and that’s her focus,” the president said of the first lady during a question-and-answer exchange with journalists in Washington.

Tensions between Washington and Kyiv are rising

The development comes as tensions have increased to new highs between the Trump administration and Ukraine’s government. Kyiv has faced restrictions on the satellite internet system that it relies on to knock down Russian attacks, with Trump and other top U.S. officials sending mixed messages about who was responsible for throttling the Elon Musk-made Starshield system.

Trump also has recently waived new Russian sanctions, reached an agreement with Russia to import diesel and pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to make a deal to end the war that began in February 2022. In renewed efforts to revive the peace process, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Norway this week for talks with Zelensky before meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Zelensky did not mention the ceasefire in Oleshky during a remote appearance at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank. He did note that American Patriot missile interceptors were still on hold and Starshield and Starlink speed limits were still in place.

He also spoke of the importance of the United States to renewed diplomatic efforts to end the war, including a possible joint meeting with Trump and Putin.

Dire situation in Oleshky

Food and medical supplies have been scarce for months in Oleshky, which sits on the Dnipro River that separates Ukrainian forces from the city’s Russian occupiers. There is no electricity, heat or running water. Roads leading from town are mined and dotted with burned-out cars. Drones buzz overhead.

Once a city of about 24,000 residents, Oleshky was captured by Moscow’s forces on the first day of their full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Its buildings were shelled and burned, and its infrastructure damaged. In June 2023, floodwaters inundated the city after the Kakhovka Dam collapsed from an explosion that an Associated Press investigation found was likely caused by the Russian military. Hundreds of residents were killed.

Those left in the city along Ukraine’s southeastern front face death from hunger or disease as another harsh winter looms. Ukraine has appealed repeatedly for a local ceasefire to organize evacuations. Russia, as the occupying power, is obligated by international law to ensure civilians under its control have what they need to survive.

Melania Trump details the mission

Melania Trump said in the White House news release that civilian leaders from Ukraine and Russia will visit Oleshky residents to determine the level of assistance they require.

“Residents who wish to evacuate will receive coordinated support and transportation to their preferred destination,” she said. “I anticipate some will want to go to Russia, and some to Ukraine.”

Melania Trump also said “an impartial American media organization” will accompany and document Russian and Ukrainian teams on the ground throughout the process.

“This will play a significant role in ensuring that the wishes of each family are faithfully respected,” she said.

The statement did not identify the media organization.

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim and Konstantin Toropin in Washington; Volodymyr Yurchuk in Kyiv, Ukraine, and Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, contributed to this report.

LONG BEACH, Wash. — Tourist dollars are drying up in this small town at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. Foot traffic is down. Visitors have less to spend on souvenirs.

And beachgoers now bring packed lunches instead of stopping at Captain Bob’s Chowder Sisters, said Melissa Huddleston, waiting for customers at her sister-in-law’s shop on Sunday.

Huddleston, 60, is depressed about the state of the country, and while she’s planning to vote in the Nov. 3 midterms, she hasn’t decided who she’ll vote for. This swing district, Washington’s 3rd, is home to a tight congressional race that will help determine the balance of power in the U.S. House.

Huddleston doesn’t think anyone in Congress can really do what she wants: Bring decorum back to the national discourse and bring the economy back to life. She isn’t a particular fan of Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the independent-leaning Democratic incumbent, nor is she persuaded by state Sen. John Braun, the Trump-endorsed Republican challenger.

“I don’t know which one is better,” Huddleston said, shaking her head. “I really don’t.”

Melissa Huddleston waits for customers at Captain Bob’s Chowder Sisters in Long Beach, Wash.

(Justine McDaniel/Los Angeles Times)

As the battle to persuade midterm voters intensifies in the election’s final stretch, its fever pitch is evident in places like this largely rural stretch of southwest Washington — a rare three-time Trump-voting district with a Democratic incumbent.

Republican-aligned groups are pouring money into flipping the district red, considering it one of the GOP’s best chances to gain a House seat in an increasingly unfavorable environment, while Democrats see retaining the district as urgent to their effort to secure control of the chamber.

The contest offers a glimpse into a purple region a time when both parties are testing strategies for winning voter loyalty — not just in the midterms but looking ahead to 2028. And the dynamic in the candidates’ race to capture swing voters reflects the national debate gripping both parties about how moderate to be.

As Democrats debate whether progressives or centrists should chart the party’s path, Gluesenkamp Perez has modeled an independent streak that has helped her win two elections but disappointed some in her own party. And as Republicans grapple with low public support for Trump, Braun has packaged his conservatism as balanced while assuring supporters that he’s rowing in the same direction as the president and party leaders.

Interviews with more than 30 voters across the district revealed a mix of support for the two candidates, largely based on partisan politics, views about Trump and concern with which party controls the House.

“This is a very pivotal time, and this area has a history of being more of a swing [district],” said Mark Maxwell, 46, of Vancouver, Washington, who planned to vote blue. “It’s a chance for our voice to be heard.”

A sign for Washington State Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, is displayed among other campaign signs near I-5, Saturday, Oct. 10, 2026, in Ridgefield, Wash.

(Lindsey Wasson/Associated Press)

The number of congressional battlegrounds nationwide has shrunk with gerrymandering and political polarization, making the district one of about two dozen races that will decide the House majority. The West’s other highly competitive contests include three in California — those of Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democratic Rep. Adam Gray in the Central Valley and the open seat of retiring Republican Rep. Darrell Issa in the San Diego area.

In southwest Washington, polling has indicated the congressional race may be essentially tied. A late September poll commissioned by Oregon Public Broadcasting had Braun up by one point. A July Emerson College poll showed the same. Earlier this month, election forecaster Cook Political Report moved the race from a toss-up rating to lean-Democrat.

‘Stubborn loyalty’

Across the district last week, left-leaning voters said they were backing Gluesenkamp Perez — some precisely because of her maverick streak.

“She’s voted against the Democrats and I know she’s voted against the Republicans, which is what one would hope,” said Helios Ovando, 69, of Battle Ground, Wash., who decided this year to volunteer for Gluesenkamp Perez’s campaign for the first time. “She’s more about the local scene.”

Ovando has been turned off by what he sees as Republicans’ adherence to the party line; Gluesenkamp Perez’s willingness to “buck the system” gives him more confidence in her integrity, he said.

July 2026 photo of Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Gluesenkamp Perez, 38, who ran an auto shop with her husband before being elected to Congress, frames her mission as one built around the practical needs of her district. She argues that Democrats should break the Republican hold on rural districts and talks about reestablishing voters’ confidence that the Democratic Party is “listening to and reflective of working people.”

“When you have people come to Congress with a very stubborn loyalty to their communities, you get better federal policy,” Gluesenkamp Perez said in an interview.

“That’s the value of breaking up the monopolization of politics in rural America,” she added. “It gets you to a better place from a policy lens.”

She points to funding wins and work to mitigate pressures on public schools and housing costs in Congress. On Saturday evening, she talked to a crowd at a brewery about restoring shop class to junior high schools and creating measures that facilitate repairing rather than replacing electronics and appliances.

Gluesenkamp Perez’s independence has also earned her critics. She twice helped House Republicans advance their legislative agenda in September, angering Democratic leaders, and voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security in January. In each case, she said the packages contained secondary measures that aligned with her constituents’ values.

At a “No Kings” protest last weekend in Vancouver, the district’s urban center, several Democratic voters said they weren’t happy with Gluesenkamp Perez but still planned to back her.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., speaks during an interview at a canvass launch at Recreation Park Penny Playground, Saturday, Oct. 10, 2026, in Chehalis, Wash.

(Lindsey Wasson/Associated Press)

“I will vote for her even though I don’t like her policies,” said Carol Rochat, 71, of Vancouver. “We need all the Democrats we can get, at least to get the majority, and then we’ll still work on her to try to be a little bit more progressive.”

‘Win their trust’

Gluesenkamp Perez ran against a hard-right candidate in her first two races, but this time she’s facing a less-polarizing and better-funded opponent in Braun, 59, a business owner and former Navy captain who has represented a slice of the district in the state Legislature for 13 years.

He made his pitch to a group of supporters at Long Beach’s historic train depot, framing his mission as balancing out the state’s Democratic voices in Congress and helping government “get out of the way” of its citizens.

“That’s sort of the American dream,” he said. “Government doesn’t create success for each of us, but we can set the framework for each of us to go out and find whatever success means for us.”

Braun talks about reforming tax and energy policy, funding infrastructure improvements and backing the military. He argues for balancing the federal budget, envisioning doing detailed, line-level work to find cuts that will reduce the national debt.

“He’s in line with my thinking,” said Liz Glenn, 63, of Raymond, Wash., listing Christian values, support for law enforcement and “protecting children” as some of her top concerns. A retired bookkeeper who is concerned about immigration and wants to see the House seat turn red, Glenn said she viewed maintaining a Republican majority as critical.

“It’s the only way to protect our country’s growth,” she said, adding, “Without the Republicans fighting against the perversions of the world, there’s so much non-American value being brought in.”

May 2023 photo of Washington state Sen. John Braun speaking in Olympia, Wash.

(Karen Ducey/Associated Press)

Braun told supporters that Trump’s endorsement had helped bring in financial support for his campaign. But, like other Republicans across the country, he has tried to appear independent on issues such as the war in Iran, which Braun has said the United States needs a plan to end.

“This district is a very independent district. I think it gives an opportunity to go make your case directly with the voters and win their trust … regardless of what the national picture is,” Braun said in an interview.

Pattie Gray, 66, who chairs the county Republican Party and watched Braun stump at the train depot, said Braun’s legislative and military experience made her view him as a “natural fit” for the seat.

“We need somebody who’s representing us the way we want to be represented,” Gray said. “He sees what this state needs.”

Gray, who is running for a Pacific County commissioner seat, has been door-knocking for Braun and other local Republican candidates. She’s optimistic about the chances to flip the seat, though it’s not “a shoo-in,” she said.

“We have to work really hard,” Gray said of turning out voters. “We’ve only got a couple more weeks.”

Huddleston, at the chowder shop, didn’t cast a ballot in 2024, unable to stomach supporting either party. She is motivated to vote this time because she wants to back a local Republican sheriff, whose campaign sign hung on the shop door.

But she’s upset with Trump’s brand of political divisiveness and where it has taken the country. She would prefer a Democratic majority in Congress, she said, to see if they can help fix the economy.

That might, Huddleston mused, lead her to support Gluesenkamp Perez when she fills out her ballot. But if so, it won’t be with gusto.

“Our country is horrible now,” Huddleston said. “How can you be enthusiastic about an election?”

In just 11 days, millions of Americans will head to the polls to vote on key local races and decide the fate of Congress.

Perhaps no voting bloc will be more crucial in swinging the balance of power than Latinos.

In 2024, after decades of reliably supporting Democrats, the electorate of roughly 36.2 million people (about 15% of all total voters) shifted massively to the right and supported Donald Trump at previously never-before-seen rates. After the election, armchair pundits and paid professionals proclaimed that Ronald Reagan had been right all along. Latinos were Republican. They just needed to realize it.

It didn’t take long for that narrative to start crumbling. A year after Trump’s reelection, Latinos in California helped pass Proposition 50, which allowed Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional map in their favor to counter a successful effort by Texas Republicans to do the same — coincidentally, the Texas gerrymander was at least partially motivated by said gains with Latino voters.

Latinos also helped Democrats pick up governorships in Virginia and New Jersey in 2025 — with two-thirds of their votes going for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, respectively.

Whatever gains Republicans made with Latino voters appear to have vanished. Recent polls show the demographic to be experiencing buyers’ remorse, citing the increased cost of living, the Trump administration’s heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics, involvement in wars abroad and a stagnating economy as reasons for the disillusionment.

President Trump’s approval rating among Latinos dipped to 27% in an early October NBC News survey. That same poll found that Democrats have a 24-point lead on whom Latino voters want to see in control of Congress.

But don’t expect this whiplash back to the left to be permanent.

“It’s not a realignment, it’s a de-alignment,” said Mike Madrid, a former Republican political consultant and author of “The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority Is Transforming Democracy.”

“Latinos are completely moving away from both parties and that’s what’s created this dramatic swing of 25 points towards Trump in four years and then massive swings back.”

So how will the Latino vote shake out in two weeks? Below are five races we are keeping tabs on.

L.A. mayoral race

You don’t need to go outside the city limits to find proof that Latino voters aren’t political ideologues.

During the 2022 mayoral primary, billionaire Rick Caruso won the largest share of the Latino vote (34%). A few months later, Karen Bass became mayor, winning 51% of the Latino vote.

Bass once again won the Latino vote during the 2026 primaries, carrying 35 Latino-majority neighborhoods in the June 2 election — compared with seven for her current challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Four months, much campaigning and the botched response to a massive warehouse fire in heavily Latino Boyle Heights later, Raman — a democratic socialist — now has a 24-point lead among Latino voters, according to an October Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll.

Notably, 34% of Latinos remain undecided heading into the Nov. 3 election.

“Latinos are about a third of the voters in L.A.,” Fernando Guerra, a professor of political science and Chicana/o studies at Loyola Marymount University, told The Times this month. “While they show preferences, they are not deeply committed to either candidate, so they are the quintessential swing voters who decide late.”

Will the embattled incumbent keep her job, or will Los Angeles become the next big city to elect a mayor backed by the Democratic Socialists of America? Latino Angelenos will decide.

California 22nd district

Will Democrats’ Proposition 50 redistricting gambit pay off? Voters of this newly reconfigured Central Valley district populated by blue-collar and agrarian Latinos will decide.

Republican David Valadao is the incumbent and is being challenged by activist and educator Randy Villegas. In 2024, voters in the district backed failed Republican Senate candidate Steve Garvey.

Political forecasts have Villegas — a progressive populist — with a narrow lead over the incumbent.

Part of his appeal, Madrid said, was his messaging.

“[His message is] the establishment’s not working and that institutions aren’t working,” Madrid said. “It’s a much more populist message. I don’t believe this is ideological one bit.”

Colorado 8th district

It doesn’t get more battleground than this congressional district located in the Denver suburbs. It is the center of Latino voting power in Colorado — Latinos account for 40% of the total electorate. .

The incumbent is Republican Gabe Evans and Trump carried the purple district by less than two percentage points.

Evans currently has a slight lead over Democratic candidate Manny Rutinel, an attorney and economist. Rutinel’s messaging has focused on the rising cost of living and the Republicans’ immigration policies.

It could get him elected. A local survey found that 56% of Latino voters in Colorado approve of Democrats in Congress, while 39% said they do not approve.

Florida 27th district

Will disassociating from Trump help this Republican incumbent keep her job?

Journalist-turned-Congress member María Elvira Salazar, a Cuban American, made headlines in September after releasing a political ad calling out the president’s immigration enforcement, alleging that Trump, who carried the majority Latino district by 15 points in 2024, had betrayed her constituents.

Elvira Salazar currently holds a narrow lead over her Democratic rival Elliott Rodriguez, who is also Cuban American.

“She’s trying to show distance and trying to show an independent streak,” Madrid said of the three-term incumbent. “She’s trying to say, ‘I’m not that.’ And you can’t do that on the economy as a Republican, because that changes all the time. What you can do as a Latino in a Latino district … is say your policies have gone too far.”

Texas

Okay, I’ll admit that I’m cheating with this one. But there’s just so much going on in Texas that it deserves its own section. The Lone Star State is ground zero for this supposed great political de-alignment.

In 2025, at the behest of Trump, Texas Republicans undertook an unprecedented mid-decade congressional redistricting in hopes of gerrymandering a map that would give the party an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. They factored in the historic gains with Latino voters.

“They drew those districts based on what they thought were the 2024 numbers,” said Matt Barreto, a professor of political science and Chicana/o & Central American studies at UCLA. “And now those 2024 numbers are evaporating.”

The plan appears to be backfiring spectacularly, at least in south Texas.

Trump won Texas’ 15th congressional district in 2020 and 2024, and in 2022 the majority Latino electorate voted for Republican Monica De La Cruz. But polls now show that Democratic candidate and singer-turned-politician Bobby Pulido has a seven-point lead. Pulido, who bills himself as a moderate, has focused his messaging on affordability and the rising cost of living.

A similar situation is taking place in the Latino-dense 34th and 35th districts, where Republicans Eric Flores and Carlos De La Cruz, respectively, are hoping to take advantage of the redrawn Republican-friendly boundaries to flip those seats red. Both face uphill battles as polls show them neck-and-neck with their Democratic opponents.

“You now have these two districts, Texas 9th and 35th, that are 51% Latino, but now Latinos are telling us they have lost confidence in the Republican Party,” Barreto said. “What we’re seeing is very strong evidence that Latinos are shifting back even more so against Trump and Republicans because they did not deliver on any of their promises from 2024.”

In the statewide Senate and gubernatorial races, Democrats are feeling hopeful. Democratic challenger James Talarico currently has a slight lead on his Republican opponent Ken Paxton. Among Latinos, that lead was clocked at a whopping 30 points in an October Fox News survey.

But what has been Talarico’s key to connecting with Latino voters?

“He’s turning away from race and ethnic-based politics to class consciousness,” Madrid said. “[He’s acknowledged] that Latinos have had their futures taken away from them.”

The seminary student and educator has also been critical of his own party — calling it out for ineptitude, leaving voters behind — and arguing that anti-establishment messaging is enticing to Latinos who have been spurned by both major parties.

If Texas gets its first Democratic senator since 1993, it’ll be thanks to the Latino vote.

Texas Latinos’ faith in the ruling party is so low that even the state’s governor, Republican powerhouse Greg Abbott, finds himself in a tight race with Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa. Roughly 56% of Latinos were in favor of Hinojosa over the incumbent, an October poll found.

“Latinos are the only voters voting rationally in a broken system,” Madrid said. “We’re shifting by 25 points. If you don’t pay attention to our priority issues, we’ll vote you out, that’s how the system was designed.”

Latinos appear to be swinging back to the left, but Democrats shouldn’t take those gains for granted, Madrid said.

“The Democratic Party has done nothing to win these voters back. They’re just not Republicans,” Madrid said. “And for the moment, that’s good enough.”

(Jackie Rivera / For The Times; Martina Ibáñez-Baldor / Los Angeles Times)

Join De Los for a Día de Muertos event at Hollywood Forever

Dia de los Muertos at Hollywood Forever

(Diana Ramirez / De Los)

This Saturday, join De Los at Hollywood Forever Cemetery to celebrate Día de Muertos. We’ll have an altar set up from noon to 8 p.m. where visitors can write ofrendas that will be displayed throughout the event.

There will also be a photo booth run by Las Fotos Project on site from 2 to 6 p.m.

This is an all-ages event and will feature performances by música Mexicana act DannyLux, soul singer Trish Toledo, psychedelic cumbia group Tropa Magica and indie rock band Los Shadows.

Registration and event information can be found here.

If you’re looking for more places to partake in Día de Muertos festivities this year, check out De Los’ list of 50 ways to celebrate the holiday throughout Southern California.

Stories we read this week that we think you should read

Unless otherwise noted, stories below were published by the Los Angeles Times.

Politics and immigration

Arts and entertainment

Southern California

HAVANA — The Caribbean island of Nevis has received a financial boost in honor of one of its most famous sons, Alexander Hamilton, who went on to become a founding father of the United States and America’s first treasury secretary.

The U.S. government this month awarded $245,000 to restore the home where some believe Hamilton once lived as the U.S. celebrates its 250th anniversary.

Hamilton was born on Nevis in the mid-18th century and spent his childhood living at his adopted father’s home in Charlestown.

The 17th-century Georgian stone building is now Hamilton House, a museum that houses documents from the famous forefather’s early years and features exhibits honoring other Caribbean personalities. But it has demanded constant repairs: time and salty air have damaged the woodwork.

Nevis Premier Mark Brantley told the Associated Press on Wednesday that he’s grateful for the funds.

“We have tried valiantly as locals to preserve these very important historical monuments,” he said.

Despite Hamilton having lived only the early part of his childhood in Nevis, the premier believes his legacy is inspiring.

“Hamilton is significant because I think it’s a demonstration of what a small island like Nevis, a little dot in the ocean, can contribute to the founding of the greatest nation in the world, the United States,” Brantley said.

The two-story, Georgian stone building that was originally built around 1680 was destroyed by an earthquake in 1840 and was last restored in 1983.

Brantley said the restoration work is important to both the U.S. and Nevis: “Hamilton remains, I think, an iconic figure for us and a figure that we can look at his legacy and inspire our own people to achieve and to know that greatness is available for all of us.”

Federal immigration agents violently detained a 20-year-old U.S. citizen and Santa Maria, Calif., High School student with disabilities on Wednesday morning, according to school and city officials.

The student, who has limited verbal communication, was walking to school when agents tackled him, questioned him about his citizenship and restrained him in their vehicle. He was eventually returned to the area where he was picked up and walked to school, where officials called for an ambulance to take him to the hospital, said Santa Maria City Council member Gloria Soto.

The student underwent surgery for injuries to his wrist, she said, and was left with bruises and lacerations.

Soto said a school resource officer obtained security footage from a nearby grocery store and confirmed that the people who had detained the student are agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In an emailed statement, an unidentified ICE spokesperson wrote that agents were conducting a targeted enforcement operation in Santa Maria “when they encountered an individual they believed matched the description of the criminal illegal alien target.”

“When the individual resisted officers, refused lawful commands, and assumed a fighting stance with clenched fists, they relied on their training to safely control the situation until they could confirm his identity, whereupon he was released,” the spokesperson wrote.

The spokesperson added that claims that the student suffered broken bones are false because “he never requested medical assistance.”

Soto said it appears the student was racially profiled.

“Our community is living in terror right now and this needs to stop,” she said, referencing a recent uptick in immigration arrests across central California. “I’m a mother, and the thought of my child not being safe walking to school is frightening.”

The Santa Maria Police Department declined to comment and referred questions to ICE.

Alma Hernandez, board president of Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, said she was horrified by ICE’s actions.

“Our district remains committed to protecting our students and families,” she said.

This is a developing story.

Andy Burnham’s first Gogglebox appearance!

A sentence we never expected to say. Tonight, PM Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham will make their debut on the show, sitting at 10 Downing Street. 
The programme airs in aid of Stand Up To Cancer, and Andy is no stranger to charitable causes. Throughout his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy often threw himself into work, helping those around him.

Oct. 23, 2026 9:08 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Two former FBI intelligence officials who specialized in foreign election interference were charged on Friday with making false statements to Congress about their roles in investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides surrendered Friday and made their first appearance in federal court in Washington, where their lawyers pressed for a speedy hearing at which they could contest the allegations against them.

The Department of Justice says Floris and Benavides lied to Congress in 2023 about the involvement of a specialized foreign-influence task force in investigations into Biden as well as their knowledge of the laptop.

Floris’ attorneys called her “a patriot” and said she has “served our nation as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years.”

“Yet today, the DOJ has accused her falsely of a crime on the say-so of politicians, not on the facts,” her attorneys said in a statement. “It’s no coincidence the government is filing these nonsense charges now, years later, on the eve of an election.”

The case was filed 10 days before the Nov. 3 elections and marks the latest in a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions the Department of Justice has undertaken in the run-up to the midterm contests.

The prosecution, a rare Department of Justice criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled and peculiar saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race. It also comes amid a broader, backward-looking effort by FBI Director Kash Patel, who before taking over the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was a harsh critic of it, to scrutinize high-profile episodes from the bureau’s recent past that for years have animated President Trump’s conservative base.

“Lying to Congress by senior FBI officials strikes at the heart of our system. No one is above the law,” Patel said in a statement posted on X.

The revelation of the laptop’s existence in October 2020 injected a thorny storyline in the race between Trump, the Republican incumbent, and Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, Trump’s Democratic challenger, who went on to win the race.

The laptop’s contents were publicized by the New York Post, which said it had obtained from Trump ally Rudy Giuliani a hard drive of a computer dropped off by Hunter Biden at a Wilmington, Delaware, repair shop. The laptop contained emails that appeared to show discussions of the younger Biden’s foreign business dealings.

The peculiar circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian disinformation, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community was assessing that Russia was attempting to interfere on Trump’s behalf in the election and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.

Hunter Biden was subsequently charged with, and convicted of, gun and tax offenses during his father’s administration. President Biden pardoned him in his final weeks in office.

The Justice Department historically looks to avoid public and overt investigative acts in the direct lead-up to an election that involve candidates or that risk influencing an outcome. But officials in the last two weeks have made a series of bold moves in cases with political undertones, including a search of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s house in an immigration fraud investigation and a corruption indictment unsealed Thursday against powerful Democratic Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas.

Floris and Benavides, two experienced intelligence officials, led the FBI’s since-disbanded Foreign Intelligence Task Force, or FITF, when the laptop was discovered. They are accused by the Justice Department of making false statements in Congress in 2023 by saying that the FITF was not involved in investigations related to Hunter Biden when contemporaneous messages proved otherwise, according to a criminal complaint filed against them.

The case brings renewed attention to the work of the task force, which was established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation. The task force became a magnet of congressional Republican criticism during the Biden investigation and was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in one of her first acts on the job.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.