Politics

In January, 1991, as America stood on the edge of its first war in a generation, a quiet, bespectacled man stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and forced the nation to hesitate and think. George J. Mitchell, a former federal judge who was then Senate majority leader, had successfully pressed the Bush Administration into something Presidents had ignored for half a century: allowing Congress its constitutional authority to vote on making war.

Mitchell’s maneuver was politically perilous. Anyone who opposed the Gulf War risked appearing disloyal to the country and its then enormously popular President. Yet what followed, people in both parties now recall, was one of the finest moments in Senate history, a high-minded and highly emotional debate of conscience by a nation about to send its young people to war.

During George Bush’s four years as President, it was only one of many incidents when Mitchell, an intellectual politician in the era of three-second attack politics, drew sharp lines between Congress and the Republican Administration. For a time, the stoic New Englander, who avoided flashy TV sound bites and had a strong commitment to lighthouses and waterfowl, was the most important Democrat in the country.

Mitchell had risen to majority leader with historic speed. He was in only his eighth year when the Senate picked him as its leader. The former political protege of legendary Maine Democrat Edmund S. Muskie, Mitchell had spent much of his time in the Senate fighting to pass two liberal bills, a Clean Air Act and a law to clean up oil spills. He struck colleagues as uniquely decent and fair, disciplined, unemotional and deeply intellectual.

Early in 1994, he stunned Washington by announcing he would not seek almost certain reelection for a third term. He then turned down a seat on the Supreme Court in the spring of 1994. Some speculated that he was holding out to become commissioner of baseball. Still others linked his court demurrer to the fact that the 61-year-old divorce would marry 37-year-old Heather MacLachlan, a manager of professional athletes.

He dedicated the rest of his Senate career to passing health-care reform, but by October, that effort had collapsed. Then, on Election Day, his chosen successor for the Senate lost, the seat going to Republican Olympia Snowe. His party had lost the Senate after six years in the majority and the House after 40. On election night, Mitchell says, he never saw it coming.

During his last week in Washington, Mitchell sat down a t the polished conference table in his elegant Senate office to reflect on his leaving. He was still busy, juggling plans for his marriage in December and managing the passage of GATT , always dressed in crisp white shirt and dark suit, even on Saturday. But over the course of three long sessions, his reserve began to ease and his hands to wave as he reflected on what is right and wrong with the U.S Congress, on President Clinton, the Republican and Democratic parties, and about why so many Americans feel the nation is in political crisis.

*

I was taken by surprise. I’d hoped that we would retain control of both the Senate and House, although I knew that we would suffer some losses. In off-year elections, the party of the President usually loses about four seats in the Senate. We lost eight.

In retrospect, if the Administration and the congressional leadership had decided to forgo health care for this year and concentrated on welfare reform, it might have produced a different result.

But I think the Democrats are also suffering the effects of larger cultural, political and economic upheaval. Whenever a society is in transition, there’s uncertainty, anxiety, even fear. Clearly, we are a society undergoing major transition now. For most American families, incomes have either declined or remained stagnant. People see now that it is not inevitable or likely that incomes will continue to rise. Whenever there is a major transition, there is a natural desire, even a longing, for a simple, easy answer–Why is this so? How can it be corrected? There is a nostalgia for the past, often an inaccurate glorification of the past. We’ve had in our history times when seemingly simplistic answers have been offered, which in retrospect look ridiculous. The Know-Nothing movement flourished in the mid-19th Century; the Ku Klux Klan flourished early in this century; we’ve had a lot of Red scares; we’ve had a lot of things we look back on and wonder now how they happened. But at the time, given the state of anxiety and fear, it’s understandable.

I want to make very clear that I do not equate what happened this year with the Ku Klux Klan or the Know-Nothings. I’m simply describing a phenomenon of a society in transition being (susceptible).

What the Republicans did was very skillful. They developed a clear and simple message–that if we can somehow stop this expansion of government authority, then family values will be restored. It has an appeal. It’s simple, it’s comprehensible, it appears to be logical. Of course, it isn’t going to restore those values. It certainly isn’t going to do the really essential thing of promoting economic growth. Indeed, they also labeled the Democrats as the party of high taxes. In fact, the President’s economic plan passed in 1993 raised income-tax rates only on the highest-earning 1.2% of all Americans and cut taxes for most lower- and middle-income families. Polls show people don’t know that. But the Republicans didn’t make up their argument out of whole cloth. Democrats helped them.

For too many in our party, government became a first resort rather than a last. There was an inability to distinguish between principle and programs–we became committed to programs. Democrats have succeeded when we have seen the difference and when we have been perceived as the party of economic growth. But in recent years, we’ve become increasingly perceived not as the party trying to make the economic pie grow but as the party trying to make sure that every single person gets an absolutely equal slice of the pie. That has coincided with a polarization of income concurrent with the polarization by race.

In Congress, meanwhile, the Republicans have been very skillful, cynical but skillful, in creating a gridlock from which they have benefited.

Perhaps the best example is the first item in the House Republicans’ contract with America, which would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. That’s a good idea, isn’t it? It’s so good, in fact, that we Democrats have promoted this legislation even longer than Republicans. That bill passed the House of Representatives when it was controlled by Democrats.

When I tried to bring it up in the Senate, Republican senators objected. They prevented the Senate from considering the legislation that their party said was No. 1 on its contract. That’s cynicism and, I’m sorry to say, successful cynicism. Now next year they’ll pass the legislation, and they’ll say, “Look here, we’re honoring our contract.”

*

Though they barely knew each other before Election Day in 1992, Mitchell was one of President Clinton’s closest allies during the past two years. He fought for Clinton’s deficit-cutting budget in 1993 and battled for health care reform in 1994 even when most Democrats thought the battle was lost. Since the Democratic defeat in November, many in Mitchell’s party have laid most of the blame on Clinton.

*

I think the problems the President has encountered are largely the result of too ambitious an agenda. If we had had just a few items, I think we’d have been a lot better off.

In retrospect, moreover, if I had known that health care would not be enacted, it would have made sense to discontinue the effort and to go on to welfare reform. But nine months ago, (passing health care) looked pretty good.

I didn’t know then-Gov. Clinton very well prior to the election, but I came to consider him extremely intelligent, very knowledgeable on issues, hard working, and the policy positions he has taken are mostly, not always, consistent with my own.

I recall one meeting last year, when he had a group of us to the White House for dinner to talk on health care, bipartisan, maybe 10 or 12 senators. Usually at these meetings, the members of Congress know all the details because the President speaks in general terms. It became evident quickly that the President knew much more about the details than did any of the members. It was a complete reversal in terms of knowledge of the subject.

I also disagree that the President is vacillating and indecisive. Historian Garry Wills has compared Clinton to Lincoln and said that the difference is Clinton does it all publicly in advance, and Lincoln did it all privately, behind the walls of the White House. I think one of the problems that has depicted this White House as vacillating is that they do their thinking out loud.

It is unfair, too, to have suggested that President Clinton has no bedrock principles on which he will not compromise. Look at the things he’s taken on. Why does he have political problems? In the South, they say it’s because of the policy on gays in the military. Is this a man without conviction? I don’t see how critics can have it both ways. On the one hand they say he pursued unpopular policies, on the other he doesn’t have convictions.

I have a theory, though it’s entirely subjective and personal, that economic matters are more important to the electorate in presidential elections than they are in off-term elections. I think if the economy stays strong, he’ll be in a much better position to gain reelection than he is now. Right now he’s being measured not against another person, but against each citizen’s individual subjective idealization of the presidency. When he runs, he’s going to be running against a person, (who will) have a personal life and a business background that will be relentlessly scrutinized. I’m convinced that Ross Perot will be running, and that will help President Clinton–even more than in ‘92, because the Perot supporters are much more Republican now. I think Bill Clinton will be reelected.

*

Mitchell said he began thinking about retiring the day of the 1994 State of the Union speech in January. There were many factors, but important among them was the realization that if he didn’t leave now, at 61, he would become too old to take up anything else–such as, for instance, baseball commissioner.

*

In 1993, when I turned 60, I decided to celebrate by climbing the highest mountain in my home state of Maine, Mt. Kitahdin. It’s one of the toughest non-technical climbs in the East, a mile high and about a 4,000-foot vertical climb.

There are two peaks on Mt. Kitahdin: Pamola Peak and the summit. The distance between them is a narrow ledge that stretches more than a mile, called the Knife’s Edge; I have a fear of heights.

Late that night, after we finished, I told my friends that the climb reminded me of Charles Darwin’s trip around the world, during which he first conceived the theory of evolution. It was a physically rough trip for him; he was sick for a large part of the time. He never made another such trip, and he spent the rest of his life talking about that one. That’s the way I felt about climbing Mt. Kitahdin.

That is also how I feel when I reflect on what it took to pass major legislation in the U.S. Senate, including one of my highest priorities, the Clean Air Act.

I had run for majority leader in 1988, in significant part so that we could pass some of the legislation that I had tried for six or seven years to make into law and failed. After I was majority leader, and we finally got the clean air bill onto the floor, it became obvious it couldn’t pass. I didn’t want it to die, so I decided we should negotiate. We spent over a month in my conference room–members of the Bush Administration and senators, groups of 10 or 12, sometimes 50 or 60. There were many 16- to 18-hour days. We went over every provision, negotiating in good faith, and we finally reached a consensus.

That’s what it takes to enact major legislation. And that is one of the few tools available now to the Senate majority leader: the ability to get people together, to get them to listen to each other. No longer can a leader order senators to follow. Lyndon B. Johnson centralized power in the majority leader. He was able to exert influence on his colleagues for three reasons. One was his personality. Second, he had the power to appoint all senators to committees and to remove them from committees. That can make or break a senator’s career. The other was that if you wanted a roll call vote, you had to get his approval. He used those powers very effectively, but in the minds of many of his colleagues, he abused them. When he left, those powers were taken away from the majority leader, so majority leaders since have had very little in the way of institutional tools to impose discipline (over their party or the institution).

I have advocated that some of these powers be restored. Bob Dole, the new majority leader, disagreed. I expect he may change his mind now. Of course, the Senate could make these changes simply by operating with a resumption of the self-restraint that existed among its members for most of our history but no longer does.

In the entire 19th Century there were 16 filibusters in the U.S. Senate–an average of one every 6 1/2 years. For most of this century, filibusters occurred fewer than once a year. In the 103rd Congress just concluded, there were 20 filibusters attempted and 72 motions to end them.

It is harder to govern now, I think, because of the tone in politics today, which debases public discussion. Distrust of Congress and elected officials is not new in our society, but I think several factors have contributed to the increase in negativism in politics.

First, the press has abandoned many of the traditional restraints it imposed on itself with regard to reporting on the personal life of public officials. Second, television. The viewer, the voter, hears candidate Tom say that his opponent Diane is a bum; Diane responds that Tom is a crook, and so the voters come to believe that they have a choice between a bum and a crook. A third factor, I believe, is partisan. Until Bill Clinton was elected, there seemed a nearly permanent state of affairs in which the presidency was held by Republicans and the Congress by Democrats. So for nearly two decades, Republicans bashed the Congress.

All of those things have combined to create a highly negative discussion in which issues are oversimplified and reduced to slogans.

*

In his own career, Mitchell was unusually fair and bipartisan when it came to dispensing the rules of the Senate. Among his first acts as majority leader was ending the practice of tactical surprise . Before that, both sides had to keep one senator on the floor at all times . But Mitchell could also be scorchingly partisan when it came to policy differences.

*

We Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to deal more effectively with the nation’s problems. But so do Republicans. Their policy in the Senate in 1994 was one of total obstruction. Let me give you an example.

We passed earlier this year in both houses the gift- and lobbying-disclosure legislation. The Republicans really didn’t want it, so when the bill came up for final passage in the House, Newt Gingrich concocted this argument that it will have some effect on grass-roots lobbying, and they got Christian organizations to come out against it. That same excuse was used in the Senate. So I offered to take that provision out and vote on the same bill that we had passed by a vote of 95 to 2 a few months earlier. Which, of course, all the Republicans had voted for. But they refused. When you prevent legislation that you’ve actually voted for, you’re engaged in a policy of total obstruction. But it worked. The Republican (complaint) was, well the darned place isn’t functioning. The Democrats are in charge, so let’s change the people in charge, and maybe we’ll get some action.

Now they are in a different position. I think the Republicans will soon learn that it’s easier to campaign against something than to govern. You actually are responsible for acting. I think we Democrats suffer the burden more because we believe that government can produce beneficial results and conditions in our society. But we didn’t do a very good job of making that case this year.

I don’t know Newt Gingrich very well. Most of my dealings have been with Bob Michel, who was the Republican leader in the House for all of the time that I was majority leader. Newt sort of took over during the latter stages of this Congress. My impression is that he’s very smart and appears to be committed to an ideology. But I wonder if he is smart enough to recognize that in order to be a successful Speaker, he will have to use an approach different from that which got him to be Speaker–basically the difference between campaigning and governing.

I believe people can change. In general terms, I think people grow in office. I think people become more responsible with increased responsibility, become more active with increased demands on them. But I have no way of knowing in his particular case.

*

For all his frustration, even anger, Mitchell wanted to assert that he does not feel jaundiced about politics and the future. He also remains, in the parlance of Washington, an unreconstructed liberal, though not without complaints .

*

For all this, the problems of the party and the historical forces the Republicans have capitalized on, I don’t share the view that the country is shifting ideologically. Nor do I fear that the Democratic Party is somehow marginalizing itself. I am, on the contrary, very optimistic.

I’ve written a lot of bills that have become law, and many of them are meaningful to me. I’m the author of something called the Lighthouse Preservation Program. It’s a very small bill, but I regard it as a great accomplishment.

It’s ironic that at this moment, when American ideals and culture are ascendant in the world, when the American economy is the most productive and efficient in the world, when unemployment in America is less than that in virtually every other developed industrial democracy of the world, that Americans should be so anxious and fearful, such easy prey for demagoguery and scapegoatism. I think the Democrats still are the party of opportunity and economic growth.

What we have to do is to narrow our focus to economic-growth policies as opposed to trying to solve every other problem. I can sum up my philosophy in a sentence: In America, no one shouldbe guaranteed success, but everyone should have a fair chance to go as far as talent, education and will can take them.

On Tuesday, voters will determine the fate of redistricting measure Proposition 50. But if you’re eager to vote in person, you don’t have to wait. You can easily pop into the polls a day early in many parts of California.

Where to vote in person on Monday

In Los Angeles County alone, there are 251 vote centers that will be open from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday. (They’ll also be open again on Tuesday, election day, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) At vote centers, you can vote in person, drop off your vote-by-mail ballot, or even register to vote and cast a same-day provisional ballot, which will be counted after officials verify the registration.

“Avoid the rush,” said Dean Logan, the L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk. “Make a plan to vote early.”

Also on Monday, San Diego County’s 68 vote centers are open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Orange County’s 65 vote centers from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and Riverside County’s 55 vote centers and Ventura County’s nine vote centers between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

All of those vote centers also will be open on election day Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Other populous counties with a similar vote center system include the counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Sacramento, Fresno, San Mateo, Stanislaus, Sonoma, Placer, Merced, Santa Cruz, Marin, Butte, Yolo, El Dorado, Madera, Kings, Napa and Humboldt.

Other counties have fewer in-person polling locations on Monday

San Bernardino County, however, only has six designated early voting poll stations. They’re open on Monday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and also on election day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Otherwise, San Bernardino County residents who want to vote in person on Tuesday can go to their assigned neighborhood polling location.

In Santa Barbara County, if you’ve lost or damaged a vote-by-mail ballot, you can request a replacement ballot through county’s elections offices in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria or Lompoc. Otherwise, voters can cast ballots at their assigned neighborhood polls on Tuesday.

How to drop off your vote-by-mail ballot

All Californian registered voters were mailed a vote-by-mail ballot. There are various ways to drop it off — through the mail, or through a county ballot drop box or polling place.

Ballot drop box or polling place

Be sure to get your ballot into a secured drop box, or at a polling place, by 8 p.m. on Tuesday. You can look up locations of ballot drop-off boxes at the California secretary of state’s or your county registrar of voters’ website (here are the links for Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties).

In L.A. County alone, there are 418 drop boxes.

You can drop off your ballot at any polling place or ballot drop box within California, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Mailing your ballot

You can also send your ballot through the U.S. Postal Service. No stamps are needed. Note that your ballot must be postmarked by Tuesday (and received by the county elections office within seven days).

But beware: Officials have warned that recent changes to the U.S. Postal Service earlier this year may result in later postmarks than you might expect.

In fact, state officials recently warned that, in large swaths of California — outside of the metros of Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento area — mail that is dropped off at a mailbox or a post office on election day may not be postmarked until a day later, on Wednesday. That would render the ballot ineligible to be counted.

As a result, some officials are recommending that — at this point — it’s better to deliver your vote-by-mail ballot through a secure drop box, a vote center or a neighborhood polling place, rather than through the Postal Service.

“If you can’t make it to a vote center, you can go to any post office and ask at the counter for a postmark on your ballot to ensure you get credit for mailing your ballot on time,” the office of Atty. Gen. Robert Bonta said.

Most common reasons vote-by-mail ballots don’t get counted

In the 2024 general election, 99% of vote-by-mail ballots were accepted. But that means about 122,000 of the ballots, out of 13.2 million returned, weren’t counted in California.

Here are the top reasons why:
• A non-matching signature: 71,381 ballots not counted.
• Ballot was not received in time: 33,016 ballots not counted.
• No voter signature: 13,356 ballots not counted.

If the voter didn’t sign their ballot, or the ballot’s signature is different from the one in the voter’s record, election officials are required to reach out to the voter to resolve the missing or mismatched signature.

Other reasons included the voter having already voted, the voter forgetting to put the ballot in their envelope, or returning multiple ballots in a single envelope.

If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

“Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

“The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

“The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

“I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

“The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

Nov. 2 (UPI) — At least 42 million Americans could begin receiving SNAP benefits by the middle of the week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday. Funding for the program was set to run out Saturday amid the government shutdown, now in its sixth week.

Two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use emergency funding to pay for the social service during the budget impasse that led the government to shutter services, many of them critical for tens of millions of Americans.

While the judge’s order narrowly averted the suspension of SNAP benefits, it could take as long as two weeks before the benefits resume.

“There’s a process that has to be followed,” Bessent said Sunday on CNN”s State of the Union. “So, we’ve got to figure out what the process is.”

Bessent acknowledged that two weeks is a long time for people who need food, and added that the administration would not appeal the ruling.

He blamed Democrats for the prolonged shutdown, despite both parties refusing to reach a deal to end it.

“The best way for SNAP benefits to get paid is for Democrats, five Democrats, to cross the aisle and reopen the government,” he said.

The judges’ rulings mean, however, that the benefits will resume even without a vote.

Nov. 2 (UPI) — Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Sunday that the government shutdown, now in its sixth week, would continue to cause flight delays, cancellations and closures amid air traffic control staffing shortages across the country.

“We will delay, we will cancel any kind of flights across the national airspace to make sure people are safe,” Duffy warned during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”

Duffy ‘s comments came during a ground stop at Newark Liberty International Airport Sunday, which he said could spread to airports nationwide the longer the shutdown dragged on.

As few as 20 flights per hour were arriving at Newark late Sunday afternoon, local media reported. Delays averaged about two hours Sunday, but some flights were more than three hours late.

“There is a level of risk that gets injected into the system when we have a controller that’s doing two jobs instead of one,” he continued.

Nearly half of all major air traffic control centers are already facing staffing shortages across the country, which prompted a flurry of airport closures, ground stops or long flight delays, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA’s real time website shows Boston’s Logan Airport and Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas closed Sunday, ground tops at Chicago’s O’Hare, and major ground delays at LAX in Los Angeles and the San Francisco International Airport.

Duffy warned during his Sunday interview that the situation could deteriorate still further as the shutdown continues.

“If the government doesn’t open in the next week or two, we’ll look back as these were the good old days, not the bad days,” he cautioned.

He said the administration is considering “pulling in whatever dollars we can” when asked whether there are other funding sources to pay the costs associated with air traffic control facilities and employees.

Federal law requires air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration, along with some other government employees, to work without pay during the duration of the shutdown.

“They have to make a decision,” Duffy said. “Do I go to work and not get a paycheck and not put food on the table, or do I drive for Uber or DoorDash or wait tables?”

Nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers are working with no compensation amid the shutdown. Washington lawmakers are at an impasse of a GOP-led budget bill, which has failed a Senate vote a dozen times.

Democrats are holding out for an extension of Biden-era premium subsidies that make health insurance more affordable on the federal marketplace.

Sexual misconduct allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger roiled California’s gubernatorial recall race Thursday as the Republican apologized for having “behaved badly” toward women while insisting he would champion their cause.

Responding to a Los Angeles Times story on accusations by six women that he touched them in a sexual manner without their consent, Schwarzenegger dismissed the report as “trash politics,” but went on to acknowledge unspecified wrongdoing.

“I always say that wherever there is smoke, there is fire,” he told several hundred cheering supporters at a San Diego rally.

“So I want to say to you, yes, I have behaved badly sometimes. Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets, and I have done things that were not right, which I thought then was playful. But I now recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them, I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize.”

Asked later about the specific incidents in an interview on CNN, Schwarzenegger said: “I don’t remember so many of the things that I was accused of having done.”

Pressed further, he said: “I would say most of it is not true.”

He also sought to shift blame to his opponents. “It’s very interesting that since I’m ahead in the campaign … all the things are coming out,” he said. “I’m very pro-women. I’m very much into equality. Those things are not coming out.”

Schwarzenegger’s strategists had designed the closing part of the campaign — a four-day bus tour of the state — as a “triumphal march.” Instead, the candidate began the day apologizing for sexual misconduct. By nightfall he was sitting with his wife, responding not only to that issue, but to allegations in the New York Times and on ABC’s “World News Tonight” that he had expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler during the 1970s.

The Austrian-born actor denied the accusation and called Hitler a “disgusting villain.”

“I always despised everything Hitler stood for,” said Schwarzenegger, whose father was a Nazi. “I hate the regime, the Third Reich and all of those whole Nazi philosophy, have always fought against that.”

Political strategists differed on whether the sexual misconduct allegations might affect Tuesday’s election.

The disclosures came a day after a confident Schwarzenegger had unveiled plans for his first 100 days in office. Recent polls have shown voters inclined to toss Gov. Gray Davis from office and replace him with Schwarzenegger.

Thursday’s events made the tumultuous eight-week campaign even more volatile.

One Schwarzenegger event Thursday in Costa Mesa was disrupted when a Los Angeles woman, Gail Escobar, told reporters about an alleged confrontation with the actor many years ago.

As she spoke, an angry confrontation erupted between Schwarzenegger’s supporters and roughly half a dozen female protesters carrying signs saying: “Hey, Arnold. Stop Harassing Women Now.”

A supporter ripped in half a sign reading “No Groper for Governor.” An elderly man shouted at the protesters: “You’re too stupid to get respect!”

On a nationally syndicated radio show, Joy Browne, a psychologist, detailed an incident in the late 1970s in which she alleged Schwarzenegger had harassed her.

In Santa Monica, the disclosures dominated a campaign event by the governor at the pier aquarium. After one reporter asked Davis to comment on The Times story, another suggested ushering out the 30 Santa Clarita first-graders on hand to witness the governor’s signing of four environmental bills. The children were led from the room before questioning resumed.

Davis was careful not to gloat over Schwarzenegger’s situation. He called the allegations of groping and lewd language directed at women “a matter between the voters and their conscience.”

“I would just rather leave this matter to the voters of this state,” Davis said at the bill-signing ceremony. “They will digest it. They will decide what importance to attach to it.”

But Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the only Democratic officeholder running to replace Davis, seized on Schwarzenegger’s apology as a new weapon against his chief Republican rival.

“These charges of sexual battery and harassment are serious and recent,” Bustamante said at a Compton Community College campaign stop.

He read an excerpt from the California Penal Code, saying, “Any person who touches an intimate part of another person against the will of the person touched” is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery.

Some Republicans, meanwhile, accused The Times of partisanship and excused Schwarzenegger’s behavior; others expressed outrage over his admission of misconduct.

“What we saw in the L.A. Times today was not an attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas). “It was an attack on every single one of us who want to take back California.”

The actor’s major Republican recall opponent, state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, said he viewed the accusations “with a high degree of skepticism,” because they emerged so close to the election.

But “if true, these acts are reprehensible and inexcusable,” he said. “And as the father of a 13-year-old daughter, I’d say to him, ‘Get out of the race.’ ”

The Times article on Thursday, which was based on a seven-week investigation, quoted women as saying Schwarzenegger had groped and humiliated them in incidents as early as 1975 and as recently as 2000. Three described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. Another said he reached under her skirt and gripped her buttocks, while another said he tried to remove her swimsuit in a hotel elevator.

Four of the women spoke on condition of anonymity. Three said they feared Schwarzenegger’s power in the entertainment industry where they worked, and the fourth said she did not want to be exposed to public humiliation. None of the women had filed formal complaints against the actor, but their accounts were confirmed by friends or relatives in whom they had confided well before the recall.

The Times did not learn of any of the six women from Schwarzenegger’s opponents in the recall campaign, and none of them approached the newspaper on her own.

E. Laine Stockton, who said Schwarzenegger had reached under her T-shirt to touch her breast at a Venice Beach gym in 1975, said Thursday that Schwarzenegger should apologize personally to each of the women.

“He didn’t do it to us as a group,” she said. “He did it to us in public places. As far as I’m concerned, I want a face-to-face apology.”A woman who had told The Times that Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and whispered a lewd comment said she was upset that Schwarzenegger had coupled his apology with an attack on “trash politics.”

“It kind of discounts the apology a little bit and puts the shame on the person it happened to,” she said. “The wording seemed to suggest that what happened to me is part of some larger political scheme that’s in the gutter, even though it’s not something I did. It’s the truth about something he did.”

Another woman quoted in the Times story, a former waitress, said Thursday that the actor’s apology was too narrow. She alleged that as she waited on his table, Schwarzenegger had asked her to go into a bathroom and stick her finger in her vagina and return to him. “Not everyone he offended was on a movie set. I was a waitress refilling his coffee cup,” she said.

Although earlier asking not to be named in The Times investigation, the woman, Nicole Alpert, decided Thursday to disclose her identity. She is a motivational speaker for women and a hairdresser.

“I have chosen to pour the proverbial hot pot of coffee on his head,” Alpert said. “As a woman who speaks out for herself and other women, if somebody offends you in any way, no matter who they are — Mr. Famous Actor or Mr. Governor of California — speak up for yourself. You may find out that two things happen: One, you protect your honor and, two, you get an apology. How great is that?”

The apology came Thursday morning at the San Diego Convention Center rally, an event that kicked off a four-day campaign bus tour.

“You know when you get into politics they try to tear down your character and tear down everything you stand for, and, as you know, this morning they have begun with the tearing down,” Schwarzenegger told the crowd. “Yes, absolutely. But I know — I know that the people of California can see through these trash politics. Yes. And let me tell you something — a lot of … what you see in the stories is not true.”

But he then apologized and added: “When I’m governor, I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women. A champion for the women. And I hope that you will give me the chance to prove that. Now let’s go from the dirty politics back to the future of California.”

When he finished speaking, the blue curtains behind him parted to reveal the bus that will take him on a “California Comeback Express” tour. He climbed up the steps and as the bus drove around the Convention Center perimeter, he leaned out the door, beaming and giving a thumbs-up.

Later, at a boisterous Orange County Fairgrounds rally in Costa Mesa, Schwarzenegger vowed to “destroy the car tax,” which the Davis administration has tripled to help close a multibillion-dollar budget gap.

“In the movies, when I played a character and I didn’t like someone, you know what I did? I destroyed it,” he told the crowd. “I’ll show you exactly what we’re going to do to the car tax.”

A crane then dropped a giant weight onto an Oldsmobile Cutlass, crushing the vehicle.

“Hasta la vista, car tax,” Schwarzenegger said as the rock anthem “We’re Not Gonna Take It” blasted through loudspeakers.

On Wednesday night, the Republican front-runner also was forced to respond to reports that quoted from an unpublished book proposal in which Schwarzenegger, then a bodybuilder, allegedly cited Hitler as one of his heroes.

“He came up from being a little man with almost no formal education …. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it,” Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying in a “verbatim transcript” of a 1975 interview he reportedly gave while making the documentary “Pumping Iron.”

At the news conference with his wife, Maria Shriver, Schwarzenegger said he could not remember making any such statements.

“I cannot imagine I’ve ever said anything favorable on those things,” he said.

The author of the book proposal, George Butler, who served as producer of the documentary, has given conflicting accounts of Schwarzenegger’s remarks on Hitler. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times two months ago, he denied Schwarzenegger had ever made such remarks. This week, however, he told ABC and the New York Times that Schwarzenegger had made the remarks.

Shriver said the sexual misconduct allegations “show why really good people don’t want to go into politics anymore.”

“I don’t get into specifics,” she said. “As I say to my children, it always takes great courage to do — stand before anybody and apologize,” she said. “I think that’s what Arnold did today. I think he handled it and his statement speaks for itself.”

Many political strategists in both parties largely dismissed the impact of The Times report, saying the late-campaign timing of the revelations, as well as Schwarzenegger’s swift apology, should mitigate the fallout. That is, they said, barring new developments that advance the story or keep it alive through the weekend.

For voters backing the recall at this point, “Heaven and Earth is not going to move them to ‘no,’ “said Gale Kaufman, a Democratic strategist who is not involved in the race.

Arnold Steinberg, a GOP strategist also watching from the sidelines, said much the same thing.

“There’s an increasing skepticism among voters toward last-minute charges in any campaign,” he said. At this late stage, “Voters look to reinforce their views and discard information that contradicts that view,” he added.

Others suggested that the revelations — if not the exact details — were hardly new or surprising. Allegations of Schwarzenegger’s untoward behavior toward women circulated widely more than two years ago in a Premiere magazine article published as the actor was weighing a run against Davis in the 2002 election.

Still, some conservative activists said the allegations could erode Schwarzenegger’s support among Republicans.

Steve Frank, a conservative leader who worked for former GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon Jr., said Schwarzenegger “may have brought down the whole recall.”

“The conservatives didn’t like Bill Clinton for doing this, and we would be hypocrites to approve of Schwarzenegger doing this,” he said.

Meanwhile, a new accusation surfaced from Escobar, 41, a Los Angeles wife and mother and a waitress at a restaurant in the Fairmont Miramar hotel in Santa Monica. In an interview with The Times, she said Schwarzenegger had threatened to assault her when she was a teenager in the late 1970s.

Her account could not be independently confirmed. She was accompanied to the event by fellow members of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, which opposes Schwarzenegger in the election.

When she was a 16-year-old student at Santa Monica High School — then named Gail Kay — she and a school friend were drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes at a coffee shop across from the school.

They were sitting at the counter when Escobar’s friend noticed that Schwarzenegger and another bodybuilder were there. After the two men finished eating, Schwarzenegger left the restaurant but the other bodybuilder came over to Escobar and said Schwarzenegger wanted to see her, Escobar said.

“I told him if Arnold wants to see me, he can come back inside and see me,” Escobar said. “He then proceeded to pick me up out of my seat and drag me out of the restaurant, through the lobby to the parking structure.”

Escobar said her friend was amused by this and followed voluntarily. The other man held Escobar there until a vehicle pulled up, she said. Schwarzenegger was in the passenger seat, she said. He “rolled down the window and said, ‘We are going to rape you girls tonight,’ ” according to Escobar. “Then the bodybuilder who was holding me let me go and I ran. At that age, I was scared. Looking back today, I’m infuriated.”

*

Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak, Gary Cohn, Richard Fausset, Scott Glover, Matea Gold, Gregg Jones, Matt Lait, Joel Rubin, Robert Welkos and Nancy Vogel contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Text of Schwarzenegger’s Response to Allegations

“You know when you get into politics they try to tear down your character, and tear down everything you stand for. And as you know, this morning they have begun with the tearing down. Yes. Absolutely.

“But I know — I know that the people of California can see through these trash politics. Yes. And let me tell you something — a lot of those, what you see in the stories is not true. But at the same time, I have to tell you, I always say wherever there is smoke, there is fire. That is true.

“So I want to say to you, yes, I have behaved badly sometimes.

Yes, it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets, and I have done things that were not right, which I thought then was playful.

“But now I recognize that I have offended people. And to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize, because this is not what I tried to do.

“When I am governor, I want to prove to the women that I will be a champion for the women, a champion of the women. And I hope that you will give me the chance to prove that.

“Now let’s go from the dirty politics back — to the future of California.”

Did you forget to register to vote in California’s special election on Tuesday? There is still time.

California allows same day registration. Eligible citizens are allowed to cast a conditional ballot and once their eligibility to vote is verified, the vote will be counted.

Tuesday is the last day to vote on Proposition 50, a measure that would approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats in the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

Prospective voters can visit a polling place on Tuesday to register and then cast a ballot.

Nov. 2 (UPI) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday renewed his call for support of a ballot initiative that would redraw congressional voting maps in the state.

Proposition 50 would change district boundaries to potentially favor Democrats, a reaction, Newsom has said, to a similar move by Texas Republicans that would benefit the GOP.

In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press, Newsom said “the rules of the game have changed,” criticizing President Donald Trump for pushing the Texas initiative and accused him of “rigging” the 2026 midterm elections.

Newsom said he is “deeply confident” that California voters will approve Proposition 50 at the polls in a Nov. special election.

Democrats have moved away from a pledge by former first lady Michelle Obama, who said in 2016 that “when they go low, we go high,” in response to aggressive campaign rhetoric by then presidential candidate Donald Trump that leveled personal attacks against Democrats.

“I would love to go back to that,” Newsom said in the interview. “But politics has changed. The world has changed. The rules of the game have changed.”

“We want to go back to some semblance of normalcy, but you have to deal with the crisis at hand,” he said.

Newsom, who has said he is considering a bid for the White House in 2028, has also been critical of Trump’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in big cities across the country, including in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Portland.

Trump has claimed illegal immigration is responsible for rampant crime in those cities, despite a lack of evidence to back up his assertions.

Newsom signed on to an Oregon lawsuit to stop National Guard troops from patrolling Portland and has described the deployments as a “breathtaking abuse of power.”

He has also predicted the outcome of the Proposition 50 vote could shape the 2026 midterm elections.

The novel “Violet Project” aims to test whether success in politics is achieved through ethical values ​​or pragmatic approaches. The project is the product of a philosophical debate between three old friends—idealist academic Dr. Thomas Wan, morally committed businessman John Mendoza, and results-oriented car salesman Christopher Hamilton—who meet after many years at an Orlando restaurant. The tension between Hamilton’s assertion that “in politics, all means are justified” and Mendoza’s belief that “ethical values ​​pay off in the long run” will be tested through an unusual social experiment devised by Wan.

Dr. Wan chooses two of his former students from the University of Central Florida, James Frank and Gary Metros, to implement the project. These two young people are polar opposites in character. Ambitious, unruly, and down-to-earth James Frank is offered a campaign in Crystal Lake, Illinois, where he challenges ethical boundaries. Meanwhile, honest, introverted, and idealistic Gary Metros is asked to run for office in Southaven, Mississippi, adhering to ethical principles. Both accept the offer in exchange for a lucrative salary and a potential $150,000 prize.

James Frank’s Crystal Lake Adventure: The Triumph of Pragmatism

James takes quite ambitious steps as he launches his campaign. First, he brings on former mayor Roy Jimenez, who struggles with alcoholism, as an advisor. Roy’s sordid political experience will prove an invaluable resource for James. With the addition of seasoned strategist Michael Benson, a campaign driven by dirty tactics under the guise of “honesty” despite Crystal Lake’s calm and uneventful demeanor is waged.

James’s team employs various manipulation tactics throughout the election process. After Roy discovers that incumbent mayor George William has a secret relationship with a Ukrainian immigrant and aids illegal immigrants, he blackmails him into withdrawing his candidacy and directing his supporters to James. Furthermore, other independent candidates, Brian Harris and Aaron Rivera, are manipulated with money and personal accounts to James’s advantage, forcing them to withdraw just before the election.

James faces a difficult time in a televised debate due to his inexperience. Despite being outmatched by his rivals (Warren Collins and George William), thanks to the team’s backroom operations, he wins the Crystal Lake mayoral election with 6,179 votes. This victory is presented as proof that pragmatic approaches to politics can work in the short term.

Gary Metros’s Southaven Adventure: Constructive Change with Ethical Values

Gary, however, pursues a completely different strategy. He works with a professional team consisting of sociologist Dr. Lawrence Travis and urban planner Dr. Nelson Vincent. They act in accordance with Travis’s philosophy of “reviving social happiness and unity by creating a common ideal and enemy.”

Gary’s campaign in Southaven quickly evolved into a comprehensive socio-economic development project. First, he took steps to reduce unemployment by establishing a startup center. Then, he strengthened the city’s sense of belonging by establishing the New Southaven sports club and encouraging residents to attend matches frequently. His campaign, which is driven by public engagement, transparency, and positive promises, established him as a trusted leader in the eyes of Southaven voters.

Gary’s uncompromising approach to ethical values ​​led him to achieve long-term and sustainable success, and he won the Southaven mayoral election with 12,127 votes. This victory demonstrates that adhering to ethical values ​​in politics can also lead to success eventually.

Final Meeting and Project Evaluation

After both candidates are successful, they meet with the project’s funders at a luxurious restaurant in Orlando. Dr. Thomas Wan explains the criteria established at the project’s inception: the winner will be the one receiving the most votes and will receive a $150,000 prize.

James Frank is declared the official winner because he received a higher percentage of votes than Gary Metros. This result supports Christopher Hamilton’s thesis that “the end justifies the means.” However, Wan also emphasizes that both young men performed exceptionally well.

The novel’s finale presents a profound moral question. While James’s victory is based on blackmail, manipulation, and dirty tactics, Gary’s victory is based on a model that is sustainable, strengthens society, and leaves a more solid legacy in the long term. “Project Violet” demonstrates that short-term gain in politics can be achieved through pragmatism, but true lasting success and social trust can be built through ethical values.

Both young politicians have begun their new careers, but which of them will truly be considered successful will be revealed later in their political careers. The novel concludes by inviting the reader to consider the true meaning of “winning.”

As inequality deepens and dissent is punished, many are looking to new voices like Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist running for New York City mayor on a platform of rent freezes, free public transit, and taxing the rich. Can candidates like him revive the Democratic Party in the United States, or is real reform from within impossible?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with journalist and former Bernie Sanders Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

US president claims Chinese leader ‘openly said’ Beijing would not act on Taiwan while Trump is in the White House ‘because they know the consequences’.

United States President Donald Trump has said that his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping has assured him that Beijing will not attempt to unify Taiwan with mainland China while the Republican leader is in office.

Trump said on Sunday that the long-contentious issue of Taiwan “never even came up as a subject” when he met with Xi in South Korea on Thursday for their first face-to-face meeting in six years. The meeting largely focused on US-China trade tensions.

“He has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, ‘We would never do anything while President Trump is president’, because they know the consequences,” Trump said in an interview with the CBS 60 Minutes programme that aired on Sunday.

Asked in the interview whether he would order US forces into action if China moved militarily on Taiwan, Trump demurred.

The US, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan – trying not to tip its hand on whether the US would come to the island’s aid in such a scenario.

“You’ll find out if it happens, and he understands the answer to that,” said Trump, referring to Xi.

But Trump declined to spell out what he meant in the interview conducted on Friday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, adding: “I can’t give away my secrets. The other side knows.”

US officials have long been concerned about the possibility of China using military force against Taiwan, the self-governed island democracy Beijing claims as part of its territory.

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which has governed US relations with the island, does not require the US to step in militarily if China invades but makes it US policy to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself and prevent any unilateral change of status by Beijing.

Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, did not respond directly to a query from The Associated Press news agency about whether Trump has received any assurances from Xi or Chinese officials about Taiwan. He insisted in a statement that China “will never allow any person or force to separate Taiwan from China in any way”.

“The Taiwan question is China’s internal affair, and it is the core of China’s core interests. How to resolve the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people ourselves, and only the Chinese people can decide it,” the statement added.

The White House also did not provide further details about when Xi or Chinese officials conveyed to Trump that military action on Taiwan was off the table for the duration of the Republican’s presidency.

The 60 Minutes interview was Trump’s first appearance on the show since he settled a lawsuit this summer with CBS News over its interview with then-Vice-President Kamala Harris. Trump alleged that the interview had been deceptively edited to benefit the Democratic Party before the 2024 presidential election. Trump initially sought $10bn in damages, later raising the claim to $20bn.

The United States and China have declared a truce in the trade war launched by US President Donald Trump in April, argues Evan Medeiros, former US National Security Council director for China.

Medeiros tells host Steve Clemons that the deal reached between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump resolves the urgent trade issues between the two sides – tariff rates, soya beans and rare earth minerals – but China “remains committed to ensuring that Russia doesn’t lose” in Ukraine.

The US has more than 200,000 soldiers surrounding China, Medeiros adds, but Washington knows that “nobody wants to choose between the US and China.”

There is no end in sight to the United States government shutdown.

At least 1.4 million workers are going without pay, while some people on federal aid are worrying about how they will get their next meal.

How can the standoff between Republicans and Democrats be resolved, and what will happen if it goes on?

Presenter: 

Adrian Finighan

Guests: 

Marena Lin – Co-founder of Project Restore Us, a volunteer-led organisation that supports communities facing food insecurity in Los Angeles

Niall Stanage – White House columnist for The Hill newspaper and digital media company in Washington, DC

Chris Tilly – Economist and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles

Reporting from Washington — For weeks this fall, an ebullient President Trump traveled relentlessly to hold raise-the-rafters campaign rallies — sometimes three a day — in states where his presence was likely to help Republicans on the ballot.

But his mood apparently has changed as he has taken measure of the electoral backlash that voters delivered Nov. 6. With the certainty that the incoming Democratic House majority will go after his tax returns and investigate his actions, and the likelihood of additional indictments by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Trump has retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment, according to multiple administration sources.

Behind the scenes, they say, the president has lashed out at several aides, from junior press assistants to senior officials. “He’s furious,” said one administration official. “Most staffers are trying to avoid him.”

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, painted a picture of a brooding president “trying to decide who to blame” for Republicans’ election losses, even as he publicly and implausibly continues to claim victory.

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who are close allies, “seem to be on their way out,” the official said, noting recent leaks on the subject. The official cautioned, however, that personnel decisions are never final until Trump himself tweets out the news — often just after the former reality TV star who’s famous for saying “You’re fired!” has directed Kelly to so inform the individual.

And, according to a source outside the White House who has spoken recently with the president, last week’s Wall Street Journal report confirming Trump’s central role during the 2016 campaign in quietly arranging payoffs for two women alleging affairs with him seemed to put him in an even worse mood.

Publicly, Trump has been increasingly absent in recent days — except on Twitter. He has canceled travel plans and dispatched Cabinet officials and aides to events in his place — including sending Vice President Mike Pence to Asia for the annual summits there in November that past presidents nearly always attended.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II was in Washington on Tuesday and met with Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, but not the president.

Also Tuesday, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis announced plans to travel on Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexico border to visit with troops Trump ordered there last month in what is ostensibly a mission to defend against a caravan of Central American migrants moving through Mexico and still hundreds of miles from the United States.

Trump had reportedly considered making that trip himself, but has decided against it. Nor has he spoken of the caravan since the midterm elections, after making it a central issue in his last weeks of campaigning.

Unusually early on Monday, the White House called a “lid” at 10:03 a.m. EST, informing reporters that the president would not have any scheduled activities or public appearances for the rest of the day. Although it was Veterans Day, Trump bucked tradition and opted not to make the two-mile trip to Arlington National Cemetery in northern Virginia to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as presidents since at least John F. Kennedy have done to mark the solemn holiday.

FULL COVERAGE: The latest on the Trump administration and the rest of Washington »

Trump’s only public appearance Tuesday was at a short White House ceremony marking the start of the Hindu holiday Diwali at which he made brief comments and left without responding to shouted questions.

He had just returned Sunday night from a two-day trip to France to attend ceremonies marking the centennial of the armistice that ended World War I. That trip was overshadowed, in part, by Trump’s decision not to attend a wreath-laying at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, the burial place for 2,289 soldiers 60 miles northeast of Paris, due to rain.

Kelly, a former Marine Corps general, and Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did attend to honor the American service members interred there. Trump stayed in the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Paris, making no public appearances.

Other heads of state also managed to make it to World War I cemeteries in the area for tributes to their nations’ war dead on Saturday.

Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin were the only world leaders to skip a procession of world leaders to another commemoration, on Sunday, at the Arc de Triomphe. About 80 heads of state walked in unison — under umbrellas in the pouring rain — down Paris’ grand Champs-Elysees boulevard. Trump arrived later by motorcade, a decision aides claimed was made for security reasons.

Nicholas Burns, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, said the weekend events, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of a war in which 120,000 Americans were killed, were ripe for soaring words and symbolic gestures, which Trump failed to provide.

“Not only did he barely show up, he didn’t say anything that would help Americans understand the scale of the loss, or the importance of avoiding another great war,” Burns said. “He seemed physically and emotionally apart. It’s such a striking difference between the enthusiasm he showed during the campaign and then going to Paris and sulking in his hotel room.”

He added, “The country deserves more energy from the president.”

Trump took heavy flak on social media, especially for his no-show at the military cemetery.

“President @realDonaldTrump a no-show because of raindrops?” tweeted former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, a Navy veteran. “Those veterans the president didn’t bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow – & many died in trenches for the cause of freedom. Rain didn’t stop them & it shouldn’t have stopped an American president.”

Nicholas Soames, a member of Britain’s Parliament and grandson of Winston Churchill, tweeted, “They died with their face to the foe and that pathetic inadequate @realDonaldTrump couldn’t even defy the weather to pay his respects to The Fallen.”

Trump, clearly feeling on the defensive days later, tried to explain himself on Tuesday, in a tweet.

“By the way, when the helicopter couldn’t fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving,” he wrote. “Secret Service said NO, too far from airport & big Paris shutdown. Speech next day at American Cemetary [sic] in pouring rain! Little reported-Fake News!”

In that tweet, Trump falsely described the weather at the Sunday visit to another U.S. cemetery. Rather than “pouring rain,” photos showed him standing without a hat or an umbrella under overcast skies when he delivered remarks, though he did grasp an umbrella at one point while paying tribute at one soldier’s grave.

Just as Trump was returning to Washington on Sunday evening, Pence was heading to Asia in the president’s place, and at his first stop greeted Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Trump’s absence, experts said, is notable, and a glaring affront to many Asian leaders.

“It matters more in Asia than other regions because ‘face’ is so important,” said Matthew P. Goodman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former White House coordinator for Asia-Pacific strategy during the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. “Your willingness to go out there is a sign you’re committed and not going is a sign you’re not.”

Putin is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, looking to expand his country’s influence in Asia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea are also attending regional summits. And China’s President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang are simultaneously attending meetings across the region looking to broaden their country’s influence in the South China Sea and expand multilateral trade agreements.

Although Trump is set to meet with Xi at the Group of 20 summit of wealthy countries this month in Buenos Aires, his absence from the major Indo-Pacific meetings for a second straight year will “have some consequences for our position and our interests in the region,” Goodman continued. “Other countries are going to move ahead without us.”

What makes Trump’s perceived snub to the Asian powers more significant is that it comes on the heels of his brief European trip, which showcased his growing isolation from transatlantic allies. French President Emmanuel Macron rebuked Trump in a speech, stating that “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism” as the U.S. president looked on sullenly.

Trump’s relations with Latin America, already strained, are little better after the White House last week announced that he was reneging for a second time on a commitment to visit Colombia. He had planned to go there later this month on his way back from the G-20 meetings.

In April, he’d sent Pence in his place to the Summit of the Americas in Peru, citing a need to remain in Washington to monitor the U.S. response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria. He’d planned to visit Bogota on the same trip.

This time around, there appeared to be no extenuating circumstances preventing a visit.

In a statement, the White House simply said, “President Trump’s schedule will not allow him to travel to Colombia later this month.”

[email protected]

@EliStokols

Thousands of Moroccans filled the streets of Rabat singing and waving flags after the UN Security Council adopted a resolution describing autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty as the most feasible solution to the decades-long territorial dispute. The US-drafted text provides international endorsement of Morocco in its dispute with the Algeria-backed Polisario Front.

When it comes to Proposition 50, Marcia Owens is a bit fuzzy on the details.

She knows, vaguely, it has something to do with how California draws the boundaries for its 52 congressional districts, a convoluted and arcane process that’s not exactly top of the mind for your average person. But Owens is abundantly clear when it comes to her intent in Tuesday’s special election.

“I’m voting to take power out of Trump’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people,” said Owens, 48, a vocational nurse in Riverside. “He’s making a lot of illogical decisions that are really wreaking havoc on our country. He’s not putting our interests first, making sure that an individual has food on the table, they can pay their rent, pay electric bills, pay for healthcare.”

Peter Arensburger, a fellow Democrat who also lives in Riverside, was blunter still.

President Trump, said the 55-year-old college professor, “is trying to rule as a dictator” and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to stop him.

So, Arensburger said, California voters will do it for them.

Or at least try.

“It’s a false equivalency,” he said, “to say that we need to do everything on an even keel in California, but Texas” — which redrew its political map to boost Republicans — “can do whatever they want.”

Proposition 50, which aims to deliver Democrats at least five more House seats in the 2026 midterm election, is either righteous payback or a grubby power grab.

A reasoned attempt to even things out in response to Texas’ attempt to nab five more congressional seats. Or a ruthless gambit to drive the California GOP to near-extinction.

It all depends on your perspective.

Above all, Proposition 50 has become a political ink-blot test; what many California voters see depends on, politically, where they stand.

Mary Ann Rounsavall thinks the measure is “horrible,” because that’s how the Fontana retiree feels about its chief proponent, Gavin Newsom.

“He’s a jerk,” the 75-year-old Republican fairly spat, as if the act of forming the governor’s name left a bad taste in her mouth. “No one believes anything he says.”

Timothy, a fellow Republican who withheld his last name to avoid online trolls, echoed the sentiment.

“It’s just Gavin Newsom playing political games,” said the 39-year-old warehouse manager, who commutes from West Covina to his job at a plumbing supplier in Ontario. “They always talk about Trump. ‘Trump, Trump, Trump.’ Get off of Trump. I’ve been hearing this crap ever since he started running.”

Riverside and San Bernardino counties form the heart of the Inland Empire. The next-door neighbors are politically purple: more Republican than the state as a whole, but not as conservative as California’s more rural reaches. That means neither party has an upper hand, a parity reflected in dozens of interviews with voters across the sprawling region.

On a recent smoggy morning, the hulking San Bernardino Mountains veiled by a gray-brown haze, Eric Lawson paused to offer his thoughts.

The 66-year-old independent has no use for politicians of any stripe. “They’re all crooks,” he said. “All of them.”

Lawson called Proposition 50 a waste of time and money.

Gerrymandering — the dark art of drawing political lines to benefit one party over another — is, as he pointed out, hardly new. (In fact, the term is rooted in the name of Elbridge Gerry, one of the nation’s founders.)

What has Lawson particularly steamed is the cost of “this stupid election,” which is pushing $300 million.

“We talk and talk and talk and we print money for all this talk,” said Lawson, who lives in Ontario and consults in the auto industry. “But that money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to go.”

Although sentiments were evenly split in those several dozen conversations, all indications suggest that Proposition 50 is headed toward passage Tuesday, possibly by a wide margin. After raising a tidal wave of cash, Newsom last week told small donors that’s enough, thanks. The opposition has all but given up and resigned itself to defeat.

It comes down to math. Proposition 50 has become a test of party muscle and a talisman of partisan faith and California has a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

Andrea Fisher, who opposes the initiative, is well aware of that fact. “I’m a conservative,” she said, “in a state that’s not very conservative.”

She has come to accept that reality, but fears things will get worse if Democrats have their way and slash California’s already-scanty Republican ranks on Capitol Hill. Among those targeted for ouster is Ken Calvert, a 16-term GOP incumbent who represents a good slice of Riverside County.

“I feel like it’s going to eliminate my voice,” said Fisher, 48, a food server at her daughter’s school in Riverside. “If I’m 40% of the vote” — roughly the percentage Trump received statewide in 2024 — “then we in that population should have fair representation. We’re still their constituents.” (In Riverside County, Trump edged Kamala Harris 49% to 48%.)

Amber Pelland says Proposition 50 will hurt voters by putting redistricting back into the hands of politicians.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Amber Pelland, 46, who works in the nonprofit field in Corona, feels by “sticking it to Trump” — a tagline in one of the TV ads supporting Proposition 50 — voters will be sticking it to themselves. Passage would erase the political map drawn by an independent commission, which voters empowered in 2010 for the express purpose of wrestling redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento.

“I don’t care if you hate the person or don’t hate the person,” said Pelland, a Republican who backs the president. “It’s just going to hurt voters by taking the power away from the people.”

Even some backers of Proposition 50 flinched at the notion of sidelining the redistricting commission and undoing its painstaking, nonpartisan work. What helps make it palatable, they said, is the requirement — written into the ballot measure — that congressional redistricting will revert to the commission after the 2030 census, when California’s next set of congressional maps is due to be drafted.

“I’m glad that it’s temporary because I don’t think redistricting should be done in order to give one political party greater power over another,” said Carole, a Riverside Democrat. “I think it’s something that should be decided over a long period and not in a rush.” (She also withheld her last name so her husband, who serves in the community, wouldn’t be hassled for her opinion, she said.)

Texas, Carole suggested, has forced California to act because of its extreme action, redistricting at mid-decade at Trump’s command. “It’s important to think about the country as a whole,” said the 51-year-old academic researcher, “and to respond to what’s being done, especially with the pressure coming from the White House.”

Felise Self-Visnic, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher, agreed.

She was shopping at a Trader Joe’s in Riverside in an orange ball cap that read “Human-Kind (Be Both).” Back home, in her garage-door window, is a poster that reads “No Kings.”

She described Proposition 50 as a stopgap measure that will return power to the commission once the urgency of today’s political upheaval has passed. But even if that wasn’t the case, the Democrat said, she would still vote in favor.

“Anything,” Self-Visnic said, “to fight fascism, which is where we’re heading.”

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

Tens of thousands of people in Sudan have fled el-Fasher and the advance of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in the Darfur region. Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan reports from a camp for displaced civilians in the neighbouring Northern State where people are in desperate need of assistance.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and a slew of other national and California Democrats on Saturday rallied supporters to stay fired up in seeking passage of a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the midterm elections.

While polling suggests Proposition 50 is likely to pass Tuesday, volunteers must continue knocking on doors, phone banking and motivating voters through Election Day, they said. Newsom told volunteers they ought to follow the model of sprinters, leaving it all on the field.

“We cannot afford to run the 90-yard dash. You Angelenos, you’ve got the Olympics coming in 2028. They do not run the 90-yard dash. They run the 110-yard dash. We have got to be at peak on Election Day,” Newsom told hundreds of supporters at the Convention Center in downtown Los Angeles. “We cannot take anything for granted.”

Hours earlier, Republican spoke out against the ballot measure at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach, before sending teams into neighborhoods to drum up votes for their side.

“What Proposition 50 will do is disenfranchise, meaning, disregard all Republicans in the state of California,” said state Assembly member Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach). “Ninety percent of 6 million [Californian Republicans] will be disenfranchised.”

Proposition 50 would redraw California’s congressional districts in an attempt to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. The effort was proposed by Newsom and other California Democrats in hope of blunting President Trump’s push in Texas and other GOP-led states to increase the number of Republicans elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm election. But even if voters approve the ballot measure that could flip five California districts currently represented by Republicans, it’s unclear whether that will be enough to shift control of the House unless there is a blue wave in the 2026 election.

The party that wins control of the House will shape Trump’s final two years in the White House — whether he is able to continue enacting his agenda or faces a spate of investigations and possibly another impeachment attempt.

The special election is among the costliest ballot measures in state history. More than $192 million has flowed into various campaign committees since state lawmakers voted in August to put the proposition on the ballot. Supporters of the redistricting effort have raised exponentially more money than opponents, and polling shows the proposition is likely to pass.

As of Friday, more than a quarter of the state’s 23 million registered voters had cast ballots, with Democrats outpacing Republicans.

Newsom was joined Saturday by Harris, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, other Democrats and labor leaders.

Harris, in a surprise appearance at the gathering, argued that the Trump administration is implementing long-sought GOP goals such as voter suppression.

“This fight is not about sitting by and complaining, ‘Oh, they’re cheating,’” the former vice president said. “It’s about recognizing what they are up to. There is an agenda that we are witnessing which feels chaotic, I know, but in fact, we are witnessing a high velocity event that is about the swift implementation of a plan that has been decades in the making.”

Several of the speakers referred to the immigration raids that started in Los Angeles in June and deep cuts to federal safety nets, including the nutrition assistance program for low-income families and a health coverage for seniors and the disabled.

“We know there’s so much on the line this Tuesday. And a reminder, Tuesday is not Election Day — it’s the last day to vote,” Padilla said. “Don’t wait till Tuesday. Get your ballots in folks…. As good as the polls look, we need to run up the score on this because the eyes of the country are going to be on California on Tuesday. And we need to win and we need to win big.”

Padilla, a typically staid legislator, then offered a modified riff of a lyric by rapper Ice Cube, who grew up in South Los Angeles.

“Donald Trump — you better check yourself before you wreck America,” said Padilla, who is considering running for governor next year.

Nearly 50 miles southeast, about 50 Republican canvassers fueled up on coffee and donuts, united over the brisk weather and annoyance about Newsom’s attempt to redraw California’s congressional districts.

Will O’Neill, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, equated this final push against Proposition 50 as the California GOP’s game 7 — a nod to tonight’s World Series battle between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Toronto Blue Jays.

“Orange County right now is the only county in Southern California that has a shot of having more Republicans than Democrats voting,” said O’Neill. “We expect that over the next three days, around 70% of everyone who votes is gonna vote ‘no’ on 50. But we need them to vote.”

Ariana Assenmacher, of California Young Republicans, center, organizes during a gathering of Republican Party members pressing to vote no on Proposition 50 in the upcoming California Statewide Special Election at John Wayne Park in Newport Beach on Saturday, November 1, 2025.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

O’Neill labeled the measure a “hyper-partisan power grab.” If Proposition 50 passes, it will dilute Republican power in Orange County by splitting communities and roping some residents into districts represented by Los Angeles County politicians.

Dixon also rallied volunteers — which included a handful of college students from across the state: “Be polite. Just say thank you very much. Just like Charlie Kirk would. Don’t [stimulate] an argument. Just be friendly.”

“They’re squeezing out what very little representation Republicans have in the state,” said Kristen Nicole Valle, president of the Orange County Young Republicans.

“We will not be hearing from 40% of Californians if Prop. 50 passes.”

Randall Avila, executive director of the Orange County GOP, said the measure disenfranchises Latino GOP voters like himself.

Nationally, Trump managed to gain 48% of the Latino vote, a Pew Research study showed, which proved crucial to his second presidential victory.

“Obviously our community has kind of shown we’re willing to switch parties and go another direction if that elected official or that party isn’t serving us,” said Avila. “So it’s unfortunate that some of those voices are now gonna be silenced with a predetermined winner in their district.”

Not all hope is lost for Republicans if Proposition 50 is approved, Avila said. A handful of seats could be snagged by Republicans, including the districts held by Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

“If the lines do change, that doesn’t mean we pack up and go home,” he said. “Just means we reorganize, we reconfigure things, and then we keep fighting.”