polling

As California voters went to the polls Tuesday to cast their ballot on a measure that could block President Trump’s national agenda, state officials ridiculed his unsubstantiated claims that voting in the largely Democratic state is “rigged.”

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened Tuesday across California.

The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

“All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review,” the GOP president wrote. “STAY TUNED!”

Gov. Gavin Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

His press office chimed in, too, calling Trump “a totally unserious person spreading false information in a desperate attempt to cope with his failures.”

At a White House briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, without providing examples, that California was receiving ballots in the name of undocumented immigrants who could not legally vote.

“They have a universal mail-in voting system, which we know is ripe for fraud,” Leavitt told reporters. “Fraudulent ballots that are being mailed in in the names of other people, in the names of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be voting in American elections. There’s countless examples and we’d be happy to provide them.”

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for more details.

Political tension across the nation is high as California voters cast ballots on Proposition 50, a plan championed by Newsom to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 election to favor the Democratic Party. The measure is intended to offset GOP gerrymandering in red states after Trump pressed Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority.

California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

“The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

Weber noted that more than 7 million Californians have already voted and encouraged those who had yet to cast ballots to go to the polls.

“California voters will not be sidelined from exercising their constitutional right to vote and should not let anyone deter them from exercising that right,” Weber said.

Of the 7 million Californians who have voted, more than 4.6 million have done so by mail, according to the secretary of state’s office. Los Angeles residents alone have cast more than 788,000 mail-in ballots.

Leavitt told D.C. reporters Tuesday that the White House is working on an executive order to combat so-called “blatant” election fraud.

“The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our election in this country,” Leavitt said, “and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we’ve seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system.”

Trump has long criticized mail-in voting. As more Democrats opted to vote by mail in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the president repeatedly made unproven claims linking mail in voting with voter fraud. When Trump ultimately lost that election, he blamed expanded mail-in voting.

In March, Trump signed an executive order requiring that Attorney General Pam Bondi “take all necessary action” against states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day. Most states count mail-in or absentee ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

Over the last month, the stakes in the California special election have ratcheted up as polls indicate Proposition 50 could pass. More than half of likely California voters said they planned to support the measure, which could allow Democrats to gain up to five House seats.

Last month, the Justice Department appeared to single out California for particular national scrutiny: It announced it would send federal monitors to polling locations in counties in California as well as New Jersey, another traditionally Democratic state that is conducting nationally significant off-year elections.

The monitors, it said, would be sent to five California counties: Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, Fresno and Orange.

While Trump is often a flame-thrower on social media, he has largely been silent on Proposition 50, aside from a few Truth Social posts.

In late October, the president voiced skepticism with California’s mail-in ballots and early voting — directly contradicting efforts by the state’s GOP leaders to get people to vote.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

Over the weekend, Trump posted a video purporting to show a member of the San Joaquin County’s Sheriff Dept. questioning election integrity in California.

Times Staff Writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report

Proposition 50, the California-slaps-back initiative, is cruising to a comfortable victory on Nov. 4, a slam dunk for Gov. Gavin Newsom and efforts to get even with Texas.

Or not.

It’s actually a highly competitive contest between those wanting to offset the GOP’s shameless power grab and opponents of Democrats’ retaliatory gerrymander — with many voters valuing California’s independent redistricting commission and still making up their minds.

Obviously, both things can’t be true, so which is it?

That depends on which of the polls you choose to believe.

Political junkies, and the news outlets that service their needs, abhor a vacuum. So there’s no lack of soundings that purport to show just where Californians’ heads are at a mere six weeks before election day — which, in truth, is not all that certain.

Newsom’s pollster issued results showing Prop. 50 winning overwhelming approval. A UC Berkeley/L.A. Times survey showed a much closer contest, with support below the vital 50% mark. Others give the measure a solid lead.

Not all polls are created equal.

“It really matters how a poll is done,” said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at the Pew Research Center, one of the country’s top-flight polling organizations. “That’s especially true today, when response rates are so low [and] it’s so difficult to reach people, especially by telephone. You really do have to consider how it’s done, where it comes from, who did it, what their motivation is.”

Longtime readers of this space, if any exist, know how your friendly columnist feels about horse-race polls. Our best advice remains the same it’s always been: Ignore them.

Take a hike. Read a book. Bake a batch of muffins. Better still, take some time to educate yourself on the pros and cons of the question facing California, then make an informed decision.

Realizing, however, the sun will keep rising and setting, that tides will ebb and flow, that pollsters and pundits will continue issuing their prognostications to an eager and ardent audience, here are some suggestions for how to assay their output.

The most important thing to remember is that polls are not gospel truth, flawless forecasts or destiny carved in implacable stone. Even the best survey is nothing more than an educated guess at what’s likely to happen.

That said, there are ways to evaluate the quality of surveys and determine which are best consumed with a healthy shaker of salt and which should be dismissed altogether.

Given the opportunity, take a look at the methodology — it’s usually there in the fine print — which includes the number of people surveyed, the duration of the poll and whether interviews were done in more than one language.

Size matters.

“When you’re trying to contact people at random, you’re getting certain segments of the public, rather than the general population,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the nonpartisan Berkeley IGS Poll and a collaborator with The Times. “So what needs to happen in order for a survey to be representative of the overall population … you need large samples.”

Which are expensive and the reason some polls skimp on the number of people they interview.

The most conscientious pollsters invest considerable time and effort figuring out how to model their voter samples — that is, how to best reflect the eventual composition of the electorate. Once they finish their interviews, they weight the result to see that it includes the proper share of men and women, young and old, and other criteria based on census data.

Then pollsters might adjust those results to match the percentage of each group they believe will turn out for a given election.

The more people a pollster interviews, the greater the likelihood of achieving a representative sample.

That’s why the duration of a survey is also something to consider. The longer a poll is conducted — or out in the field, as they say in the business — the greater the chances of reflecting the eventual turnout.

It’s also important in a polyglot state like California that a poll is not conducted solely in English. To do so risks under-weighting an important part of the electorate; a lack of English fluency shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of political engagement.

“There’s no requirement that a person be able to speak English in order to vote,” said Keeter, of the Pew Research Center. “And in the case of some populations, particularly immigrant groups, that have been in the United States for a long time, they may be very well-established voters but still not be proficient in English to the level of being comfortable taking a survey.”

It’s also important to know how a poll question is phrased and, in the case of a ballot measure, how it describes the matter voters are being asked to decide. How closely does the survey track the ballot language? Are there any biases introduced into the poll? (“Would you support this measure knowing its proponents abuse small animals and promote gum disease?”)

Something else to watch for: Was the poll conducted by a political party, or for a candidate or group pushing a particular agenda? If so, be very skeptical. They have every reason to issue selective or one-sided findings.

Transparency is key. A good pollster will show his or her work, as they used to say in the classroom. If they won’t, there’s good reason to question their findings, and well you should.

A sensible person wouldn’t put something in their body without being 100% certain of its content. Treat your brain with the same care.

The Trump administration immigration sweeps that have roiled Southern California have shown few signs of slowing despite lawsuits, a court order and growing indications the aggressive actions are not popular with the public.

The operations, which began in early June in the Los Angeles area, largely focused on small-scale targets such as car washes, strip malls and Home Depot parking lots before authorities hit their biggest target last week — two farms for one of the largest cannabis companies in California. One worker died after falling from a greenhouse roof during the raid, while 361 others were arrested.

Responding to the death, President Trump’s chief border policy advisor, Tom Homan, called the situation “sad.”

“It’s obviously unfortunate when there’s deaths,” he told CNN. “No one wants to see people die.”

“He wasn’t in ICE custody,” Homan said. “ICE did not have hands on this person.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said authorities plan to intensify immigration crackdowns thanks to more funding from the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” spending plan from Congress.

The budget bill infuses roughly $150 billion into Trump’s immigration and border enforcement plans, including funding for ICE and Border Patrol staffing, building and operating immigrant detention facilities, and reimbursing states and local governments for immigration-related costs.

“We’re going to come harder and faster, and we’re going to take these criminals down with even more strength than we ever have before,” Noem said at a news conference over the weekend. Trump, she added, “has a mandate from the American people to clean up our streets, to help make our communities safer.”

But there are some signs that support might be slipping.

A Gallup poll published this month shows that fewer Americans than in June 2024 back strict border enforcement measures and more now favor offering undocumented immigrants living in the country pathways to citizenship. The percentage of respondents who want immigration reduced dropped from 55% in 2024 to 30% in the current poll, reversing a years-long trend of rising immigration concerns.

While the desire for less immigration has declined among all major political parties, the decrease among Republicans was significant — down 40% from last year. Among independents, the preference for less immigration is down 21%, and among Democrats it’s down 12%, according to the poll.

The poll also showed that a record-high 79% of adults consider immigration beneficial to the country and only 17% believe it is a negative, a record low for the poll.

Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac University poll published in June indicates that 38% of voters approve of the way Trump is handling the presidency, while 54% disapprove. On immigration, 54% of those polled disapprove of Trump’s handling of the issue and 56% disapprove of deportations.

At the same time, growing legal challenges have threatened to hamper the Trump administration’s efforts.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, an appointee of President Biden, temporarily blocked federal agents in the Southland from using racial profiling to carry out immigration arrests after she found sufficient evidence that agents were using race, a person’s job or their location, and their language to form “reasonable suspicion” — the legal standard needed to detain an individual.

But the Trump administration vowed to fight back.

“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the president,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman. “Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal.”

On Monday, the administration asked a federal appeals court to overturn the judge’s order, allowing it to resume the raids across seven California counties.

Legal experts say it’s hard to say just how successful the federal government will be in getting a stay on the temporary order, given the current political climate.

“This is different from a lot of the other kinds of Trump litigation because the law is so clear in the fact finding by the district court,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “So if you follow basic legal principles, this is a very weak case for the government on appeal, but it’s so hard to predict what will happen because everything is so ideological.”

In the past, legal scholars say, it would be extremely uncommon for an appeals court to weigh in on such an order. But recent events suggest it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the federal government to deport convicted criminals to “third countries” even if they lack a prior connection to those countries.

That same month, it also ruled 6 to 3 to limit the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders blocking the president’s policies, which was frequently a check on executive power.

Still, it’s not an easy case for the government, said Ahilan Arulanantham, professor of practice and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

“I think one thing which makes this case maybe a little bit harder for the government than some of the other shadow docket cases is it really does affect citizens in an important way,” he said. “Obviously the immigration agent doesn’t know in advance when they come up to somebody whether they’re a citizen or a noncitizen or if they’re lawfully present or not.”

The continued sweeps have resulted in a wave of other lawsuits challenging the Trump administration. Amid the legal battles, there are also signs of upheaval within the federal government.

Reuters reported on Monday that the Justice Department unit charged with defending legal challenges to the administration’s policies, including restricting birthright citizenship, has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff.

The administration has also faced scrutiny from Democrats and activists over its handling of last week’s raids at the marijuana cultivation farms, which were part of a legal and highly regulated industry in California.

“It was disproportionate, overkill,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara) said of the operation.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) criticized Trump for targeting immigrant farmworkers as the administration continues to publicly state that its targets are people with criminal records.

“How many MS-13 gang members are waking up at 3 a.m. to pick strawberries? O’yeah, zero! Trump said he’d go after ‘bad hombres,’ but he’s targeting the immigrant farm workers who feed America. Either he lied — or he can’t tell the difference,” Gomez wrote on X.

The White House clapped back in a post on X: “That ain’t produce, holmes. THAT’S PRODUCT.”

Over the weekend, Jaime Alanís Garcia, 57, the cannabis farmworker who was gravely injured after he fell off a roof amid the mayhem of the Camarillo raid, was taken off life support, according to his family.

Alanís’ family said he was fleeing immigration agents at the Glass House Farms cannabis operation in Camarillo on Thursday when he climbed atop a greenhouse and accidentally fell 30 feet, suffering catastrophic injury. The Department of Homeland Security said Alanís was not among those being pursued.

His niece announced his death Saturday on a GoFundMe page, which described him as a husband and father and the family’s sole provider. The page had raised more than $159,000 by Monday afternoon, well over its initial $50,000 goal.

“They took one of our family members. We need justice,” the niece wrote.

Times staff writers Sonja Sharp, Dakota Smith and Jeanette Marantos contributed to this report.