Poll

Aug. 20 (UPI) — The percentage of Americans who say they consume alcohol remains at record-low levels, according to a new survey by Gallup.

Some 54% of adults surveyed last month said they drink alcohol – the same as last year – and the lowest mark since the analytics firm started surveying Americans on the topic in 1939.

“We saw a significant decline in people’s use of alcohol last year, but whether that was a one-time reaction or a trend, we had to wait and see,” Gallup Director of U.S. Social Research Lydia Saad told Time. “This year’s result tells us that whatever is happening out there is a sustained change. Drinking has gone down across all age groups.”

The percentage of drinks began falling in 2022, when it was at 67%. In the mid-1970s, it was 71%.

A record low 13% said they drink too much sometimes. According to Gallup, the “decline in drinking since 2023 is evident across most demographic groups.”

They survey showed that the percentage of Republicans and independents said they drank has dropped more than 10%. Meanwhile, Democrats saw a 1% decline. Some 63% of Democrats said they drink, compared with 53% of Republicans and half of independents.

Increased public awareness of the risks of alcohol use may be a cause of Americans drinking less, the results of the poll indicated. Just over half of Americans this year said alcohol is “bad for health,” up from 26% in 2016.

This year, 86% of those surveyed said they were aware of recent studies on alcohol’s long-term effects, up from 79% two years ago.

“The decline in alcohol use coincides with a sharp increase in concern about the health risks of drinking,” Saad told Time.

Californians are more concerned about the Trump administration interfering in the state’s midterm elections than they are about voter fraud, noncitizens voting illegally or foreign interference, according to a new poll.

A majority of voters — 61% — identified potential federal interference as a “major concern” heading into November, slightly more than the 59% who cited possible foreign interference as such, according to the poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.

By comparison, 41% of California voters identified voter fraud and 37% identified noncitizens voting as major concerns, the poll found.

The polling reflects the liberal leanings of the state, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, as well as the nation’s hyperpartisan divide on voting issues and vulnerabilities.

That divide has been driven for years by President Trump’s relentless criticism of U.S. elections, particularly in large blue states such as California, and recently by his administration’s attempts to wrest control over voting processes from the states based on unverified claims of widespread fraud and the fierce pushback against those claims from California Democrats and other liberal leaders around the country.

The White House has dismissed concerns about interference and accused Democrats of obstructing its efforts to protect American elections from fraud, including through the proposed SAVE America Act — which would enforce strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters nationwide.

While 80% of Democratic respondents to the poll said potential federal interference in the state’s elections was a major concern, just 28% of Republican respondents identified it as such.

Voter fraud was identified as a major concern by 84% of Republican voters but just 21% of Democratic voters, the poll found. Noncitizens voting illegally also was identified as a major concern by 85% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats.

Republicans also have substantial concerns about the security of mail ballots and how slowly California counts its vote, while Democrats were far less concerned about those issues, the poll found.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said it clearly reflects the partisan divide around election issues and “shows that in this state, federal interference is a big deal — more so than in other places around the country.”

He called that a “big finding” in line with previous polls that found “Californians are very concerned about prioritizing efforts to defend democracy and to protect election systems,” including in the face of threats from Trump — who routinely has focused on the state in his regular attacks on election integrity.

“For 61% of Californians to say that’s a major concern to them in terms of the threats to the election system, I think that’s very newsworthy,” DiCamillo said.

He also noted the particularly stark difference between state Democrats and Republicans on the issue of noncitizens voting.

“Nearly 90% of Democrats say that’s not a concern, whereas 85% of Republicans feel it is,” he said. “Californians have a lot of noncitizens in the state, but Democrats don’t think they’re infecting the voter rolls, so they’re not concerned about it.”

That was striking, DiCamillo said, given how much Trump has pointed to California to claim that noncitizens are voting.

“Obviously, the Democrats are very strongly opposed to the president, what he’s trying to do, and the Republicans are supportive,” DiCamillo said.

Other findings in the poll also support that conclusion.

For instance, while Trump has claimed without evidence that mail ballots are a major source of fraud and their use should be reined in, the poll found that 72% of Californians approve of mail ballots as a primary method for voting in the state — with 58% saying they strongly approve.

California law requires every registered voter in the state to be sent a mail ballot, and more than 80% of voters have used such ballots in recent elections.

Trump also repeatedly has accused California officials of failing to secure state elections against fraud and of cheating as they count later-arriving mail ballots. But the poll found that Californians by greater than a 2-to-1 margin — 65% to 31% — are confident local election officials are accurately and fairly counting ballots. However, the poll did find that more than half of respondents, 53%, had concerns about delays in California’s vote-counting process.

Overall, 64% of respondents were confident in the integrity of the state’s election system, compared to 34% who were not.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, downplayed the threats of voter fraud and noncitizens voting in the state, but acknowledged they are real concerns for some voters — which is a problem in itself.

“I see election security as both a matter of actual security and perceived security. And the truth is that we have a great deal of actual security in California elections, but, unfortunately, that security is not being perceived by some voters,” she said. She attributed that in part to the “constant drumbeat that we’ve had now for a decade, coming from the occupant of the White House, that our elections are rigged.”

Alexander said California law requires registering voters to prove and attest to their identity and has multiple verification measures to ensure people casting ballots are who they say they are. She said there are “common sense” reasons why noncitizens do not try to vote — including that it requires them to turn over personal information and could be grounds for criminal charges and deportation, which is “a huge disincentive.”

Alexander also said Trump administration interference in the midterms is a real concern, but so is overhyping the threat to the point it discourages voters from casting ballots.

“Not to dismiss the threats — the threats are real — but the more we talk about them, the more we scare voters,” Alexander said. “I’ve encountered voters who’ve said this to me: ‘What’s the point in voting when they’re just gonna cheat?’ Or, you know: ‘It’s all rigged.’ And that’s part of the play here — is to scare people into thinking that voting doesn’t matter.”

To counter that, Alexander said it is “really important that people be aware that there are threats, but to not let those threats be debilitating or to allow them to dissuade people from wanting to participate.”

The poll surveyed 4,207 registered voters in California from Aug. 3 to 9, online in English and Spanish, and has an estimated margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

California voters are more inclined to back progressives running for office than mainstream Democrats, a new poll found, though a marked generational divide separates those who favor each camp.

Registered Democratic voters over 65 were overwhelmingly more inclined to support a candidate identified as a mainstream Democrat, whereas more voters under 40 favored those more aligned with the party’s left wing, including democratic socialists.

The results, from a new poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times, illustrate the highly visible midterm-season debates unfolding within the Democratic Party over age, ideology and the party’s future.

“There’s particular frustration among the younger voting population,” said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. “Their views of mainstream Democrats are not that positive, and that’s a long-term problem, I think, for the Democratic Party.”

The poll asked voters about how they perceived candidates described as a progressive, democratic socialist, mainstream Democrat, Republican and MAGA supporter. Voters were asked whether each label made them more inclined or less inclined to back a given candidate, or if they believed there was not much difference or had no opinion.

Among all California voters, a candidate described as “progressive” drew the broadest support — besting both mainstream Democrats and Republicans, as well as democratic socialists and members of President Trump’s MAGA movement. At 40%, support for progressive candidates registered just two percentage points above support for democratic socialists and within the poll’s margin of error, though fewer people felt negatively toward progressives than democratic socialists.

Among registered Democrats, the survey found 60% said they would be inclined to support a candidate identified as progressive; 58% felt the same when asked about a democratic socialist and 48% about a mainstream party member.

The polling offers a glimpse into how California voters feel about democratic socialism, the brand of liberal politics popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

The views among all California voters were split, with 38% saying they would be more inclined to support a candidate labeled as a democratic socialist and 38% saying they would be less inclined. That makes the concept both more polarizing and more popular than the idea of a mainstream Democrat.

“To us, it’s honestly an incredibly good thing to hear that by and large, California voters see democratic socialism as a preferable option,” said Misha Kesselman, who leads membership coordination at the California Democratic Socialists of America.

“Being only two percent behind a progressive Democrat is the perfect place for us to be and for our organization to organize from,” Kesselman added. “I don’t see this as our ceiling; this is a great floor for us to start running from.”

Notably, more voters, 36%, said they were less inclined to support a mainstream Democrat than those who said they’d be more inclined, 29%. Twenty-seven percent showed indifference, however, possibly demonstrating that most voters would be fine supporting them in a general election, said Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California.

The results could reflect a shift in labeling as much as in politics, Grose said, noting that most California Democrats now refer to themselves as progressive, a term that was not as popular 20 years ago, regardless of policy differences.

“Progressive Democrat in California has really in some ways become a mainstream Democrat, and then ‘mainstream’ is often associated with Washington,” Grose said, referring to the more moderate party establishment.

As the two parties compete for control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, the rise of democratic socialist ideas within the Democratic party has set off a debate among left-leaning leaders and voters about how best to counter Trump’s cultural dominance, appeal to disillusioned voters and create a winning presidential strategy for 2028.

The split does not fully fall along generational lines, but it often overlaps with the growing push by some younger candidates to oust veteran lawmakers, a debate over experience and seniority versus fresh blood.

Republicans have used the phenomenon as a key line of attack, as Trump and others have labeled Democrats as communists and extremists. In recent weeks, Trump argued that Democrats want to “destroy the traditional American way of life.”

“Sadly, young people have not been taught the truth about socialism and communism. It’s a dangerous road, and this is one of our efforts to make sure people know that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Saturday on Fox News, after launching a website last week dedicated to the idea that socialism and communism have failed.

Meanwhile, many establishment Democrats fear that a far-left candidate would be unable to win a general presidential election and worry a swing in that direction could jeopardize the party’s chances in 2028. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he does not support the Democratic Socialists of America agenda, further underscoring internal divisions.

Democratic socialism generally centers on an anti-capitalist agenda, including higher taxes for the wealthy and universal healthcare. Many progressive candidates support policy ideas backed by socialists but do not identify themselves as such.

A handful of high-profile progressive primary wins against Democrats backed by the establishment has supercharged the conversation in recent weeks, including this month in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, where progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated a moderate opponent.

But progressives have lost elsewhere, including in Wisconsin, where democratic socialist Francesca Hong last week was defeated in the gubernatorial primary by David Crowley, the more moderate Milwaukee County executive.

California was not host to that type of showdown this year, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, though progressive by national standards, was viewed by many left-leaning voters as a safer or more moderate primary choice. He faces Republican Steve Hilton in November.

In Los Angeles, however, the mayor’s race between incumbent Democrat Karen Bass and democratic socialist Nithya Raman is set to draw national attention. A handful of progressive candidates also advanced in House races, including Randy Villegas, who is challenging Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford); Mai Vang, challenging Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento); and Angela Gonzales-Torres, challenging Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Vang identifies as a democratic socialist.

The new polling also showed a generational divide among Republican voters: A higher share of older voters than younger said they would be more inclined to back a MAGA supporter, though all ages favored the Republican category over MAGA.

Seventy percent of GOP voters said a Republican label would make them more inclined to support a candidate, and 46% said the same of a MAGA label. Sixteen percent said they would be less inclined to vote for a candidate with a MAGA label and 29% said it didn’t make much difference.

Among California voters who eschew both the Democratic and Republican parties, either registered as no party preference or with other parties, a progressive candidate drew the most favorable reaction, but they also showed more support for a democratic socialist than a mainstream Democrat.

Those voters were not positively inclined toward right-leaning candidates, with 15% responding favorably to Republicans and 7% to MAGA.

In California, Democrats account for nearly 45% of all registered voters, compared to 25% who are Republican and almost 23% who don’t belong to either party, according the California Secretary of State’s office.

Whether voters’ shifting preferences for the progressive or democratic socialist labels translate into any different policy action from those who are elected is an open question, Grose said.

“The labels are changing things… but it’s not clear yet if it’s changing the actual ideology of voters and elected officials,” Grose said. “What the elected officials do in office who are Democrats, that remains to be seen.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Though I don’t regularly attend Mass, I fondly remember the two years in high school when I prepared for the sacrament of Communion.

In the basement of St. Boniface Church in Anaheim on weekday afternoons and weekend mornings in the mid-1990s, my sister, about 20 other teenagers and I learned about the tenets of our faith.

We were inculcated with the importance of charity, love toward all, good works and humility, and urged to carry those virtues into adulthood. I didn’t agree with everything our lay teachers espoused — why abortion should be outlawed, why necking was bad, why only men could become priests — but I learned enough important moral lessons that I still proudly call myself Catholic.

Confirmation is meant to bring recipients closer to God and “imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark,” according to the Vatican’s official guide to its doctrine. What especially stayed with my classmates and me was, well, us.

We were white, Filipino, Vietnamese and Latino, children of working-class parents and equals in the eyes of God. Church fairs were as likely to serve pancit and spring rolls as hamburgers and tacos. When we finally received confirmation at a special Mass at St. Boniface attended by then-Bishop Norman McFarland, we exemplified not just the future of the church but also the promise of a better tomorrow for the United States.

Our parish lived and practiced American Catholicism’s long tradition of welcoming the stranger, the outcast, the refugee — following the example and words of the Gospel we read every Sunday. But even as we committed ourselves to the path of Christ, politicians in California waged a war against illegal immigrants and anything that suggested diversity — a xenophobia that would culminate decades later with President Trump’s election.

Trump is a walking manifestation of the seven deadly sins, to the point that he has depicted himself as Jesus and a pope on social media. Nevertheless, a majority of Catholics — thankfully no one in my immediate family — voted for him in each of his three presidential elections, with support topping out at 55% in 2024, per the Pew Research Center.

Catholics were a key constituency in every sector Trump needed for his historic victory against Kamala Harris. Swing states with old-line communities like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Boom states like Nevada and Florida. And especially Latinos, who voted for Trump in numbers never before seen for a Republican presidential candidate. Latino Catholics went even harder for Trump: The Public Religion Research Institute found their support for him increased by 17 percentage points from 2016 to 2024, even as his white Catholic support dropped from 64% to 59%.

Issues from abortion to the economy to transgender rights spurred Catholics to side with Trump, but his hard-line stance against immigration was especially popular. As immigrant Catholics were being demonized, echoing previous eras of American history, too many Catholics sided with the demonizers.

Maria Marin and her husband, Martin Marin, pose with a cardboard cutout of Pope Leo XIV during the Archdiocese of Chicago’s celebration of Leo at Rate Field on June 14, 2025.

(Pat Nabong/Chicago Sun-Times via Associated Press)

A June 2024 survey by Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which tracks American Catholic life, showed that 43% of respondents supported lower levels of immigration. A month into Trump’s second term, 41% of American Catholics thought that increased immigration in recent years had changed the U.S. “for the worse,” compared with 33% who felt it made life better, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, I argued about the dignity of Venezuelan and Salvadoran migrants with people from my parents’ native ranchos in Mexico, who came to this country without papers and are regular churchgoers. I sighed in disappointment as former confirmation classmates whose refugee parents fled tyrannical rulers, just like the Holy Family, posted approvingly on social media about Trump’s vow to build a bigger, nastier border wall.

Catholics have frequently exemplified the best and worst tendencies of American society. We’ve been brutal conquistadors and the huddled masses yearning to be free, trailblazing politicians and the millions who stood silently during our church’s sex abuse scandals. Trump’s support among Catholics represented a new low. But by some miracle of God, more and more of those supporters are finally seeing him for who he is.

On Aug. 12 — the feast day of Jane Frances de Chantal, the patron saint of forgotten people — the Public Religion Research Institute released a survey showing that 62% of Catholics think unfavorably of Trump, while 57% oppose his handling of immigration, both legal and illegal. If this repentance transforms into votes against MAGA in the midterms, the rest of Trump’s presidency is doomed.

The poll offers no insight into why Catholic support for Trump has cratered. The easy explanation would be the president’s enmity toward Pope Leo XIV, who has preached a gospel of kindness toward the undocumented and spoken out against the quagmire in Iran. When the Trump administration invited the native-born Chicagoan to visit the U.S. for America’s 250th anniversary, Leo instead decided to spend his Fourth of July on Lampedusa, the Ellis Island of the Mediterranean.

But the poll noted that Leo’s predecessor, Pope Francis, had higher favorability ratings among American Catholics during the same time in their respective reigns — 90% to Leo’s 75%.

Trump’s popularity is also collapsing among Americans as a whole. Only about a third support him, according to an a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll — the poorest showing of his second term, matching the lowest numbers of his first term. But for Catholics, it’s not just high prices, the Iran War and Trump’s drift toward despotism that makes him so onerous.

The Catholics in his government, from Supreme Court justices to Cabinet members to Vice President JD Vance, are acting as a rubber stamp for an imperious ruler, instead of imitations of Christ. Trump’s immigration sweeps are hitting American Catholicism so hard that bishops have allowed the faithful to stay home instead of attending Mass.

What reason is there left for good Catholics to support Trump? If ever a group needed to break away from him, it’s us.

What’s been especially galling about Trump’s second term, from a Catholic perspective, is his gleeful cruelty.

Proverbs 21:13 states, “Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Conservatives who have criticized Pope Leo for taking on Trump over his nastiness toward the meek don’t get that his motive isn’t political — this has been standard Vatican doctrine going back to his namesake, Leo XIII. In an influential 1891 encyclical urging the world to stand by the working class, Leo XIII pointed out that sacrificing oneself “for the benefit of others, is man’s surest antidote against the insolence of the world and immoderate love of self.”

Is there any statement more contrary to MAGA than that?

Cardinals Robert McElroy, Christophe Pierre and Joseph Tobin and Archbishop Bernard Hebda speak to reporters after a Mass in solidarity with migrants at the Chapel of St. Thomas Aquinas on Feb. 27, 2026, in St. Paul, Minn.

(Mark Vancleave/Associated Press)

The Catholics who supported Trump may have forgotten Leo XIII’s words as they repeatedly voted for him. But that’s the beauty of our faith. We can admit our errors and seek to right them through another sacrament — confession.

“Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of,” reads the catechism of the Catholic Church. That way, people can “take responsibility” for their faults and reconcile with God “in order to make a new future possible.” And the way to do that is by “doing something more to make amends for the sin.”

Catholics are supposed to confess our sins privately. But we must repent of Trump publicly and loudly at the ballot box this November and urge others to follow.

We helped usher in Trump. We must now lead in exorcising him from American society once and for all.

When Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass amplified the results last week of a favorable political poll that turned out to be fake, she was inadvertently following in the footsteps of conservative Detroit singer Kid Rock.

In 2017, as Rock — real name Robert Ritchie — publicly contemplated a run for U.S. Senate is his home state of Michigan, he posted on social media the results of a poll conducted by a firm calling itself Delphi Analytica that showed him leading Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow.

But those results were bogus. The people behind Delphi Analytica took down their website and refused to be identified, telling a local reporter: “Thanks again and go kid rock.”

Little is known about who was responsible for a poll supposedly conducted by an outfit calling itself Median Strategies showing Bass with a wide lead in the L.A. mayoral race over Councilmember Nithya Raman.

The group told The Times on Monday that its results were also fake.

But the episode has revived questions about whether political polling can be trusted, particularly in light of several recent high-profile primary races in which the polls seemed to have gotten the results wrong.

In the Michigan Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, a number of preelection polls showed progressive Abdul El-Sayed holding a commanding, double-digit lead over Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), but on election night, El-Sayed eked out a one-point victory.

In Wisconsin, numerous polls showed progressive state Rep. Francesca Hong leading Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley in the Democratic primary for governor. Crowley narrowly defeated Hong in the primary.

Median Strategies — the entity behind the fake Los Angeles poll — claimed on social media that it had also conducted polling in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial race and that it had also gotten it wrong about Hong.

Polling in primary elections can be particularly difficult, because it can be hard to know who will actually show up on election day, said Christian Grose, a USC political science professor. Both Michigan and Wisconsin also hold open primaries, meaning that any voter can cast a ballot in a race, regardless of party affiliation, making it harder for pollsters to predict exactly who will cast a ballot on election day.

Experts say fake polls are exceedingly rare but that these recent election results highlight the differences between high- and low-quality polls and how much easier it has become to conduct less rigorous polling.

“The barriers to entry are a lot lower now than they were 20 to 30 years ago,” said Charles Franklin, a professor of law and public policy at Marquette Law School who conducts the Marquette Law School Poll.

Put simply, a poll is a series of questions asked of a sample of people in a given locality, state or country whose opinions are supposed to represent the attitudes of everyone in the coverage area of the poll. Pollsters typically weigh the responses they receive — sometimes amplifying the voices of respondents from a particular ethnic group, for example — to ensure that the results are representative of the population they are surveying.

For decades, survey respondents were typically contacted by phone.

That work was expensive, Franklin said.

“You needed a call center, you needed to hire interviewers and you needed some sort of data processing,” he said.

But now as modes of communication have changed — many people have ditched landlines and are hesitant to answer calls from unknown numbers on their cellphone — polling operations have adopted a wide variety of methods to try to contact survey respondents, including e-mail, text-messages and online surveys, which sometimes offer incentives to encourage participation.

Online polls can be conducted much more cheaply than polling using other modes of communication, but the quality can also vary widely.

Historically, most polls randomly contacted survey respondents, backed by research showing that a random sample of the population — adjusted appropriately by demographics and other factors — would give a more accurate picture of the public’s attitude on a particular question.

But not all online polling relies on a randomly selected group of respondents, and when respondents are offered an incentive — such as cash — to complete an online survey, it can lead to inaccurate results.

The Pew Research Center released a report in 2024 showing that these so-called opt-in surveys did a particularly bad job of capturing the attitudes of adults under 30 and Latino adults. Researchers at Pew, for example, asked respondents in one survey if they were licensed to operate a type of nuclear submarine. In the survey, 12% of respondents under 30 said yes. In reality, the share of people under 30 holding such a license “rounds to zero,” the report said.

While even legitimate pollsters can get election results wrong — a poll represents public opinion at the time it was taken, and that can change — experts say there are a few key things to look out for when vetting the quality of a survey.

“The more transparent a poll is — in terms of its data and methods — the more you should believe it,” said Grose, who also conducts the California Elections and Policy Poll.

Franklin said that pollsters with a track record are typically more trustworthy, as their future business and reputation relies on their accuracy.

He said that polling conducted by upstart organizations is not necessarily bad, but that the people conducting it don’t necessarily have the training or expertise of more established outfits.

Inaccurate polling can misinform voters and lead to election night surprises, but it can also have a corrosive effect on elections themselves.

“Polling can drive outcomes,” Grose said. “Favorable polls lead to more fundraising. There’s a bandwagon effect.”

Aug. 17 (UPI) — The percentage of U.S. adults who say they’ve taken part in any form of gambling over the past year has dropped from 64% in 2016 to 45% in 2026, a new Gallup poll released Monday said.

In almost every category in the poll, the percentage of people saying they’d taken part in a gambling activity dropped, with the three greatest drops coming among those who said they’ve purchased a state lottery ticket (49% to 31%), gambled in person at a casino (26% to 14%) or participated in an office pool on a sports event (15% to 7%).

“These lower reported gambling rates coincide with a decline in the percentage of Americans who say that gambling is ‘morally acceptable,’ from 67% in 2016 to a new low of 57% earlier this year,” Gallup said.

The poll found that reports of gambling were down among all major subgroups of Americans. About 54% of upper-income Americans (those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) said they gambled, compared to 45% of middle-income Americans (annual household income of $50,000 to $99,999) and 40% of lower-income adults (annual household income of less than $50,000).

About 49% of men said they gambled, compared to 40% of women. About 50% of older people (50 and older) said they gambled, compared to 41% of younger adults. Women ages 18 to 49 were the least likely group to say they gambled, about 35%.

In the history of the poll, first conducted on this subject in 1989, people have always been most likely to say they’ve participated in state lotteries, Gallup said. For the first 10 years, majorities said they’d played a state lottery. Percentages then fell to the high-40% range before the current lowpoint.

The peak in those reporting they’d gambled at a casino was in 2003, with 30% of people saying they’d done so. Gallup said the decline in in-person gambling might be due to the rise of online gambling. While only 4% said they’ve done so, it was the only category without a percentage decline.

Gallup also said that reported gambling rates are higher in online surveys than in this recent poll, which was conducted by telephone interviews with live interviewers. A parallel web survey by Gallup in June showed greater amounts of those saying they’d gambled in the past year across all 13 categories and a 53% overall percentage.

Gallup surveyed 2,201 adults between June 1-July 19 with a 3% margin of error.

NEW YORK — Ohio State and Oregon were 1-2 in The Associated Press Top 25 released Monday, giving the Big Ten Conference the top two teams in the preseason rankings for the first time in 65 years and just the second time ever.

The Buckeyes received 40 first-place votes and Oregon received 14 in voting by 69 media members who cover college football.

Ohio State will go into a season No. 1 for the ninth time, and first since 2015. The Buckeyes are now tied with Alabama for second-most preseason No. 1 rankings behind Oklahoma’s 10.

Oregon has its highest preseason ranking in program history after having opened No. 3 four times.

Georgia, Notre Dame and Texas round out the top five. Defending national champion Indiana starts at No. 6 and is followed by Miami, Texas A&M, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

Notre Dame received six first-place votes, Indiana got eight and Miami one.

This is the first year a conference has held down the top two spots in the preseason poll since Oklahoma and Nebraska of the Big Eight were 1-2 in 1987.

The last time the Big Ten had the Nos. 1 and 2 teams in the preseason was 1961, when Iowa and Ohio State topped the poll. The Hawkeyes lost four of their last five games after a 4-0 start and finished that season unranked. The Buckeyes went 8-0-1 and ended the season No. 2 behind unbeaten Alabama.

The Big Ten has won three straight College Football Playoff championships (Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana) and will be going for an unprecedented fourth straight national title. This is the fourth consecutive year the Big Ten has had two of the top three teams in the preseason rankings.

The Southeastern Conference leads all conferences with nine teams in the preseason Top 25, marking the third straight year it has had at least that many. Five of the top 10 teams are from the SEC for the first time since 2013.

Four Big 12 teams are ranked, with conference champion Texas Tech the highest at No. 12. The Atlantic Coast Conference has three ranked teams, with the Hurricanes joined by No. 19 SMU and No. 24 Louisville. There are no Group of Six schools in the Top 25.

Top-ranked Buckeyes

The offense is loaded. Heisman Trophy finalist Julian Sayin was the most accurate passer in the nation by a wide margin last season, Jeremiah Smith leads the nation in receiving yards and receiving touchdowns over the last two years and Bo Jackson is coming off a 1,000-yard rushing season as a freshman.

There is little concern about the defense even though eight starters must be replaced for a second straight year. At least six transfers are projected to start or play major roles.

Ohio State will get tested early and often. The Buckeyes visit Texas on Sept. 12 and five of their nine conference games are against preseason ranked teams, including at Indiana and against Oregon at home.

The Buckeyes have ended a season No. 1 in the AP poll six times (1942, 1954, 1968, 2002, 2014, 2024).

Bulldogs best of the SEC

The beat goes on for Kirby Smart’s Georgia Bulldogs. They’re in the preseason top five for the ninth straight year. The two-time defending SEC champion Bulldogs are favored to play in a sixth straight conference title game and appear in the CFP for the sixth time in 10 years.

Texas, the preseason No. 1 last year, opens in the top five for the third straight year. No. 8 Texas A&M is in the preseason top 10 for the first time since it was No. 6 in 2022, the year that marked the beginning of the end for coach Jimbo Fisher.

Pete Golding’s first full season as Mississippi head coach starts with the No. 9 Rebels in the preseason top 10 for the second time in three years and third time since 1970. No. 10 Oklahoma is in the preseason top 10 for the first time since 2022, when it was in the Big 12.

What about the Hoosiers?

Indiana is the seventh returning national champion in 40 years, and second in three years, to be ranked outside the top five in the preseason (Michigan went into the 2024 season ranked No. 9 after winning the national title).

The Hoosiers became the first team in the modern era to go 16-0, and they return lots of talent and signed a top-10 transfer class. The move from Heisman Trophy winner and No. 1 NFL draft pick Fernando Mendoza to TCU transfer Josh Hoover at quarterback apparently put doubts in the minds of voters.

Poll nuggets

—USC, which landed the nation’s top recruiting class during the offseason, is ranked No. 15 in the preason poll.

— Ohio State will try to become the 12th team to start and finish No. 1 since the AP preseason poll debuted in 1950. The last team to do it was Alabama in 2017.

— Notre Dame has its highest preseason ranking since it was No. 2 in 2006. The Fighting Irish, who have a Heisman candidate in quarterback CJ Carr, bring a 10-game winning streak into the season and are still smarting from being left out of the playoff.

— Lane Kiffin’s first LSU team is No. 11 after finishing 7-6 and unranked under Brian Kelly and Frank Wilson.

— Ten of the 12 CFP teams last season are ranked. The two that aren’t are James Madison and Tulane from the Group of Six.

— No. 23 Houston has its first preseason ranking in four years and third since 1991.

Full AP preseason top 25 poll

1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. Georgia
4. Notre Dame
5. Texas
6. Indiana
7. Miami
8. Texas A&M
9. Mississippi
10. Oklahoma
11. LSU
12. Texas Tech
13. Alabama
14. BYU
15. USC
16. Michigan
17. Washington
18. Penn State
19. SMU
20. Tennessee
21. Utah
22. Iowa
23. Houston
24. Louisville
25. Missouri

Olson writes for the Associated Press.

California voters are sharply divided over a ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal already triggering a fierce and expensive political fight as the November election approaches, according to a poll released Friday.

More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.

The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.

Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.

“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”

The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.

Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.

Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.

The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.

Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.

The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.

Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.

“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”

Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.

“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

SACRAMENTO — As the campaign for California governor heads into the general election, Democrat Xavier Becerra maintains a strong lead over Republican Steve Hilton, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Buoyed by the state’s liberal voting base, Becerra had support from 55% of likely voters surveyed — compared with Hilton’s 37%. The remaining 7% were undecided.

Like in a previous IGS poll conducted in late May, support for each candidate falls overwhelmingly along partisan lines: 88% of Democrats prefer Becerra and 91% of Republicans plan to back Hilton. No-party-preference voters also lean heavily toward Becerra, a former Biden administration Cabinet member, 58% to Hilton’s 30%.

The two will face off in the Nov. 3 general election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred from running again and considering a 2028 bid for president. Becerra, whose resume includes stints as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and state attorney general, is heavily favored to win the seat over Hilton, a former Fox News host who advised a prime minister in his native Britain.

“After the unsettled and chaotic primary, this is shaping up to be a fairly standard California general election, where Democrats enjoy a comfortable edge statewide,” said Eric Schickler, a political science professor and IGS co-director. “Hilton would need to make major inroads among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to make this a highly competitive race.”

According to the poll, majorities of voters across age, gender and racial categories prefer Becerra — with particularly strong support among women, younger voters and Black Californians.

Becerra emerged from the primary ahead of more progressive opponents, including billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and quickly earned the backing of their onetime supporters, said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

“These are people who say, ‘I identify as a progressive.’ ‘I identify as a democratic socialist.’ They’re overwhelmingly for Becerra, and it’s mainly because they really don’t think very much of the Republicans as a party. It’s not so much about Hilton himself,” DiCamillo said.

Regionally, the poll found voters in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, along with the Bay Area and Central Coast, prefer Becerra. Hilton leads in the state’s more sparsely populated and conservative-leaning areas, including the Central Valley and North Coast/Sierra region.

Politically purple Orange County and the economically stressed Inland Empire are more closely divided but lean toward Hilton.

When asked why they support each candidate, voters largely cited conventional partisan issues.

More than half of Hilton backers, 55%, pointed to his support for traditionally Republican policies such as cutting taxes and reducing government regulation. It was followed by 28% who said they prefer Hilton because he is not part of California’s political establishment.

Hilton’s platform includes making Californians’ first $150,000 in annual earnings tax-free, slashing government regulations and ramping up oil production in hopes of achieving $3-per-gallon gas prices.

“Those are the benefits, but the underlying mission that I’ve set [for] myself as the next governor is to transform our business climate to make California competitive again, so that we do get the investment and the job creation and start to turn things around. I think it’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction,” Hilton said Tuesday during a political conference in Sacramento.

Becerra supporters were evenly divided over their top reasons for supporting him; 38% cited his support for Democratic policies such as expanding healthcare and protecting LGBTQ+ rights, while another 38% expect him to aggressively fight the Trump administration.

The poll suggests that, in California, President Trump factors more heavily into Democratic voters’ political decisions than Republicans’.

“One of the reasons Becerra is doing so well is because of his opposition to Trump,” DiCamillo said. “For Hilton supporters, not so much. His endorsement by the president is only cited by 4% as a reason why they’re supporting Hilton.”

The former Health secretary has an extensive plan to lower healthcare costs and frequently touts the more than 120 lawsuits he filed as California attorney general against the first Trump administration. At the Tuesday political event hosted by Politico, Becerra said, “California will become the backstop for healthcare” after Trump signed a tax bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

To prevent an estimated 2 million people from losing their health insurance because of the cuts and rising premiums, Becerra pitched a deal directly to insurance companies: “I will ensure people stay covered. You ensure that you help me reduce the cost. I ensure that you get paid.”

Thirteen percent said they’re supporting Becerra because he is a Democrat and 7% said the same about Hilton’s Republican affiliation.

Just 4% of Latino respondents and 1% of the total sample of likely voters said they would vote for Becerra because he is a Latino candidate and a child of immigrants.

Each candidate saw a small bump in support since the May poll, which asked registered voters just before the primary election to pick between them in a then-hypothetical matchup. In that survey, 52% chose Becerra and 31% supported Hilton.

Just under half of voters, 49%, have a favorable opinion of Becerra while 43% have an unfavorable view. Hilton’s favorability rating is underwater, with 39% of likely voters viewing him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

The numbers present a challenge for Hilton, who is trying to overcome the state’s pronounced Democratic tilt by appealing to independent voters frustrated with issues such as homelessness and California’s high cost of living.

“That might, for him, be the swing block,” DiCamillo said. “But among no-party-preference voters, his image rating is negative, 59% to 31%, whereas Becerra’s image rating is pretty much the same as it is statewide, which is positive.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Aug. 3 to 9. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 2,310 respondents considered likely voters in the November election, out of a larger group of 4,207 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

While FBI poll monitoring is not new, US lawmakers raise alarm amid Trump’s years-long, evidenceless claims of election fraud.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it has sent federal monitors to polls in four Democratic-leaning cities in Michigan, amid warnings that the administration of United States President Donald Trump could use such monitors for partisan aims.

The DOJ announced the monitors would be present during Michigan’s primary vote on Tuesday as part of an effort to “ensure free and fair elections nationwide”, according to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.

“The Department of Justice is devoting extensive resources to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory monitoring,” it said.

While the department has for decades overseen an election monitoring programme to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws, lawmakers and advocates have raised concerns over how such a programme could be used under the current administration.

Trump has for years alleged, without evidence, that US elections have been marred by widespread fraud. He has never acknowledged his 2020 loss to US President Joe Biden.

Michigan has played a major role in those claims.

In a primetime speech delivered in mid-July, Trump re-upped a previously concluded probe into alleged voter fraud in the city of Muskegon as he called on the FBI to reinvestigate the case. Local officials had already determined that several voter registration forms had been fraudulently filled out in the city by employees of a consulting firm attempting to falsely reach their quotas.

No fraudulent ballots were cast in connection with the fake voter registration forms. State officials have highlighted the situation as proof of the efficacy of their election security practices.

The announcement on Tuesday came weeks after the Department of Justice said it planned to monitor 15 jurisdictions across six states: Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia. The DOJ has said it will expand the use of monitors leading into November.

The department did not give a reason for why the four Michigan cities –  Detroit, Hamtramck, Lansing, and East Lansing – were selected.

Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing are all heavily Democratic leaning. Hamtramck, considered the first Muslim-majority city in the US, has historically leaned Democratic, but has shifted increasingly Republican in recent years.

Residents of the state on Tuesday were casting ballots to determine party nominees in local, state and US Congressional races for the midterm election in November.

Key races include a fierce Democratic Senate race, with progressive Abdul El-Sayed hoping to defeat US Representative Haley Stevens, widely viewed as a weathervane for the party’s future.

Voters will also decide the candidates for the gubernatorial race, with Trump-backed US Representative John James facing off with former presidential candidate Perry Johnson on the Republican side, as Democrat Jocelyn Benson, the current Michigan state secretary, is expected to sail to victory in her party’s primary.

Democrats ask for assurances

In a letter to the Department of Justice dated Monday, 10 Democratic senators asked for assurances that FBI monitors deployed across the country will not “target jurisdictions in a partisan manner; discourage voter participation or interfere with the voting process; or pressure, harass, or interfere with state and local election officials as they do their jobs”.

They noted the wider context in which the monitors are being deployed, including efforts by the Trump administration to obtain state voter rolls. On Tuesday, a judge ruled the administration could not access Colorado’s voter data, the latest in a string of similar rulings.

Trump has also called for Republicans to “nationalise” elections. Under the US Constitution, state governments administer elections, in a system of decentralisation that advocates have long argued protects against wholesale interference.

The senators said that the DOJ has characterised the monitors as “routine” and “non-partisan”.

“However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge concerns that monitors are being deployed disproportionately to jurisdictions in states governed by Democratic leaders or with Democratic chief election officials,” they wrote.

“Moreover, election monitors are being deployed in the context of President Trump’s ongoing threats to nationalise, militarise, and otherwise interfere with the conduct of free and fair elections.”

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to revise and ultimately loosen state prison parole rules appears to be on its way to passage on Nov. 8, as a new poll finds strong support across a wide swath of California voters.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters in a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times survey backed Brown’s Proposition 57, and only 31% were opposed. While earlier polling showed an even wider lead, the proposal has had consistently solid backing throughout the campaign season.

“Proposition 57 should pass comfortably,” said Ben Winston of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the Democratic pollster who makes up the bipartisan team that conducts the survey.

The measure, which would allow more prisoners a chance at parole and give additional authority to prison officials to award good-behavior credits, has wide appeal among the state’s young voters.

As many as two-thirds of the poll’s likely voters under the age of 40 supported Proposition 57, with the highest backing from younger white Californians. Support was at, or surpassed, the 60% threshold among Democrats, white voters who are “independent” of any political party and Latino women.

The only serious opposition came from registered Republicans, self-described conservatives and older, non-college-educated voters.

Young voters may be a harbinger of a dramatic long-term shift on crime and punishment in a state where long prison sentences for sensationalized crimes were once the hallmark of successful campaigns.

“This generation of California voters simply wasn’t alive when a tough-on-crime approach was necessary to win a statewide election,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics.

Political analysts also point to a potential correlation in the poll between supporters of the parole overhaul and those who support Proposition 64, the effort to fully legalize marijuana. Seventy-one percent of the likely voters who support the marijuana measure also support Proposition 57.

“I think there are parallel issues here,” said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist. “They’re making the point that the criminal justice system is broken.”

The ballot box guide to California’s propositions »

Brown has fought bitterly with district attorneys across California over Proposition 57, which he contends is simply offering the chance for a prisoner’s request to be heard by the state Board of Parole Hearings. Under the measure, parole commissioners could consider releasing any prisoner whose primary sentence was not for one of the state’s specifically listed violent crimes, and then only for secondary crimes or enhancements added at the time of sentencing.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, argue that Proposition 57 would almost certainly lead to the early release of dangerous criminals. And they believe the initiative’s expansion of good-behavior credits would mean less time behind bars even for high-risk predators.

The USC/Times poll, like most nonpartisan surveys, tested voter opinions by using Proposition 57’s official ballot title and summary — a description that has become a bone of contention during the campaign.

“The ballot title and summary is a gross and blatant misrepresentation of what this measure would do,” said Merced County Dist. Atty. Larry Morse. “It is incredibly dishonest.”

Law enforcement opponents dispute that new parole eligibility would be given only to offender, who are “nonviolent,” a word that Morse said he believes downplays the threat and thus artificially inflates any estimates of true voter support for the governor’s policy proposal.

“He knows damn good and well this applies to crimes that anyone would see as violent,” Morse said of Brown.

Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Proposition 57 campaign, said the measure is “exactly what voters want in a public safety policy — a focus on keeping dangerous offenders locked up while rehabilitating nonviolent offenders before they get out.”

While most of the focus is on the impact of revising prison parole procedures, Proposition 57 also would revoke provisions of a 2000 ballot measure that has sent some juvenile defendants into adult courtrooms. Prosecutors helped lead the campaign for that proposal 16 years ago, but Morse said he and other district attorneys now agree those teenagers should remain in the juvenile justice system.

Sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter »

The survey of 1,500 registered voters was conducted for USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint. Support for the ballot initiative was almost identical among the entire sample — 58% in favor — as it was among likely voters.

The poll results come as both sides in the Proposition 57 campaign ramp up efforts to persuade voters. Brown has raised more than $19.7 million in support of the measure, with the largest share of that money spent during the spring on gathering signatures to quickly qualify the initiative for the ballot after skirmishes in court over whether it was properly vetted under state election law. The governor’s effort had enough money left over for campaign mailers and a statewide radio ad blitz, while opponents, having raised less than $1.4 million, have had fewer opportunities.

That imbalance may help explain another strong marker for the initiative in the poll: It was winning with 63% of voters who said they already have cast a ballot.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

ALSO:

Detailed poll results

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Prop 57 is a parole showdown with prosecutors

What you need to know about the 17 propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot

Track news on California ballot measures and campaigns

Democratic socialists face mixed understanding, with 49 percent of Americans saying they grasp their policies, poll shows.

Leftist candidates in the United States aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) movement have been defeating centrist Democrats in primary elections this year. However, large swaths of the country still don’t know what ⁠the movement stands for, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Members of the DSA, an activist organisation whose stated mission is to support workers gaining power through democratic means, feature prominent politicians such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Other Democratic Party DSA members have also won in recent political races across the US.

The three-day Reuters/Ipsos poll, which concluded on Sunday, found that 49 percent ‌of Americans say they understand democratic socialist policies while 47 percent say they do not, underscoring the challenges ahead for America’s anti-establishment left.

Asked if democratic socialists have good ideas or not, some 27 percent of respondents said they have at least some, while 51 percent said there were few, if any, and 20 percent said they weren’t sure.

People have a similar assessment of the ideas of MAGA Republicans, President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” political base. Some 27 percent of poll respondents said MAGA Republicans have at least some good ideas, while 57 percent saw few or no good ideas from ⁠MAGA and 13 percent weren’t sure.

Prominent DSA member Mamdani, who was elected in 2025, endorsed other DSA members in New York City who went on to win their respective primaries in June. Other wins by DSA members include races in Colorado and in California.

Trump has ‌seized on the movement’s rise to try to falsely paint all Democrats – including those unaffiliated with the democratic socialist movement – as “hardcore, godless communists”. The administration released a 100-page report earlier this month tying left-wing advocacy groups in the US to Cuba – often relying on circumstantial and ideological links, rather than direct connections.

Democratic socialists advocate pursuing progressive policies through elections. In contrast, communism seeks to abolish private ownership of property ‌and ‌create a classless society – ideas that the democratic socialists seeking election reject.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted online, surveyed 1,248 US adults nationwide and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

In a speech to the nation Thursday evening, President Trump said Americans deserve secure elections, and he claimed to be using federal authority to prevent them from being “stolen.”

In fact, one of the strongest security features of U.S. elections is the fact that they aren’t conducted at the federal level. America votes in more than 10,000 different election jurisdictions, each with different rules set by state and sometimes local governments.

That structure makes the nation’s elections extraordinarily complicated — and also safe from widespread fraud. And when misconduct does happen — rarely — security protocols frequently catch it.

Decentralized elections date back to the nation’s founding

America’s highly decentralized system of voting exists because the nation’s Founding Fathers gave authority over elections to the states, rather than the federal government. While Congress has the power to regulate elections — and has used that authority to pass such laws as the Voting Rights Act — the Constitution makes clear that states have primary authority to set the “times, places and manner” for elections.

There also is no national election agency that administers the presidential contest, something that’s different from many other countries. And when it comes to doing the day-to-day work of running an election, the responsibility falls to officials at the local level — usually a clerk or election supervisor — with help from staff and volunteers.

While differences in election laws can get confusing, election security experts say this structure is a strength. That’s because to pull off stealing a presidential election — as Trump falsely claims was done to him in 2020 — it would require large numbers of election workers in the most competitive counties across the country who are willing to risk prosecution, prison time and fines while working with officials from both parties willing to look the other way. And everyone somehow would have to keep quiet — a highly unlikely scenario.

There are also shared practices and security measures in place across the country that together work to ensure that only eligible voters can cast a ballot and only one ballot is counted for each.

Voter fraud can happen, but it’s rare and there are safeguards to catch it

Most Americans by now have probably heard stories about someone casting multiple ballots, or voting in the name of dead relatives, or stealing mail ballots from mailboxes.

When these incidents happen, they are often caught and prosecuted.

Voting more than once, tampering with ballots, lying about your residence to vote somewhere else or casting someone else’s ballot are crimes that can be punished with hefty fines and prison time. Non-U.S. citizens who break election laws can be deported.

For anyone still motivated to cheat, election systems in the United States are designed with multiple layers of protection and transparency intended to stand in the way.

For example, for in-person voting, most states either require or request voters provide some sort of identification at the polls. Others require voters to verify who they are in another way, such as stating their name and address, signing a poll book or signing an affidavit.

For absentee voting, all states require a voter’s signature, and many states have further precautions, such as having bipartisan teams compare the signature with other signatures on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.

That means even if a ballot is erroneously sent to someone’s past address and the current resident mails it in, there are checks to alert election workers to the foul play.

AP review found there was too little voter fraud to tip the 2020 election

Trump has spent six years insisting he won the 2020 election, a campaign he lost to former President Joe Biden.

An Associated Press review in 2021 dug into every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states that Trump disputed. It found fewer than 475 cases — a number that would have made no difference in that race.

Allegations from Trump of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, told the AP that no proof of widespread voter fraud had been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said at the time.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a commanding lead in the California governor’s race in a new poll, which also shows broad voter support for a ballot proposition to reform the state’s landmark environmental law to speed up housing and infrastructure.

The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, released Wednesday night, focused primarily on questions related to climate change and environmental policies.

The results show Californians have a strong distaste for building data centers for artificial intelligence technology, and largely favor the state’s efforts to protect the environment and cut emissions — with some exceptions.

The survey showed Becerra with a big lead over Republican Steve Hilton in the race to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. Becerra, a longtime Democratic officeholder, received support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton, a populist conservative who once advised a British prime minister.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in L.A. on Wednesday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The results are not surprising in a state where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republicans. The GOP has not won a statewide election since 2008.

Just 2% of likely voters said they were unsure which candidate to support in the November election. The poll results skewed heavily partisan, with more than 9 in 10 Democratic and Republican voters picking their party’s respective candidate. Most independent voters leaned toward Becerra, 60%, over Hilton, 34%.

The results are similar to data from a poll conducted just before the June 2 primary election that asked voters to pick between the two candidates. In that survey, 52% said they supported Becerra and 31% were for Hilton.

In a statement Wednesday, Hilton characterized the race as “wide open,” contending that Becerra’s support was weaker than the poll’s headline figures would indicate.

“Instead of a 36-year career politician, we need a positive, energetic problem-solver with business experience and plans to make our state ‘Califordable’ — that’s me,” Hilton said.

Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement that “Californians got to know Xavier Becerra during the primary, and they’re ready to make him their next governor. We’re keeping our eyes on the prize — hitting the trail every day ’til November to turn that support into votes.”

Support for CEQA reform

A ballot measure aimed at reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up construction notched a strong showing in the poll.

Nearly three-quarters of likely voters, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, said that they would vote for Proposition 45. The measure would shorten windows for environmental review, public comment and legal challenges for certain housing, transportation, water infrastructure and other projects.

“At this early stage in the campaign, California voters are feeling more aligned with Democratic candidates on the environment, and it shows in the polling,” said PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “But strong support for Proposition 45 reveals their desire to balance environmental priorities with housing and infrastructure needs.”

Strong data center opposition

The poll found large majorities of Californians do not want new data centers to support the AI boom built in their area; 44% of adults say they “strongly oppose” such projects, and 29% “somewhat oppose” them.

The majority opposition holds across political parties, geographic regions, gender, race and income. It’s especially pronounced in the Inland Empire, where plans for a 950,000-square-foot data center came to a halt after fierce resident pushback. Three-quarters of people surveyed in that region said they oppose building new data centers.

“Every day, we are hearing about how local communities across the nation are responding to plans for data centers,” Baldassare said. “Californians have weighed in and they share this growing concern.”

Support for environmental policies — except if they cost more

The poll also shows strong, if somewhat qualified, support for California’s efforts to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.

Three-quarters of adults said policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been a good thing overall, and 65% said they support California leaders’ efforts to make their own environmental policies separate from the federal government.

While most respondents — 62% — said they favor a law requiring 100% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources within the next two decades, just 38% said they were willing to pay more for electricity sourced from renewables.

“With energy prices spiking and affordability a growing concern, Californians are just not willing to pay more for renewable energy,” Baldassare said. A near-unanimous majority, 96%, said the cost of energy — including gasoline, natural gas and electricity — is a problem.

Newsom’s move to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 also appears to have fallen out of favor. Two-thirds of Californians oppose the policy, a significant slip in approval from 2021, when a PPIC survey showed 49% supported the move.

Still, majorities of likely voters — 53% and 51%, respectively — said they approve of Newsom’s and the state Legislature’s handling of environmental issues.

At 28%, President Trump’s approval rating on the environment was much lower. In his second term, Trump has moved to slash environmental regulations, including easing pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants and pushing for oil drilling off California’s coast.

“Given this ratings gap, it’s not surprising that Californians want to see the state take the lead on climate change policy,” Baldassare said.

The survey polled 1,578 California adults, 1,003 of whom were likely voters, in English and Spanish from June 29 to July 6 and had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points in either direction.

A Seoul district court on Monday sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to two years in prison after finding him partially guilty of accepting illegal political funds in the form of free opinion polls from a self-proclaimed power broker.

The Seoul Central District Court convicted the jailed former president on charges of violating the Political Funds Act in a ruling that marked a departure from a separate trial where his wife was acquitted on the same charges.

Special counsel Min Joong-ki’s team earlier indicted Yoon on charges of colluding with his wife, former first lady Kim Keon Hee, and receiving 58 opinion polls worth about 270 million won (US$180,100) in total for free from the power broker, Myung Tae-kyun, between April 2021 and March 2022.

In its ruling, the court recognized that Yoon had received 14 opinion polls from Myung for free over the period, sentencing him to prison and ordering a forfeiture of 13.96 million won.

It recognized the special counsel team’s argument that Yoon had promised to support former Rep. Kim Young-sun’s nomination as a candidate for the conservative People Power Party in the parliamentary by-elections in June 2022 in exchange for the opinion polls.

“The defendant’s actions sowed distrust in politics and undermined the public trust in the development of democracy,” the court said. “A punishment commensurate with the wrongdoing is inevitable.”

The court also sentenced Myung to 18 months in prison on the charges.

The special counsel team had sought a four-year prison sentence for Yoon and a three-year term for Myung.

The ruling diverged from an appellate court’s acquittal of Yoon’s wife on charges of accepting free opinion polls from Myung in a separate trial.

In Kim’s acquittal in April, the Seoul High Court ruled the couple could not be seen as profiting off the opinion polls as Myung had provided them to other people as well. Min’s team has appealed that ruling.

After the ruling, Yoon’s lawyers vowed to appeal, saying the verdict was “difficult to understand” given the former first lady’s acquittal in her trial.

The special counsel team called the latest ruling “very meaningful,” noting the bench appeared to have closely considered the various evidence and arguments presented in its judgment.

It marked the latest conviction for Yoon, who has been standing multiple trials following his failed 2024 martial law bid. In February, Yoon was sentenced to life imprisonment for leading an insurrection through his short-lived imposition of martial law.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Gallup survey says the financial toll of scams in the United States in 2025 was estimated at $68bn.

A tenth of adults in the United States directly or indirectly experienced a scam last year, adversely affecting their financial and emotional wellbeing, according to a new Gallup poll.

The report by Gallup released on Tuesday indicated that 6 percent of US adults were personally scammed in 2025, while 4 percent experienced a scam indirectly, with someone in their household affected.

Scams are a widespread problem in the country, with Gallup noting that they can leave victims more cautious, less likely to shop online, and more hesitant to engage with unfamiliar businesses.

“The data suggest the cost of scams extends beyond what can be measured in dollars, as nearly three in four victims say the experience negatively affected their mental health or wellbeing,” the report stated.

The poll suggested that people from lower-income households were more likely than wealthier people to report being scammed.

Adults with less than a bachelor’s degree were more likely to report being scammed than those with a bachelor’s degree or higher – 7 percent versus 4 percent, Gallup found.

Black (8 percent) and Hispanic (9 percent) adults were also more likely than white adults (5 percent) to say they had been scammed. However, victimisation rates did not differ by age, the report stated.

In more than half of the scams reported to Gallup, people lost $500 or less. However, the average loss per scam was $5,578, as some scams reached tens of thousands of dollars, the report said.

In total, the financial toll of scams in 2025 was estimated at $68bn, amounting to an average of $186m stolen each day.

One in five adults who were personally victimised or live in a household that was scammed in 2025 reported that it created a severe financial hardship for their household, with households earning less than $80,000 annually hit harder.

Emotional damage from scams, however, was more widespread, the survey indicated.

Among adults in households affected by scams, more than a quarter (28 percent) said the experience had a very negative impact on their mental health or wellbeing, while a further 45 percent describe the impact as moderately negative. Overall, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of people reported that the scam adversely affected their mental health or wellbeing.

The emotional toll was also pervasive among those who live with someone who was scammed, the survey suggested.

The poll also indicated that the lifetime prevalence of being scammed is much higher than the 6 percent of people who were in 2025. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of adults report having been scammed at some point in their lives, including 10 percent who said that they had fallen victim multiple times.

“At a time when institutional trust in the US is already weak, the prevalence of scams represents not just a personal financial threat, but a broader erosion of confidence in the businesses and systems used in everyday life,” the report said.

Gallup surveyed 5,173 US adults between January and February of this year.

DETROIT — Jerry Esters proudly displays the American flag each day on his Detroit home. A few miles away, Yvonne Pistochini says there is no scenario under which she would allow the Stars and Stripes to cast its shadow where she lives.

Both are Black.

For Esters, the flag represents the opportunities that allowed the great-great-grandson of slaves to find success and flourish. Pistochini, 79, simply says the America identified by the flag is not the same country she saw growing up.

Americans’ views of “Old Glory” are divided by politics, age and race, according to a new survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebration.

Republicans and older, white adults are especially likely to say they fly the American flag, while younger Democrats and Black adults are more likely to say they don’t fly it. Views of the flag — and whether it’s a unifying or divisive symbol — track with other deep divisions among Americans, who see their country’s history and accomplishments very differently.

“A lot of Black Americans see the flag as a symbol of both inclusion and exclusion,” said Matthew Delmont, professor of American history at Dartmouth College. “Black Americans, more so than white Americans, also understand the flag can be used to justify a version of patriotism that is rooted in exclusion, with the flag being used to say ‘you don’t belong here.’”

The survey of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20. It suggests that older white Americans, especially Republicans, are more likely to see the flag as unifying.

About half of U.S. adults said they display the flag at home throughout most of the year, or during holidays. About 7 in 10 Republicans and about 6 in 10 Americans ages 60 and older fly the flag at least during holidays.

About 6 in 10 Democrats and independents, on the other hand, say they “never” fly the U.S. flag. That includes the vast majority, 75%, of Democrats under 45.

Opportunities worth fighting for

Esters, a 64-year-old retired clay sculptor for a Detroit automaker, flies three American flags at his Sherwood Forest home on the city’s west side.

“When these homes were built, Black men like me, my mother and my family … we couldn’t even buy these homes,” he said. “To me, that’s one reason I fly the flag. We went through a lot to be able to own nice homes, and this is what we fought for.”

The other reason is Moriah Martin, Esters’ great-great-grandmother, who was born into slavery.

“I’m kind of living out her dreams — what I did for a living, having a business, having a nice home,” he said. “I think that’s the American way, but we got to fight for it and we, as Blacks, fought for it.”

He’s in the minority among Black adults, according to the survey, which found that only about 3 in 10 Black adults say they ever display the American flag, compared with about half of white and Hispanic adults.

Pistochini says current divisions over political leanings and perspectives, and inequality of opportunities for the poor and people of color are not what she believes the flag should stand for. People confuse flying it with being patriotic, she added.

“Just because you fly a flag doesn’t make you a patriot,” Pistochini said. “If there was patriotism, we would not have all this. We can’t look at (what’s going on) and say this is America.”

For country and freedom

Ben Gaskins, chair of political science at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, says the flag is an important symbol of patriotism for many Americans.

“It is those who are older people, who are white and people who are more conservative,” Gaskins said. “They take it as more central to their identity.”

Nancy Hansen, a 73-year-old retired Customs and Border Protection clerk in Culvertson, Montana, believes “you have to be for the country, no matter what” and that the flag means “freedom.”

“Freedom to live where we want to live, travel where we want to travel, raise our kids where we want to raise our kids,” said Hansen, who is white and identifies as Republican.

Each year around July 4, the American Legion posts flags outside businesses and homes in Culvertson, including Hansen’s home.

Linda and Greg Cunningham also equate the flag with freedom.

The white, conservative Pontiac, Michigan, couple are going all out this summer. The exterior of their home northwest of Detroit is awash in red, white and blue. The flag sits atop a flagpole just feet from their door.

“It’s no political thing, at all,” said Linda Cunningham, 63. “It’s our freedom. I love the American flag. I love the whole concept of it. I love America. I know there’s so much going on in the world, right now, and I know everyone has their own views, and I’m just sad that politics have to be brought into the flag.”

Flag as a ‘painful reminder’

Of those who took the survey, 47% see the flag as a “more unifying” symbol. About 16% call it a “more divisive” icon, while 36% say it’s neither divisive nor unifying.

Only 22% of Black adults see the flag as a unifying symbol, compared with 55% of white adults and 42% of Hispanic adults.

“It’s a painful symbol. It’s a reminder of what we could be and how it’s failed to live up to that for Black people, for Indigenous people and people of color,” said Allison Wiltz, a Black author and founder of Writers and Editors of Color.

Paul Walthour, 71, occasionally flies the flag outside his Minneapolis-area home on special occasions and some holidays. Walthour says that when he’s away from home and at his cabin, the flag goes up each morning and is taken down at the end of the day.

“This is antiquated, perhaps,” said Walthour, who is white and a retired advertising agency creative director. “I feel it’s a symbol that you’re proud to be an American.”

“Unfortunately, I kind of think it’s kind of a symbol of dividing more than uniting,” added Walthour, who identifies as a Democrat. “The people who fly it on the far right have one kind of feeling about it, and the people who fly it on the left have a different kind of feeling about it.”

The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

Williams, Sanders and Parwani write for the Associated Press. Sanders and Parwani reported from Washington.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.

The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.

Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.

The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.

Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.

The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”

Trump’s approval on Iran remains flat

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.

Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.

“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”

The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.

About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.

Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.

“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”

Few approve of Trump’s approach on Israel

About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”

Only about one-third approve on the economy

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.

Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.

“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.

Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.

Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”

Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.

“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — Independents have grown increasingly unhappy with President Trump during his second term, a new AP-NORC polling analysis finds, particularly those without a college degree.

The analysis from researchers at The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that while about half of independents without a college education had a positive view of Trump around the 2024 election, his approval with that group fell to about one-quarter this spring. That shift has erased the large education gap that existed among independents in the months before Trump took office for his second term, with independents now holding similarly negative views of the president regardless of their level of education.

The analysis was conducted by aggregating nearly two dozen AP-NORC polls conducted between July 2024 and April 2026, allowing for a deeper look at how support for Trump changed during several distinct periods, including the last six months of 2024, the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the summer of 2025 when the One Big Beautiful Bill passed, last fall’s government shutdown and the beginning of the Iran war.

The compiled polling shows a steady decline among independents throughout Trump’s second term. His standing has also dropped among several small but important groups that moved toward him in the 2024 presidential election, including Black and Hispanic independents.

More Americans than ever consider themselves independents, and they are among the groups that shifted toward Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Any erosion in that support could signal trouble for Trump and Republicans headed into the midterm elections, which are often seen as reflection of how voters feel about their governing party.

Tafari Torres, a senior research associate at NORC who co-authored the analysis, noted that while Democrats’ and Republicans’ views of Trump have held largely steady in his second term, independents’ opinions are still moving.

“Independents are, broadly, the people who are reacting to the events and dropping in their support,” he said.

Dramatic declines during Trump’s first 100 days

Trump’s return to the White House was in part fueled by independent voters who saw him as the stronger candidate on key issues like the economy. The new analysis, which looks at Trump’s favorability and presidential approval ratings, shows that once he took the helm, their views quickly soured.

Independents without a college degree had a much more positive view of Trump than college-educated independents did during and shortly after the 2024 election, but that shifted in the first few months of his term. Positive views of Trump among independents without a college degree fell from 48% in the months before he returned to office to 31% in polling conducted during Trump’s first 100 days back in office. Those warm views declined even further, to about one-quarter, during the government shutdown and the early months of 2026.

Only about 3 in 10 college-educated independents, by contrast, had a positive view of Trump before he returned to office, making their drop to about one-quarter much less dramatic.

“The decline among no-college independents was steeper and it was greater than the slight decline in college independents,” said Sean Collins, a research associate at NORC who co-authored the analysis. “That was surprising, especially given, when you think of Trump’s coalitions, those without college degrees is usually one of the ones that that stands out.”

Hispanic, younger independents grow disenchanted

Americans without a college degree have long been a key part of Trump’s coalition. But Trump also won in 2024 by making gains among groups that tend to support Democrats, including Hispanic adults.

About 4 in 10 independent voters — 42% — voted for Trump in 2024, up from 37% in the 2020 presidential election. Independent voters without a college degree were a little more likely to back Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris in the last election, according to AP VoteCast, and Hispanic independents were about evenly split between the two.

The picture looks much bleaker for the president now.

Nearly half of Hispanic independents — 46% — saw Trump favorably in the polling conducted around the presidential election. His approval among these adults dropped quickly in his second term, falling as low as 15% during last fall’s government shutdown before landing around one-quarter in the spring.

Younger independents also became less supportive of the president, while independents age 60 and older remained mostly stable. Other AP-NORC polling has pointed to Trump losing ground among younger Republicans over inflation concerns and Hispanic Americans growing increasingly discontented.

“The gains Trump appeared to make during the election, I don’t know if they’re sticking around. He’s experienced some significant shifts among those people,” Torres said. “From our research, they don’t appear to be permanent gains.”

The economy is frustrating many independents

Polling suggests that the economy is at the root of many Americans’ frustrations with Trump, including independents.

About half of independents who supported Trump in 2024 said inflation was the single most important factor for their vote, AP VoteCast found, and most expressed high levels of concern about the cost of food and gas.

More than a year into Trump’s second term, inflation remains high, fueled by gas prices that remain elevated as the Iran war continues. An AP-NORC poll conducted in April found that about 3 in 10 independents were “extremely” or “very” concerned about being able to afford groceries in the last few months, and a similar share were worried about being able to afford gas.

The analysis found that Americans’ views of the U.S. economy tend to align with their view of the president. Those with negative views of the country’s economy tended to have negative views of Trump, and about 8 in 10 independents described the U.S. economy this spring as poor.

The latest AP-NORC polling from May found that only about 3 in 10 independents approve of how Trump is handling the economy, in line with the roughly 3 in 10 who said that at the beginning of his second term. The April poll found only about 1 in 10 independents — 12% — approved of how Trump was handling the cost of living.

This AP-NORC analysis of 4,836 independents was conducted over 21 AP-NORC surveys, blocked into five time periods before and during President Donald Trump’s second term. Independents are classified as panelists who do not select that they identify with or lean toward either the Democratic or Republican Party.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a major advantage over Republican Steve Hilton as the race for California governor heads toward the November election, a new poll shows.

The two candidates topped a crowded field of gubernatorial hopefuls in the June 2 primary, earning them the opportunity to face-off in the general election.

Among registered voters in the state, 52% supported Becerra in a head-to-head matchup against Hilton, who was backed by 31%, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll which was co-sponsored by The Los Angeles Times. The remainder were undecided.

“It looks very much like a traditional, partisan-based general election, with most of the Democrats, over 80%, behind Becerra as the campaign starts,” said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “Even though Hilton has over 80% of the Republicans, the Democrats outnumber Republicans by 20 points in the state, and that gives the Democratic candidates a huge advantage, which Becerra is clearly taking advantage of in this election.”

The survey of California voters was conducted before the primary, from May 19-24.

The poll found that Democratic and Republican voters were extremely loyal to their party’s candidate. Among Democrats, 82% said they would support Becerra in the general election, while 84% of Republicans said the same about Hilton.

Becerra also had an edge among voters registered as no party preference or registered with other parties — who make up almost a third of the state electorate. Among those voters, 43% backed Becerra, 28% supported Hilton and 29% were undecided, the poll showed.

Along age, gender, racial and geographic lines, voters preferred Becerra to Hilton nearly across the board. The only geographic region where voters preferred Hilton to Becerra are those in the North Coast/Sierra region, which makes up about 2% of the electorate, DiCamillo said.

Hilton, who served as an advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron before immigrating to the United States, in April secured the endorsement of President Trump, which helped him gain enough support among Republican voters to outpace his GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

More than a third of Republicans, 37%, said Trump’s endorsement made them more likely to support Hilton. But while it helped Hilton consolidate the Republican vote in the primary, helping him finish in second place, it will likely hurt him in the general election, DiCamillo said. Trump remains deeply unpopular in California; the poll released Thursday showed 69% of voters disapprove of the president’s performance while 29% approve.

“A majority of Californians have a very strong negative view of the president, so Hilton’s backing by the president will not be nearly as beneficial to him in the general as it was in the primary,” he said.

A former Biden Cabinet secretary, state attorney general and longtime congressman from Los Angeles, Becerra had been wallowing in the low single-digits in public opinion polls less than three months ago. His fortunes changed when former Rep. Eric Swalwell, one of the Democratic front-runners, dropped out of the governor’s race after he was accused of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies.

Democratic voters and interest groups quickly coalesced behind Becerra, who was seen as a steady candidate with a long resume in California politics and a record of fighting the Trump administration. In two months, he went from polling at 5% in a March IGS poll to 25% in a late May poll and finishing first in the unofficial primary vote count.

With 91% of ballots tallied as of Wednesday afternoon, Becerra led with 27.9% of the vote compared to 25% for Hilton, according to the Associated Press, which declared Becerra and Hilton the two winners. Billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmentalist Tom Steyer was in third place with 22.5% — knocking the Democrat out of contention for the November election.

DiCamillo said Swalwell’s dropping out of the race “really gave Becerra an opening and he capitalized on it.”

The poll also showed that in the end, “Becerra was the only one of the major candidates who ended the primary race with a favorable image among the overall electorate, even in the face of all the negative ads that Steyer was running” against him, DiCamillo said.

Just before the primary election, 44% of likely primary voters surveyed had a favorable view of Becerra compared to 38% who viewed him unfavorably.

Hilton and Steyer were upside down — 31% had a favorable opinion of Hilton compared to 38% unfavorable, and 39% had a favorable view of Steyer while 43% saw him unfavorably.

Though Steyer had aggressively courted progressive voters and secured the backing of left-wing individuals and groups like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-San Jose) and Our Revolution, a group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the final IGS poll before the election showed more progressive voters ended up backing Becerra.

Among those who self-identified as progressive, 39% said they would support Becerra while 29% preferred Steyer, according to the late May survey.

“It’s really one of the factors that was responsible for Steyer’s campaign not being successful,” DiCamillo said. Progressive voters were “a target audience for Steyer, but Becerra was able to have an advantage there.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish among 8,578 registered California voters. The survey has a margin of error of 2% in either direction.

SACRAMENTO — Even before President Trump’s latest wave of unfounded claims of election fraud in California, a significant share of voters in the state expressed concerns about federal interference in the electoral process, according to a new poll.

Trump on Monday claimed on his social media site that the race for Los Angeles mayor was a “Rigged Election,” an allegation that came after Democrat Nithya Raman overtook Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the ongoing primary election vote count.

Raman’s lead had prompted Rep. Abe Hamadeh, an Arizona Republican, to call for the election to be federalized, or run by the federal government rather than the state, a message Trump reposted.

Earlier Sunday, Trump had alleged during an interview with NBC News that California elections officials “were cheating.” That came after a debunked social media conspiracy theory claiming that a lag in an update of electronic voting data by the Associated Press showed Pratt was being cheated. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the elections process in the L.A. mayoral race “stinks to high heaven.”

The ongoing attacks by Trump and his supporters continue to erode confidence in the nation’s elections, especially among Republicans, threatening a pillar of American democracy, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

“The president … wants to use those claims to make changes in the election process that could make it harder for people to vote, and that certainly is a threat to our democratic institutions,” Schickler said.

“One thing we’ve learned in recent years is that we just cannot take the voting process for granted, cannot take for granted that both sides will accept as legitimate the outcome, and can’t take for granted the idea that there won’t be efforts to essentially manipulate the vote counting process,” he added.

A new poll released Friday by the institute found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be not meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, Schickler said.

More telling was the partisan divide among voters when asked whether they have confidence that local officials would conduct fair and secure elections and that the vote count would be accurate. Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur.

California voters who don’t belong to either party said by a 2-1 margin that they had confidence in the vote count, the poll showed.

“The positive is that local officials are still widely trusted by Democrats, no-party-preference voters, and at least a share of Republicans, though a lot fewer than I think in the past, and a lot fewer than you know we would want for a really healthy democracy,” Schickler said.

That growing mistrust among certain parts of the electorate comes after years of baseless claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. In April, the court sharply limited a part of those protections that had forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress, as well as state and local boards.

Trump and his allies have used California’s slow vote-counting process to allege cheating. The day after the June 2 primary, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats were trying to “steal” the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral primaries. The next day, he alleged that California Democrats had “found” mail-in ballots and were “rigging the election” with them.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber and other officials have said California’s voting system prioritizes voter accessibility and security over speedy results. The state has more than 23 million registered voters, and ballots go through numerous verification steps, including verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.

“Over 97% of our folks actually vote by mail. They want to keep that system. That system demands more contact, more touching of the ballot, more verification of the individuals who are voting. All of those things take time,” Weber said during a recent interview with ABC10 in Sacramento.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s claims during the recent “Meet the Press” interview the “most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”

Newsom is considering a 2028 run for president and has consistently warned that Trump may try to interfere in both the 2026 and 2028 elections.

The Berkeley poll found that California voters overall — 74% — want candidates running for president in 2028 to prioritize defending democracy and making voting more accessible. Among Democratic voters, 95% said that was important; among Republicans, 41%.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted between May 19 and 25 online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.

Times staff writers Alene Tchekmedyian and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.