problem

SACRAMENTO — What’s so wrong about requiring every Californian to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote? That’s what Proposition 39 backers ask. And it’s a fair question.

Here are some valid answers:

• It would make California’s already notoriously slow vote count even more pokey.
• It would be an added hassle for citizens attempting to exercise their voting right.
• It would cost taxpayers a bundle, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• It’s another solution by politicians to a problem that really doesn’t exist.

Practically everyone, regardless of political affiliation, must understand by now that there simply is no evidence of widespread — significant, meaningful — voter cheating in California or anywhere else in America. This despite conspiracy-theorists’ fruitless searching and President Trump’s lies about “rigged” elections.

It’s my belief that the main reason Republicans placed Proposition 39 on the California ballot was to boost GOP voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. And recent independent polling shows that the measure does appeal strongly to Republicans — but not Democrats, who are united in opposition.

The proposition appears to be headed for defeat, largely because Democratic voters in this deep blue state equate it with the discredited president. Trump has turned into poison for Republican candidates in competitive races and any cause that reminds people of him.

That’s why the Proposition 39 campaign last week released a new major TV ad that essentially asks voters to ignore the president.

This is how conservative consultant Jon Fleischman summarized the ad’s message to Democrats in his blog: “You can hate Trump and still back Voter ID.”

Proposition 39 would mainly do two things:

• Require voters to show some government-issued identification each time they vote in person, such as a driver’s license or passport. Don’t have one? The state would issue a free ID card to any voter who asked.
• Californians who cast mail ballots — more than 80% of voters — would be required to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the return envelope. The number would be determined when initially registering to vote.

The measure also would impose some basically noncontroversial mandates that make sense separately. It would require election officials to maintain accurate voter registration files, weeding out people who have moved or died and verifying citizenship. But counties already do that pretty well.

The contrived bogeyman for election fraud scaremongers is the undocumented immigrant community. But these people, living on the edge and hiding from the government, aren’t going to risk deportation by trying to vote in an election they couldn’t care less about. And political candidates aren’t going to waste their time and money on them. Their targets are the large numbers of apathetic legal voters who sit out elections.

Currently, Californians must provide identification when registering and swear under penalty of perjury — a felony — that they are U.S. citizens. And they must record their signatures when registering and scribble it on the back of the ballot envelope when voting by mail.

Requiring me to add a four-digit number on the back of my “absentee” ballot envelope means I’d have to register all over again to record the PIN. And then remember it every election. A pointless pain.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, instigated and authored Proposition 39. “I do believe that voter fraud is a real problem. Absolutely,” he told me.

But he said the proposition has two main goals: 1, to clean up voter files and make sure ballots are properly validated and counted. 2, to increase public confidence in the voting process. “We have a perception problem,” he says. “Voters have low trust” in the election system.

Republicans mistrust a lot; Democrats not so much.

A California poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 84% of Republican voters had a “major concern” about voter fraud. Only 21% of Democrats did.

Can anyone doubt who’s driving the Republicans’ anxiety? The bellicose president. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump has reiterated. “It’s terrible what’s going on.”

This from the hypocrite who mails in his ballots.

Fortunately, Proposition 39’s crafters left mail ballots pretty much alone, except for requiring a nuisance PIN on the ballot envelope.

That “absolutely” will slow down vote counting, says Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee and was the longtime chief elections official of Santa Cruz County. Under Proposition 39, officials not only would need to check voters’ signatures against those on file, but also their PINs.

And voting in person would drag while people dug for an ID and an official checked it, Pellerin says. Some people are bound to be denied their voting right by mistake, she asserts.

Tony Quinn, formerly a GOP redistricting consultant and a longtime political analyst, points out that a disproportionately high portion of in-person voters are Republicans. Proposition 39 is “imposing a burden on them,” he says. “I don’t think the authors realize who’s voting in person these days. They sense illegal aliens.”

The UC institute poll showed Proposition 39 being supported by 39% of likely voters and opposed by 52%. It was backed by 92% of Republicans, but Democrats were 80% against. And they outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in California.

The proposition also trailed in a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California: 43% yes, 55% no.

In the PPIC poll, Republicans said 39 was by far the most interesting proposition on the ballot.

Trump’s influence? Among the paltry 27% of voters who approve of his job performance, 88% support Proposition 39. But of the 72% who disapprove of the president, 73% oppose the measure.

Trump is toxic.

Proposition 39 is more government regulation for no good reason.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Tax the rich? California voters are divided, according to new poll
Law & Order: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The L.A. Times Special: High cost of living tops voter concerns, Becerra remains front-runner in governor’s race, new poll shows

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The virtual safety car (VSC) definitely throws jeopardy into races, but it does not do virtually what the safety car does. Would it not be more balanced to have a minimum of at least one full lap? Yes, this would dampen the jeopardy effect but what happened to Lando Norris feels like a chance card in Monopoly. – Kyle

Lando Norris’ bad luck with the virtual safety car at the Spanish Grand Prix has certainly focused attention on the ways this can disrupt races.

The VSC has always had issues – it freezes a race rather than resets it, which can be a bit boring compared to an actual safety car – but it has the benefit of minimising disruption when a track hazard can be cleared relatively quickly.

It has long been an opportunity for someone to benefit over a rival, because making a pit stop under a VSC takes significantly less time than under racing conditions.

But usually this has been in cases where one team has changed or deployed its strategy with the express intention of waiting for a safety car or VSC (such as Norris himself in his maiden victory in Miami in 2024), and benefiting over a rival who has run a more conventional strategy.

That sort of thing is considered fair game. What happened to Norris – a driver lost a race win because his specific track positioning at the time of a VSC meant he alone was unable to pit under it – is, to the best anyone could remember on Sunday, unique.

The media are not privy to conversations in drivers’ briefings, and Norris in particular gets a bit sniffy when information from those meetings leaks out because they are meant to be a safe space where the drivers and FIA can share opinions without it becoming a controversy.

But it emerged after the race that this issue, as Norris put it, “has been spoken about many, many times”.

Whether Norris’ misfortune leads to a change, such as ensuring that a VSC is deployed for at least one whole lap, remains to be seen.

There is no easy answer, because within F1 it’s recognised that safety cars are part of the competitive jigsaw, and can be used to a team’s advantage. And the latest rules have been arrived at after various previous iterations that worked in different ways, such as shutting the pit lane for specific periods.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella said: “Offering a personal opinion, I’m puzzled myself as to what’s right.

“Is it correct to give enough duration such that everyone will have been subject to the same track conditions? So, for instance, the virtual safety car lasts at least one full lap.

“Or you just keep it in the hands of the Gods, and sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not. I’m not sure.”

There is process for these sorts of discussions – they go to a sporting advisory committee for analysis, before being reviewed by the F1 Commission of teams, commercial rights holder F1 and governing body the FIA.

That won’t happen quickly – unless it is decided by F1 and the FIA that it is a desirable outcome to change the rules. Right now, the momentum for that does not appear to be there.

What are the prospects for rookies coming into Formula 1 next year? Many drivers are re-signing long contracts with their teams. Are there likely to be any new recruits? – Mia

The most likely place for a new driver to come into F1 next season is Haas, where Esteban Ocon’s position looks shaky.

The two main candidates there are Italy’s reigning Formula 2 champion Leonardo Fornaroli, who is part of McLaren’s driver development programme, and Brazilian Rafael Camara, who is second in F2 this year and part of the Ferrari driver academy.

Both have tested for Haas and are said to have impressed the team.

Haas will want a quick driver who brings money, and it’s not clear who the favourite is. Ryo Hirakawa, Haas’ reserve driver and a long-time protege of Haas’ technical partner Toyota, is also in the picture, but considered a less likely candidate.

Elsewhere, there is talk of Red Bull considering moving F2 championship leader Nikola Tsolov, who is Bulgarian, into their Racing Bulls team.

To do so, they would have to drop either Liam Lawson or Arvid Lindblad. It’s hard to see how it would be Lindblad, after such an impressive rookie campaign.

But Lawson has also been doing a good job this year, so it’s not a given.

At Cadillac, they have Indycar race-winner Colton Herta as reserve. They have been planning for Herta to be in F1 before too long – the idea behind him moving to Europe and doing Formula 2 this year was so he could learn the ropes on this side of the Atlantic and be as prepared as possible for graduation to F1.

But Herta has had a very difficult F2 campaign this year – his best result is a fifth place and he is 19th in the championship – so moving him up to F1 for 2027 would be a massive risk.

Ugo Ugochukwu, who won the Formula 3 title in Madrid on Sunday, is another American said to be of interest to Cadillac.

He had been part of the McLaren driver development programme for several years until they parted ways at the end of last season.

But even if Ugochukwu’s Cadillac links become formalised, next year is probably too early for him to make F1.

He’s also extremely tall – well over six foot and much taller even than Ocon, Alex Albon and George Russell, the current tallest drivers – so getting him into an F1 car would not be easy.

The other teams are pretty much locked down, although it’s still unknown whether Fernando Alonso is going to continue in F1 next year.

Labor Day is behind us, election day is less than two months away, and the question before Los Angeles voters is this:

Can anyone run this city?

Two fires at abandoned properties, one in Studio City and the other on the eastern edge of Larchmont, offer windows into City Hall dysfunction as Mayor Karen Bass defends her job against a challenge by City Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Let’s start on Babcock Avenue, just south of Moorpark Street, where, for roughly five years, neighbors of a vacant house begged City Hall for attention to what had been a dumping ground, a fire hazard and a homeless hangout.

To no avail.

When they received any response at all, they got the runaround.

Resident Jon Manzanares told me he has supported Bass and Raman in the past. But in a spring 2025 email to City Hall, he said both “should be ashamed and resign in disgrace.”

Well, they didn’t. And following an Aug. 26 fire at the Babcock property, which damaged the rear of an adjacent home, Bass and Raman went after each other for not having addressed all those pleas for help.

“Nithya Raman wants to lead the whole city,” said a Bass campaign social media post, but after six years in office “she can’t even get a single lot cleaned up in her own district.”

Raman shot back, saying she had alerted the mayor’s office about the nuisance property 10 months earlier.

“I cannot call her about the 200-plus issues that we’re dealing with that are at this level of risk,” Raman snapped.

The finger-pointing doesn’t inspire confidence, does it?

At least, said Manzanares, a retired lawyer, L.A. found out what it takes to get a response from the two mayoral candidates.

“The news crews showed up” to cover the fire, Manzanares told me, “and it finally got some attention because of the election.”

But festering eyesores are everywhere, as Bass herself indicated when she called in to KTLA-TV.

Fire damage is seen at an abandoned Studio City property following a overnight blaze on Aug. 26.

(KTLA-TV)

“You know,” she said, “this is a situation that unfortunately exists all over the city.”

A for honesty. F for failing to clean up all those messes, regardless of whether the problem is departmental failure or communications breakdowns with council members.

The fire in Studio City spread to a neighboring property and damaged a structure that Kayt Miranda uses for storage and as a home office. I spoke to Miranda on the front porch of her home, and she said she had filed multiple complaints about the nuisance property over a five-year period.

Five years.

“And we never heard back,” Miranda said, telling me she had seen people set up camp at the property, bringing in mattresses, book shelves and clothing racks. “Then we went to Raman’s office … They would send responses, but … we never saw any action.”

Manzanares showed me an email from a Raman staffer last month that said, “unfortunately, there is not a clear and expeditious path forward on this case.”

Why not? Was it going to take another five years?

Miranda said exasperated neighbors had banded together to put up more lighting and cameras to protect their properties, “but it really did feel like this is forever, because nothing was going to happen.”

When I was done in Studio City, I drove across town to meet with construction worker and pastor Juan Galicia, whose house was torched in March when fire jumped from an adjacent abandoned property.

I had first heard about Galicia in April, when I toured a nearby Hollywood neighborhood for a column about a homeowner who had hired her housekeeper to report illegal dumping, help bag up the daily mess and try to reduce the fire risk around encampments. The city wasn’t doing its job, Stefanie Keenan had told me, so she was spending her own money to protect herself and neighbors. And she still is.

Galicia didn’t get the protection he needed, despite multiple contacts with police and city offices — by him, relatives and neighbors —regarding the empty dwelling next door to his on North St. Andrews Place. Galicia said squatters were in and out of the house, with periodic fighting and drug use. Police would come, he said, but when they left, the trouble would return.

Galicia was preaching at his church in South L.A. when flames engulfed his home, where he lived with an extended family of 10.

“Eighteen years,” he said of his time in the house. “And in 10 minutes, you have nothing.”

I followed him into the house, with its charred walls, ceiling and flooring. Galicia wore a somber expression, as if still suffering from the shock, and he saw new evidence of trespassers, along with some fresh graffiti.

Galicia told me, as he told The Times’ Seamus Bozeman in July, that he intends to rebuild. But his insurance settlement won’t cover the cost of rebuilding, and he’s still paying $2,000 a month on the mortgage, plus $6,200 for temporary lodging in a rented house.

Meanwhile, as he struggles with a crushing financial problem he did not create, he’s aware that millions are being spent on homelessness without significant progress.

Aerial view of Larchmont home belonging to Pastor Juan Galicia that was destroyed by a fire that began at a vacant property next door.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“I don’t understand,” Galicia said.

A spokesperson for City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez told me his office became aware of Galicia’s issue in January, but because of paperwork and the complexity of legal records, could not track down the owner of the adjacent property before the fire.

In L.A., people trip and fall in droves and successfully sue the city for millions. I wondered if Galicia might have a liability case against the city, but two attorneys told me going after the next-door property owner could be more fruitful.

In a Sept. 5 press release, Bass said she was directing city crews to clean and secure nuisance properties citywide. OK, fine, but what took her so long?

Bass also said she had earlier signed legislation initiated by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez to speed the process of cracking down on negligent property owners and to hit them with stiffer penalties.

Those fines ought to go into a fund to assist Juan Galicia and others like him.

Between 2018 and 2024, according to the L.A. Fire Department, homelessness was a factor in about one-third of all fires in the city.

“I feel for these people, I really do. I’m not unsympathetic,” Jon Manzanares told me in Studio City. “But by the same token, we need to do something constructive and not have these encampments that start fires.”

With less than two months to go before the election, it’s on Bass and Raman to convince voters they can make a difference.

The finger-pointing is useless.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

GEMMA Collins’ fiancé Rami Hawash has admitted to having a drinking problem.

Gemma, 45, has revealed viewers will see how Rami’s alcohol dependency impacted their relationship in Gemma Collins: Everything. All At Once.

The upcoming reality series officially debuts on Sky and NOW on September 15.

Speaking at the show’s launch, Rami shared: “I drink, I’ve got a drink problem and I don’t want to hide it.

“I wanted people to know it is a problem. I’ve got a problem and life is not that great.

“I don’t know why, but I find the drink, it was like, kind of my friend. You know, I have a few drinks and I’m forgetting everything.”

Read more on Gemma Collins

FALL OUT

Inside Gemma Collins’ agony & explosive rows with Rami over secret booze battle

FRIENDS AGAIN

Gemma Collins ends six-year feud at NTAs as she and rival bury the hatchet

Meanwhile, Gemma said of her experience in the documentary: “You can see I’m unwell.

“You can see I’m not in my best, and life just got progressively worse as I let the cameras in. It was hell.

“But you know, one thing my mum taught me was resilience, I’m resilient to get through all this really.

“It can get better. So let’s hope everything starts to get better now because I can’t take any more. I need a break.”

Gemma originally met partner Rami all the way back in 2011 in an Essex pub.

The pair announced their first engagement on December 27, 2013, although this was broken off several weeks later.

They are thought to have gotten back together in 2020, with Gemma confirming in December the following year that they were once again engaged.

Gemma and Rami are yet to tie the knot.

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials announced that they had invoked executive authority to shut down 110 commercial driving schools that they said are connected to more than 5,000 truck drivers who failed English language proficiency tests.

During a news conference Monday in Detroit, leaders of the departments of Transportation and Homeland Security singled out California as the biggest problem state.

The federal officials were joined by Marcus Coleman and his 7-year-old daughter Dalilah, who in 2024 was critically injured when the driver of an 18-wheeler — an immigrant from India — crashed into their vehicle in the Mojave Desert.

“By far, the worst abusers are in California under [Gov.] Gavin Newsom’s leadership,” said Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

“A lot of the licenses unlawfully issued come from California, New York, a lot from Illinois,” added Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. “We see a lot of the violations when trucks are pulled over in the Midwest because they travel through the Midwest, and so though a license might be issued unlawfully in California, that driver doesn’t stay in California.”

The emergency school closures were part of a federal partnership to crack down on fraud and illegal practices in the commercial trucking industry. Mullin and Duffy did not say how many of the closures are in California.

Federal officials are also launching a nationwide audit of third-party testers who are authorized by states to verify commercial driver’s license applicants’ skills.

Homeland Security investigators, meanwhile, were conducting a coordinated sweep Monday of more than 200 training schools in 23 states.

Investigators with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have also issued notices seeking to shut down another 160 training schools where they said they found unlicensed instructors, missing documentation and inadequate space for drivers to learn necessary maneuvers.

Federal officials said that drivers certified by those schools were linked to 239 commercial motor vehicle-related deaths.

The Trump administration has revoked the commercial licenses of more than 28,000 drivers over English language proficiency failures since June 2025.

On Monday, Derek Barrs, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, cited Platinum Plus Truck Driving School in Fresno, which certified 36 drivers who were later cited for English language proficiency violations.

“One of these trainees killed someone in Oklahoma that should have never been on the roadway,” he said.

At another school in California, Barrs said, operators said their classroom was the back end of an open semi-trailer, and their primary instructor was out of the country.

The Transportation Department didn’t respond to a request from The Times asking how many of the 110 trucker schools were in California. But the agency told Fox News that 11 are in California, 10 in Florida, 13 in Pennsylvania and 13 in Texas, with smaller numbers in other states.

The announcements follow a longstanding effort by the Trump administration to target immigrant commercial truck drivers — especially those from California.

Soon after returning to the White House, President Trump signed an executive order requiring commercial truck drivers to prove they are proficient in English. In early August, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration moved to codify those language requirements through the federal rulemaking process.

Deadly accidents in Florida and San Bernardino County last year brought scrutiny to Sikh Punjabi truck drivers, who make up an estimated 20% of the U.S. trucking workforce.

New federal guidelines this year began limiting commercial driver’s licenses to certain visa holders and requiring states to verify an applicant’s immigration status through a federal portal. Federal officials also ordered California’s Department of Motor Vehicles to cancel about 13,000 licenses due to a clerical error that allowed them to remain valid past a work permit’s expiration date.

The federal government withheld $160 million in transportation funding after California delayed revoking the licenses.

Most states have allowed immigrants who have legal work authorization — including visa holders, asylum seekers and recipients of Temporary Protected Status — to drive commercial vehicles.

Critics of the rule say the Trump administration hasn’t provided data to back up its claims that foreign commercial drivers pose a particular safety threat.

In 2024, about 5,200 large trucks were involved in fatal crashes, a 3% decrease from 2023 but a 30% increase in the last 10 years, according to the National Safety Council.

Immigrant rights groups say the new rules exacerbate a truck driver shortage and inflame anti-immigrant bias by perpetuating the myth that all such drivers are unqualified. They say many affected drivers are legally authorized to work and have strong safety records.

The Asian Law Caucus and Sikh Coalition sued California’s DMV on behalf of drivers who faced cancellation of their licenses.

In March, an Alameda County judge declined to halt the cancellations but required the DMV to establish a process so they could reapply. The DMV also found that some 7,000 cancellations had been issued in error.

Also Monday, U.S. Border Patrol announced that it had arrested 95 truck drivers who are in the country illegally and possessed state-issued commercial driver’s licenses, including 76 with California licenses.

So the appeal is clear for those who manage the financial spreadsheets, but what about everybody else?

US Open organisers have not yet commented in the wake of the Williams-Kenin match, but they have previously argued late scheduling is a benefit to fans.

“Without question late-night matches were heavily discussed and reviewed after the 2022 US Open,” tournament director Stacey Allaster said in 2023, after opting to maintain the late schedule.

“We looked at starting the evening session earlier, instead of 7pm start at 6pm, but it’s not really a possibility because it’s hard for New Yorkers to get here even at 7pm.

“We talked about [changing to] one match at night, but we felt that’s not fair to our fans. One of the realities we have in tennis is that we are not defined by a start and an end time. We can have a short match or we can have a five-hour match.”

And that lack of certainty is where the problems arise. Organisers might not think all matches will run long, but they definitely know it’s a possibility.

A five-set men’s match can easily run for over four or even five hours and a women’s match that goes the distance can comfortably pass the three-hour mark. Put those two matches back-to-back on Arthur Ashe with a short break in-between and suddenly whoever is playing second isn’t finishing until about 3am.

The reason Williams and Kenin started their match so late is that Novak Djokovic’s defeat by Mariano Navone took five sets and over four hours to complete.

By the time Williams and Kenin were finished, the crowd in the 23,933-capacity stadium was sparse.