SACRAMENTO — Murder is considered the worst crime out there, but for my money, it’s child rapists who are the worst of the worst — especially the serial ones who destroy one life after another.
That’s wholly subjective on my part, but I doubt I’m alone. Which is why I was far from surprised at the outrage that accompanied two recent, successful parole hearings for convicted serial child predators in Sacramento.
Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, and David Funston, 64, both attacked children and were granted parole through California’s elderly parole program — though both remain behind bars for now.
But the fury over the possibility of their freedom has put the state’s controversial elderly parole program under scrutiny — again — and led to a flurry of legislation to add new restrictions. Should sex offenders be excluded? Especially heinous murderers? Everyone under the age of 75?
It’s easy to answer “yes” to all of the above.
“Part of the problem we have is we shouldn’t be making policy decisions based on speculation and on scary rhetoric that’s disconnected from the facts,” Keith Wattley told me. He’s the founder and director of UnCommon Law, a nonprofit that provides legal services and parole advocacy.
“That’s how politicians make people afraid, but it shouldn’t be how we make law,” he said.
And he’s right, as grotesque as these headline-grabbing cases are. In 2024, there were 3,580 elderly parole hearings and 606 people were granted that relief. Most have remained law-abiding. In the 2019-20 year, the most recent recidivism statistics available from CDCR, 221 people were granted elderly parole. Within three years, only four had been convicted of new crimes, and only one of those was a felony for a crime against a person. That tracks with lots of data that shows men generally age out of violent crimes.
But Funston and Vogelsang are the worst of what we fear when we talk about parole, and their cases rightfully make us wonder what the heck the parole board is doing. Though Gov. Gavin Newsom sent both of these decisions back for review, it’s easy to imagine the attack ads should he run for president: Under Newsom’s watch, child rapists walked free.
“Elder parole has gone too far,” Thien Ho, the Sacramento district attorney whose office prosecuted both men, told me. “I support the opportunity of people to be rehabilitated. But I think that certain individuals, in my opinion, and in my experience, cannot be rehabilitated.”
Here’s where I’m going to make a lot of folks mad on both sides of this issue. I agree with Ho, but also, I agree with Wattley. I don’t think we can pass laws based on our grimmest view of humanity. Removing hope from the system turns our prisons into dungeons and does not ultimately serve public safety.
But then, neither does releasing child molesters into our communities.
Lost in all the wrath about these two cases is the difficult business of justice that led to the early release law in 2014, and any interest in the hard and nuanced conversation that we need to have around terrible crimes. It’s easy and popular to say no violent criminal should ever be released, but we can’t just lock up everyone with no possibility of ever getting out because the “R” in CDCR stands for “rehabilitation,” and also — we just can’t afford the forever scenario, morally or fiscally.
California tried the throw-away-the-key model in the 1980s and ‘90s and ended up with prisons so overcrowded that the federal courts stepped in. The original elderly parole effort came through a 2014 court decision on overcrowding that gave inmates 60 or older who had served at least 25 years a chance to go before the parole board. A chance — no guaranteed freedom, and usually it takes multiple hearings years apart before the board approves it.
Later, the Legislature expanded elderly parole to inmates 50 or older who had served 20 years, but excluded those sentenced under the “three strikes” law or those who had murdered peace officers.
The reality is California has a lot of old, aging and sick people behind bars — at great expense. As we grapple with the idea of universal healthcare, there’s one place in California where it already exists — our prisons and jails. We currently pay more than $41,000 in healthcare costs per inmate per year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
I’m not going to tell you it’s the best healthcare, but it’s taxpayer-funded, and includes even long-term dementia care. And yes, we do have incarcerated dementia patients.
“This is about reducing our prison population and our liability to cover housing and healthcare for an aging prison population, and we have to balance that with the safety of the community and the rights of victims,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me. She’s sponsoring a bill that would create an additional layer of safety around sex crimes by referring these possible parolees to the civil system that evaluates sexually violent predators for confinement in mental facilities after their prison terms.
“Under some circumstances, it is worth considering paroling some of these defendants,” she said, with the kind of thoughtful rationality sure to offend many. “But the cases that you’re seeing right now are completely egregious, and those defendants should not be released.”
Vogelsang was convicted of almost 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes, against kids as young as 5. He’s served 27 years of a 355-year sentence.
David Allen Funston, a Sacramento County child predator convicted in 1999 of multiple counts of kidnapping and child molestation. Funston was granted parole suitability under California’s Elderly Parole Program after serving more than two decades in prison.
(Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office)
David Allen Funston was convicted in 1999 of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation for kids as young as toddlers. He was sentenced to three consecutive 25-to-life prison sentences. Newsom bounced his first successful parole bid back to the parole board for a review, and on Feb. 18, it affirmed its decision.
But Placer County prosecutors quickly charged him with an old crime that had never been filed due to the Sacramento case, and he remains incarcerated awaiting trial on those charges.
Vogelsang’s case particularly raised a red flag for me. He told the parole board he’s been working successfully for about five years to control his thoughts about children.
“I don’t want to become aroused, but I know it’s always going to be there,” he said during the hearing.
Newsom also sent Vogelsang’s case back for review, and he will go before the board again on March 18. Vogelsang’s testimony was concerning enough that if I had a vote in this, I’d probably ask him to come back again in a few years, but we’ll see what the board does.
I’ll admit my decision would be emotional, and these cases do make me wonder. But Wattley is right that condemning elderly parole based on the monstrous deeds of these child predators is shortsighted. There is likely little to no public safety benefit in raising the overall age for elderly parole, and certainly no fiscal benefit.
“When you’re paying for older, sicker people to be incarcerated, and they don’t pose a risk to public safety, what are we actually getting for that? We’re not getting anything that supports survivors. We’re not getting anything that prevents crime. We’re just spending taxpayer dollars on something that doesn’t correlate with the public safety risk,” Wattley pointed out.
As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, it’s best for public safety to allow even the worst of the worst their chance in front of the parole board. It may even make sense for some who have committed truly terrible crimes decades ago to be released, if there is strong evidence of change and a low risk to public safety. That’s the kind of fair and realistic justice that no one on either side of the issue wants to talk about.
I’m not convinced Vogelsang and Funston have met those bars. But that doesn’t mean we should throw out the bars.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
Former L.A. mayor and current candidate for governor Antonio Villaraigosa wants voters to know that he navigated billion-dollar budgets, cracked down on violent crime and championed the expansion of bus and rail lines.
The onetime state Assembly speaker argues he’s the only Democratic candidate with the experience to do the complicated job of running California.
But Villaraigosa left City Hall in 2013 — eons ago in the world of politics. President Obama was still in office, singer Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” was atop the charts and Apple Watches weren’t yet a thing.
Because of his distance from elected office, combined with a decent but overshadowed fundraising effort, Villaraigosa lacks a high-profile platform to attract attention in today’s fractured media universe, an essential ingredient he needs to remind voters about his experience and accomplishments as mayor and a state lawmaker.
Antonio Villaraigosa gets his photo taken with students from Hazeltine Avenue Elementary School while visiting Placita Olvera in 2013.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Recent polls show Villaraigosa, 73, wallowing at the bottom of the field, though none of the major Democratic candidates have an overwhelming edge.
Villaraigosa also ran for governor in 2018, coming in third in the primary election behind Democratic rival Gavin Newsom, who went on to win and is now serving his second term, and little-known Republican businessman John Cox.
Political strategist Mike Madrid, who worked for Villaraigosa on that campaign, said the former mayor’s absence from politics in recent years is a major liability in this race.
“He’s a dogged, determined candidate,” Madrid said. “But there are pretty stiff headwinds.”
Villaraigosa got a boost last week when the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California pledged $1 million to an outside committee supporting him.
His allies argue voters aren’t paying attention to the governor’s race because eyes are on President Trump, immigration raids and the Iran war.
But the new funding is a pittance compared to some of his rivals. Billionaire Tom Steyer is tapping tens of millions of his own money to pump out ads. Tech companies and billionaire Rick Caruso are supporting Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José, with millions.
Another contender, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), has the power of incumbency. Swalwell launched his campaign on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and is a regular on cable news shows, while former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, who is also running, recently served in Congress and campaigned for the U.S. Senate two years ago.
With the June primary looming, Villaraigosa’s campaign risks sputtering out.
Angeleno Celine Mares holds a copy of Newsweek featuring newly elected Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as he is sworn into office on the steps of City Hall July 1, 2005.
(David McNew / Getty Images)
Leaving a Compton church earlier this month, he reacted to Mahan’s support from technology companies, and the billionaire money in the race.
“When you have overwhelming sums of money influencing elections, there’s a great deal of concern for those of us who care about our democracy,” said Villaraigosa. “As much as they say it’s about free speech, it actually drowns out speech.”
(During his 2018 bid for governor, though, Villaraigosa was a major beneficiary of Californians using their wealth to wield political influence. Charter school backers, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings and philanthropist Eli Broad, spent around $23 million on efforts to boost his campaign. )
Earlier in the morning, he rallied runners at a 10K road race in L.A.’s Chinatown, lighting firecrackers, posing for photos and looking as energetic as when he was mayor and would dart into the street to personally fill potholes.
Villaraigosa flitted around the racers’ VIP tent, spotted a bowl of fortune cookies and made a beeline. “You have an active mind and a keen imagination,” he read aloud.
“Antonio V.!” a middle-aged man called out as the former mayor passed.
Minutes later, Villaraigosa swapped his black and white Veja sneakers and jeans for dress shoes and a suit for the church service in Compton, at which an overwhelmingly Black audience gave him a warm reception.
Building a coalition of Black and Latino voters helped him win the 2005 L.A. mayor’s race in a dramatic upset of then-Mayor Jim Hahn, and brought wide attention to the one-time high school dropout, who was raised by a single mother on Los Angeles’ eastside.
Newsweek magazine featured Villaraigosa on its cover with the headline, “Latino Power: L.A.’s New Mayor and How Hispanics will change American Politics.”
But national acclaim can be fleeting. Today, voters aren’t as interested in identity-based politics, said Fernando Guerra, a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University who has known Villaraigosa for decades.
Guerra said Villaraigosa is struggling to differentiate himself in the race because his pitch to voters is not unlike the moderate path taken by Mahan. Another contender, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, overlaps with Villaraigosa when it comes to biographical details: Both are from the L.A. area, Latino and relatively close in age.
“What’s made it so difficult is that [Villaraigosa said], ‘Here’s my path,’” said Guerra. “Well, guess what, there are one to two more candidates who are also on that path.”
Strategist Madrid questioned whether voters even want to hear about a candidate’s experience at a time when anti-Trump messages rally Californians. “They want a fighter,” he said.
Since leaving the mayor’s office, Villaraigosa has enjoyed success in the lucrative private sector. He purchased a $3.3 million home in the L.A. neighborhood of Beverly Hills Post Office in 2020. . A recent campaign filing shows he’s spent the last few years advising companies including the health company AltaMed, financial lender Change Company and crypto currency exchange Coinbase Global.
Then mayor Antonio Villaraigosa holds a news conference at the Department of Water and Power on Hope Street July 22, 2005, urging all of Los Angeles to conserve energy in an effort to ensure Southern California avoids blackouts.
(Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times)
He also worked for a few years for consulting firm Actum and briefly advised the Newsom administration on infrastructure projects.
“It’s not that I didn’t like the public sector,” said Villaraigosa, explaining his decision to run again. As he talked about his desire to serve, he cast a gauzy image of the aughts in Los Angeles, taking credit for the downtown resurgence, skyline full of construction cranes and fewer homeless people on the streets during that period.
“Most people look back on those years and say they were some of the best years we’ve had in the last 25 — at least,” said Villaraigosa.
Stuart Waldman, president of the business group Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., argues Villaraigosa’s experience in the private sector and distance from elected office is a good thing.
“Look at what the economy was like, look at what the city was like” under Villaraigosa, said Waldman. “That’s what he’s going to be judged on.”
Villaraigosa started his career working for labor and civil rights groups before entering politics. Elected to the state Assembly in 1994, he pushed legislation that banned assault weapons and created healthcare coverage for children. His outgoing personality established him as a coveted fundraiser for Democrats in Sacramento and paved the way for him to be chosen as Assembly speaker.
As L.A. mayor, he brought down gang crime through a program that used former gang members to broker truces. Voters backed his ballot measure to expand L.A.’s transit system through new sales tax money in the middle of the Great Recession. He drove down pension costs after a bruising battle with city unions. At the same time, he established himself as a national leader on climate issues and education.
His reputation took a hit after an affair with a television reporter led to the breakup of his marriage.
The media scene that covered Villaraigosa back then is vastly diminished, with young people now getting news from TikTok videos, message boards or Instagram posts.
Weighing in on recent TV news layoffs in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa called himself “lucky” that there were plenty of newspaper and television reporters covering him as mayor, recalling that he’d get a dozen cameras to his press conferences.
Asked to compare his 2018 campaign for governor with this one, he said, “I didn’t have to reintroduce myself last time in quite the way I’ve had to this time.”
Villaraigosa spent a significant time in Mexico in recent years to see his now ex-wife Patricia Govea, a clothing designer. “She was in Mexico 80% of the time, the last six years. So I` went to Mexico a lot.” The pair’s divorce was finalized last year.
During a debate in front of Jewish voters on L.A.’s westside last month, Villaraigosa appeared to seize on the fact that he was the sole Angeleno on the stage, introducing himself by saying, “It’s good to be home.”
He told the crowd about his work as president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and criticized UCLA — his alma matter — for its handling of incidents targeting Jewish students on its campus.
It remains to be seen if he’ll have a hometown advantage. In the 2018 race for governor, Newsom won more votes than Villaraigosa in Los Angeles County. While Villaraigosa did well in Latino communities in central L.A. and on the Eastside, Newsom captured more votes in wealthier, whiter areas.
But at the Compton church, a security guard approached Villaraigosa and told him she’d worked on his 2005 campaign, while others promised to vote for him.
“I know he has a track record,” said Valerie Bland, a 63-year-old former port worker from Long Beach, as she watched Villaraigosa work the pews. “I haven’t even looked at anyone else.”
Former Assembly speaker Fabian Núñez, a longtime friend of Villaraigosa and managing partner at Actum, hopes voters dig into Villaraigosa’s record.
“We have short-term memories in this country,” said Núñez.
“LIGHTS out and away we go!”, the famous F1 cry rang out as we were about to take off from Vegas to fly back to London.
It was a nice touch by the Virgin flight attendant and brought an approving chuckle from a plane packed with motorsport fanatics who had just enjoyed one of the most memorable weekends of their lives.
Every year, the streets of Sin City echo to the sound of F1’s elite machines roaring round a 3.8-mile circuit that takes in the iconic Strip and winds round the jaw-dropping Sphere.
Where else in the world is a more fitting home for the supercharged glam of the F1 circus?
Petrolheads may not be fans of the circuit for its racing quality, but if you want spectacle, well, this is THE place to be.
Whether you’re in one of the many stands dotted around the Sphere or watching the cars whizz by at 230mph on the Strip, it’s an experience like no other.
Those with deeper pockets can take pit lane walks and tours of the track.
For most, however, the only way to get a racer’s eye view of the circuit is at the F1 Arcade in Caesars Palace — one of several worldwide — where you can go wheel-to-wheel with your mates as you blast past all the Vegas landmarks.
If you’re lucky enough to be in town for race week, you can down a beer — or a tequila shot — at the Bellagio Hotel’s legend-ary Shoey Bar.
Named in tribute to Aussie driver Danny Ricciardo’s infamous celebration, when he downed champagne from his shoe, the pop-up bar serves drinks in footwear on a terrace overlooking the hotel’s famous fountains.
One of the best track-side points to watch race action is opposite the Sphere, Las Vegas’s enormous ball of fun that’s become a global phenomenon.
On the inside, it’s currently showing a specially adapted version of The Wizard Of Oz on its 160,000sq ft screen that makes you feel like you’re IN the movie.
As well as the expected special effects like blasts of wind when the hurricane blows in, there are animatronic flying monkeys, apples falling from the ceiling and flurries of snow.
With tickets from $104 (£78), it’s booking until the end of 2026, so there’s plenty of time for you to become the fifth member of Dorothy’s gang of misfits.
Away from the Sphere, another Vegas institution is the gravity-defying Cirque du Soleil — and there are six resident productions to choose from.
Of these, I recommend “O”. It has all the death-defying acrobatics, but with a £100million stage that transforms into a 25ft deep pool in seconds.
With a daredevil cast featuring former Olympic athletes, it’s just another way for Vegas to take your breath away.
The Sun’s Stewart Jackson with a party pair showing off their impressive headwearCredit: SuppliedEnjoy a cocktail with candyfloss at Pinky’s by VanderpumpCredit: Supplied
For a classy dinner after all this fun, head to High Steaks, atop the Rio hotel.
Fifty floors up with 180-degree views from an outdoor terrace, as well as sumptuous steaks, you can gorge on extravagant seafood towers and smoked prime rib.
For something a little more relaxed, how about Pinky’s By Vanderpump at the Flamingo?
It’s no less Instagrammable, due to its sexy Art Deco greenhouse vibe, but with more affordable food.
And I urge you to try the Daddy Issues cocktail (make sure you stir in the candyfloss once you’ve taken a picture!).
For a classier speakeasy experience, The Vault — hidden deep within the sprawling Bellagio casino floor — oozes sophistication. But make sure you book to avoid disappointment.
Then on to a nightclub? Make it Omnia in Caesars Palace. You’ll be captivated by its famous kinetic chandelier that pulsates in time to the music above a dancefloor packed with beautiful people.
Away from the bright lights of the casinos and nightclubs, there is a little gem just off the Strip in karaoke bar Smelly Cat, where you can belt out your chosen anthem with a live backing group.
The resident band can play any tune their super-duper AI gadget can find. They’d never heard of Mardy Bum by Arctic Monkeys when it was requested, but they smashed it out of the park.
You can jump the queue to get up on stage by paying a $100 fee. Depending on how much you would love to sing with your own backing band, that could be an absolute bargain.
After the high-octane fun of casinos, the Strip and all those Daddy Issues, the Arts District is the place to head.
South Main Street, a 15-minute taxi ride from the Strip, is home to chilled bars and cafes, cool vintage stores, antique markets and art galleries.
It’s like an anti-Vegas if you need to decompress, and cafe/bakery 1228 Main is the ideal place to have a relaxed lunch mid-mooch — check out the breakfast burrito. A pit stop, if you will, after all that racing around.
But in Sin City — as in a Grand Prix — pit stops are very much temporary.
Cocktails await, followed by the casino, followed by a club . . .
Lights out and away we go, people!
GO: LAS VEGAS
GETTING THERE: Virgin Atlantic flies direct from London Heathrow to Las Vegas from £835pp return.
TRAVELLERS are rushing to Amazon to bag a large-sized Samsonite suitcase that’s now almost half-price in the retailer’s Spring Sale.
This soft-shell, big-brand luggage usually costs £209, but has since dropped to £112.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
Samsonite’s soft-shell Base Boost case has a 112.5-litre capacity
Samsonite Base Boost Soft Luggage, £112.19 (was £209)
The retail giant’s Spring Deal Days sale is now in its penultimate day, with thousands of prices plummeted across the site.
With the holiday season fast approaching, small wonder the online giant has decided to drop prices across a wide range of suitcases.
And yes, you’ll find all sorts of third-party options for much less – but if you’re looking for assured levels of quality on your hols, then go for a well-known maker like Samsonite.
Originally £209, the Base Boost Soft Luggage Suitcase has been dropped to just £112.19.
This, by contrast, is a 112.5-litre beast that’s best for families and those long trips away.
Despite its size, it remains incredibly lightweight at just 3.1kg, which gives you more of an opportunity to fill up the case while steering clear of those dreaded overweight baggage fees.
It comes in black and navy blue, with the black being a little cheaper.
For security, it’s got a fixed TSA combination lock built-in for stress-free travel, and inside, it’s got a buckle system to keep your clothes in place and a zipped mesh divider for easy organisation.
Better yet, Samsonite also includes a 10-year warranty with this case.
Five teams will compete in the new series of the BBC travel show, racing from Europe to Mongolia
Race Across the World is returning with a new series
(Image: BBC screengrab)
The upcoming Race Across the World contestants are shown battling through thick snow in an early look at the new series.
The much-loved BBC programme – which features teams racing vast distances on limited budgets, without phones and banned from flying – is back for a sixth series, and the broadcaster has released a short preview in a teaser trailer, reports Wales Online.
Whilst the departure point hasn’t been revealed yet, this season the participants will face the challenge of travelling from Europe “to the uncharted edges of Mongolia”. Footage in the trailer captures the racers riding horses, navigating major cities, leaping from boats and attempting to hitch lifts.
“The further they go, the closer they’ll get,” flashes across the screen, as one of this year’s participants is heard saying: “This race, it’s a lifetime of exploring in such a short amount of time.
“It’s going to open up a lot of doors not many people have the privilege to unlock.”
Another contestant is then heard exclaiming: “This is an adventure.”
The BBC teased: “In this vast east-to-west journey, five pairs race from the familiarities of Europe all the way to the uncharted edges of Mongolia in Race Across the World series six.
“These teams must forge their own path… But on this journey of extremes, who will finish first? No flights. No phones. No safety net… Let the race begin!”
Fans have declared they “can’t wait” following the series preview, with one posting on Instagram: “So excited for this.”
“OMG…. Can’t wait for this one!!!” gushed one person, whilst another fan declared: “My favourite programme.”
“Yippee!” enthused another viewer, as somebody else wrote: “Yesssssss!! Cannot wait – best programme!!”
Last year’s series of Race Across the World saw the teams departing from The Great Wall of China before journeying across China, Nepal and India to reach the finishing point of Kanniyakumari, the southernmost tip of India.
It was claimed by mother and son pairing Caroline and Tom, who secured the £20,000 prize after becoming the first duo to arrive at the final checkpoint.
For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.
The list of candidates running for Los Angeles city and school board offices is set, with a number of incumbents facing what could be competitive primary elections on June 2.
Fourteen Angelenos have qualified to run for mayor, including incumbent Karen Bass, City Councilmember Nithya Raman and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt.
Seven City Council incumbents face at least one challenger, while Councilmember Monica Rodriguez is running unopposed to represent her northeast San Fernando Valley district.
City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto is running against three opponents — deputy attorney general Marissa Roy, human rights attorney Aida Ashouri and Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney.
In the race for city controller, incumbent Kenneth Mejia will battle it out against Zach Sokoloff, who is on sabbatical from his job as senior vice president of asset management at Hackman Capital Partners.
For the last week and a half, workers at the City Clerk’s Office have been verifying the legitimacy of voter signatures submitted by the candidates, finishing the last batch on Friday.
Gathering the required 500 signatures is relatively easy in citywide races but harder in council and school board districts. Some candidates who submitted petitions by the March 4 deadline failed to qualify because some of their signatures were deemed invalid.
In each race, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in June, the top two finishers will compete in a November runoff.
The field of 14 for mayor narrowed significantly from the roughly 40 who filed initial paperwork on Feb. 7. The qualifiers include a game streamer, a singer-songwriter and a tech entrepreneur, as well as government veterans like Asaad Alnajjar, a longtime engineer for the city. Rae Huang, a pastor and housing advocate, will also appear on the ballot.
Raman, a former Bass ally, shook up the race with her surprise entry, hours before the filing deadline.
A recent poll found that about 51% of Los Angeles voters are undecided on who they want for mayor. Bass led at 20%, followed by Pratt at just over 10% and Raman at slightly more than 9%, according to the Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics poll.
Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with Huang at about 3%.
In District 1, which stretches from Glassell Park and Highland Park to Chinatown and Pico Union, four challengers are looking to unseat City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez. They are Maria Lou Calanche, a former Los Angeles Police Commissioner and founder of the nonprofit Legacy LA; Nelson Grande, an executive consultant and former president of Avenida Entertainment Group; Raul Claros, founder of CD1 Coalition, which organizes cleanup days; and Sylvia Robledo, a small-business owner and former council aide.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield is terming out in District 3, leaving the race to represent the southwestern San Fernando Valley open to a newcomer. The three candidates are Timothy K. Gaspar, who founded a private insurance company; Barri Worth Girvan, a director of community affairs for an L.A. County supervisor; and Christopher Robert “C.R.” Celona, a tech entrepreneur.
In District 5, which includes Bel-Air, Westwood, Hancock Park and other West L.A. communities, Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky faces two challengers: tenants rights attorney Henry Mantel and accountant Morgan Oyler.
With Councilmember Curren Price terming out in District 9, six candidates are vying to represent parts of downtown and South L.A. They are Jose Ugarte, who was formerly Price’s deputy chief of staff; Estuardo Mazariegos, a lead organizer at the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment; nonprofit director Elmer Roldan; entrepreneur Jorge Nuño; professor and therapist Martha Sánchez; and educator Jorge Hernandez Rosas.
Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Westside communities of District 11, including Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Venice, will face off against civil rights attorney Faizah Malik.
In District 13, which includes Hollywood and East Hollywood as well as parts of Silver Lake, Echo Park and Westlake, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez is defending his seat against three challengers. They are Colter Carlisle, vice president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council; Dylan Kendall, an entrepreneur and founder of Grow Hollywood; and Rich Sarian, vice president of strategic initiatives for the Social District.
And in District 15, which includes San Pedro and other harbor-area communities as well as Watts, Councilmember Tim McOsker is running against community organizer Jordan Rivers, who is continuing his campaign after reports that he stabbed a neighbor when he was 12. Rivers said it was an “accident” that happened a decade ago.
Three seats are open on the Los Angeles Unified School District board.
In District 2, incumbent Rocío Rivas is being challenged by Raquel Zamora, an LAUSD teacher and attendance counselor.
In District 4, incumbent Nick Melvoin is facing off against Ankur Patel, director of outreach at the Hindu University of America.
District 5 school board member Kelly Gonez is running unopposed for her third term.
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, one of the top Democrats running for California governor, on Friday blasted USC and the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles for hosting a debate that he argues purposely excludes all candidates of color.
Becerra said he and the other candidates were excluded from the televised debate unfairly, a decision that he said “smells of election rigging” in a hotly contested race less than three months before the June primary.
“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed,’” Becerra wrote in a public letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”
The university said in a statement that it authorized a political expert to create the formula to determine who would be included in the debate.
“At the request of the Center for the Political Future, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology that determined eligibility for the debate,” according to a statement from the center. “No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”
The center later said in a statement on Friday that it reiterated the criteria that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate, and that nothing had changed since the forum was first planned.
The criteria for gubernatorial candidates to participate considered opinion polling and campaign fund raising. Six candidates were asked to participate in the March 24 debate, which is cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision.
There was conflicting information about USC’s stated criteria, however. The methodology says that the fundraising totals considered were based on semi-annual reports campaigns filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, the document later says that the fundraising figures also includes large donations that campaigns are required to immediately report.
This is a critical difference, because San José Mayor Matt Mahan did not enter the race until late January, and thus far has not been required to file any semi-annual fundraising disclosures with the state. However, he has received significant donations since he entered the race.
Mahan agreed with Becerra, saying that he ought to be part of public forums about who will lead the state.
“The former Secretary is absolutely correct, he should be included in the debate,” Mahan said in a statement. “His long record of service to California has earned him a place on every debate stage in this campaign for Governor.”
USC officials said they are clarifying how they selected candidates to participate in the race.
“We are reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula,” the Center for the Political Future said in a statement. “We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”
Grose said that the selection of candidates was based upon polling and fundraising numbers, and that the sentence about semi-annual fundraising reports was inaccurate.
“It was just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” he said.
Six candidates are scheduled to appear at the debate: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton; and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer and Mahan.
The kerfuffle occurs after Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of trying to oust them from the race in favor of white candidates, who have more support in opinion polls.
In addition to Becerra, other prominent Democratic candidates excluded from the debate include former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also condemned the candidate-selection formula.
“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices,” Villaraigosa, who taught public policy at USC for three years after leaving office, said in a statement. “But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”
Becerra said USC went to great lengths to justify the candidates that were excluded, but the bias was clear.
“You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” he said.
Becerra was clearly referring to Mahan, who recently entered the race and has received millions of dollars of support from Silicon Valley leaders. Becerra noted that veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, which is a sponsor of the debate, is assisting an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan.
Murphy said he had recused himself from anything involved in the debate, and that he was a volunteer for the outside group backing Mahan. If he becomes a paid advisor to the independent expenditure committee, he said he has requested unpaid leave from the university through the June 2 primary.
“I’ve been transparent that I’m personally a Mahan supporter,” Murphy said. “I’ve had zero to do with the debate.”
Head coach Danny Rohl has been the subject of criticism from fans of the Ibrox club after his players failed to capitalise on total domination during their Old Firm cup exit last weekend.
And with the German’s side six points off top spot – a margin that could be extended by the time they start against managerless St Mirren on Sunday (12:00) – there is increased pressure and little room for error.
Craig McLeish, Jamie Langfield and Allan McManus will lead an interim team for the League Cup holders and Scottish Cup semi-finalists, who are scrapping for their top-flight status, following Stephen Robinson’s departure to Aberdeen.
The Paisley club have won just one of their past 13 Premiership matches – which came against leaders Hearts – but Rangers’ recent form is not too clever either.
Rohl and his players are now facing questions about mentality – an all too familiar story at Ibrox – despite the 36-year-old saying a month ago that he was heartened by a mindset shift in his players.
A defeat at Tynecastle in December was followed by a run of seven wins and a draw in eight league matches, but Rangers have since won one of their past four league games – a 4-2 victory against Hearts.
That form stretches to one win in five when you include Sunday’s cup game. In fact, they have won just three of their past nine in all competitions.
If this alarming drop-off is not addressed urgently, it will prove terminal for Rangers’ title hopes and intensify the pressure on Rohl from a demanding support.
Weighing in at about 550 pounds, Woody, his largest hog (named by a grandson after the “Toy Story” icon) plays “like a puppy” in his free-range paddock, Staples told me, gobbling up the rye, clovers and winter peas that have grown knee-high under the Southern sun.
Swine life on Staples’ sustainable family farm is a jarring contrast to the existence of a pig on one of America’s “intensive” corporate-owned mega-farms, where some sows are confined to cages so small they literally can’t turn around or take more than a step or two in any direction.
“It’s not necessary and it hasn’t proven to be good science,” Staples, a self-described conservative Republican, said of Big Ag porcine lockups. “It’s also cruel.”
At issue is the Save Our Bacon Act, a sneak attack backed by foreign corporations currently hidden deep inside the farm bill. It would severely curb the ability of states to enact limits on animal confinement and maybe accidentally open the door for ending all kinds of state-level food safety laws.
The SOB Act, an apt nickname, would not only cripple small family farmers such as Staples (though its supporters claim it helps family farmers), it would negate the will of California voters, potentially introduce risk into the food chain, and turn greater power of our food supply over to China.
It would also limit consumer choice at a time when more Americans — from fans of far-right Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to far-left granola grandmas — are demanding a say in how their food is produced.
Let’s break that down.
What is the SOB Act?
For the vegetarian hard-liners out there, it is true that Woody himself will someday likely be bacon.
But, increasingly over the past decades, meat-friendly consumers have moved toward wanting animals to “live a really great life and have one bad day,” as Nate Beaulac, another conservative Oklahoma pork farmer, describes it.
In 2018, to further that aim, about 63% of California voters passed Proposition 12, which increased the space that breeding sows were required to have, from something about the size of a small car trunk to the size of a coat closet. We’re not talking rolling acres here — just enough room to turn around. Some of these sows are basically caged for the majority of their breeding life — years — and are about the size of a black bear.
But here was the real bite in Proposition 12: No pork from any state could be sold in California if it didn’t come from a farm that met the new standard.
Overnight, the corporate breeders were locked out of the Golden State market. They sued bigly, and lost bigly in 2023 at the Supreme Court, which upheld California’s right to impose the state standard.
The SOB Act would negate Proposition 12 (and a similar law in Massachusetts) and forbid states from making laws regarding animal confinement, according to an analysis by the Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law.
That would emphatically overturn the will of the majority of California voters who want those standards.
But hey, Big Pork would make big bank.
“They want to limit American consumers’ ability to fight,” Beaulac told me. “They wanted to limit Americans’ ability to pursue any sort of change. And that is why me, not only as a farmer, but as an American and a capitalist, I’m strongly opposed to the Save Our Bacon Act, and in staunch support of Proposition 12.”
What Prop. 12 did
Beaulac was once a Californian himself, before heading to the Sooner State for college. He describes himself as a “Christian, capitalist, conservative environmentalist,” and a sustainable farmer who depends on consumers’ desire for healthy food to sell his pigs, chickens and cows.
Proposition 12, Beaulac said, “was a huge help to smaller farms, and the only people that it really hurt were the huge multinational conglomerates.”
“I mean very simply, we want the opportunity to compete,” he said.
Staples, Woody’s owner, who is also an expert in project management and environmental compliance from a previous career in the power industry, makes the case that the mega-farms can also come with mega-dangers.
“You have 100,000 pigs within two miles of each other, the chance of issues with a swine flu or natural disaster just increases,” he said. He points out that issues such as disease, groundwater contamination and waste disposal have already become problems for some large farms.
The flaws in the SOB Act don’t stop there.
The Harvard Law analysis points out that the loose language of the bill could have other consequences, maybe even gutting some state safety, labeling and cleanliness standards.
And some Republicans in Congress, including Californian Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, oppose the measure and sent a letter to the Agriculture Committee late last year urging them to dump the act, pointing out that at least a quarter of Big Pork is owned by Chinese companies and does not represent American interests.
“Foreign-owned corporations — particularly those tied to adversarial nations — already hold a disturbing amount of control over U.S. agricultural assets,” the letter read, citing Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the United States.
The SOB Act “could further consolidate the influence of such foreign entities,” the letter‘s authors warned.
Armed with those arguments and others, Staples and Beaulac traveled to Washington recently to make their case against the SOB Act with lawmakers.
But, both men told me, they were met with a wall of lobbyists and money.
“It’s very eye-opening in terms of how many lobbyists are there every day,” Beaulac said. “The reality is Big Ag donates big money to the senators, and so when they need their bill to go through or they need a bill shut down, they’re going to have a lot more leeway than the small farmers.”
The lobbyists, Staples said, had the debate wrapped up tight long before the farmers even knocked the dirt off their boots and entered Congress.
“It was very obvious,” he said. “I was not prepared for what Big Ag had done, how they had prepared members of Congress to address the issues we wanted to address.”
Beaulac said he’s discouraged and fears the SOB Act will pass, but also isn’t giving up hope. He sees it as a bipartisan issue, and one he hopes for which people will stand up. This week, a social media post featuring a sad photo of a caged pig went viral, drawing attention across party lines.
“Blue, red. It doesn’t matter. People want healthy food,” Beaulac said. “They want to know how it’s raised. They genuinely care how they’re feeding their family, and it has nothing to do with who they vote for in November.”
P.S. Here’s a post by right-wing commentator Michael Cernovich on the SOB Act, just a taste of how much some of the MAGA folks don’t like this measure.
— Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Spencer Pratt, a conservative reality TV star, came in second to Bass, at just over 10%. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a former Bass ally who shook up the field with her last-minute entry, polled at slightly more than 9%. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with leftist candidate Rae Huang at about 3%.
Although Bass had the most support among the candidates in the June 2 primary election, the poll showed that nearly half of Angelenos are unhappy with her performance. She was weakened politically by her handling of the devastating Palisades fire but has touted reductions in homicides and homelessness.
About 25% of those polled said they approve of the job Bass is doing as mayor, while about 47% disapprove. About 28% said they have no opinion or felt neutral.
The poll, based on interviews with 350 likely voters March 7-9, revealed just how up for grabs the mayoral election is, with less than three months before the primary.
“This is a wide open race,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city council member and L.A. County supervisor who runs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “The general narrative [of the poll] is that the mayor is not popular for somebody going into reelection, but the majority of people have not made up their mind whether they’ll come back to her or go to someone else.”
City Councilmember Nithya Raman meets with reporters after filing paperwork to run for mayor of Los Angeles.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Bass campaign spokesperson Doug Herman did not respond directly to the poll. But he said in a statement that the mayor “took on the challenge to change Los Angeles after decades of decline from long ignored issues; resulting in first ever back to back drops in homelessness, 60 year lows in homicides and an unprecedented 40,000 affordable housing units accelerated.”
Pratt said through a campaign spokesperson, “The Emerson poll confirms what we’ve been seeing on the ground — this is a two-person race for Mayor of Los Angeles between me and Karen Bass. Angelenos are frustrated with the direction of the city and it’s reflected in her low approval numbers. Our campaign is gaining real momentum as more voters look for new leadership focused on results and accountability. This race is just getting started.”
Raman’s campaign, however, said she’s the one gaining momentum.
“It’s clear that voters want change, and we’re gaining momentum for our campaign to make L.A. more affordable and to govern with urgency and accountability,” the campaign said in a statement.
The field of candidates did not take shape until the week of the February filing deadline. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath both flirted with a run before deciding against it, and former L.A. schoolsSupt. Austin Beutner dropped out after the death of his 22-year-old daughter. With no other major candidate opposing Bass, Raman filed her paperwork with hours to spare.
With petitions still being verified, 13 mayoral candidates have qualified for the June ballot. If no one gets 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will head to a runoff in November.
“This race could shift dramatically come June,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said in a statement.
Kimball cited the large percentage of undecided voters of all stripes — 67% of independents, 49% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans are undecided. Pratt is a Republican, and the other major candidates are Democrats in a heavily blue city.
Pacific Palisades resident Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, stands with supporters after announcing his run for Los Angeles mayor on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire in the Palisades Village on Jan. 7, 2026.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
The poll is not the first to show negative views of Bass.
Last year, after the Palisades fire, a poll of L.A. County residents by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs found that 37% held favorable views of the mayor, while 49% held unfavorable views.
The Emerson poll also featured questions on issues such as public safety and homelessness.
More than 82% of Angelenos in the poll said they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities, while about 17% said they feel not too safe or not safe at all.
On homelessness, the view was grimmer. Only 15% of Angelenos polled said that homelessness is getting better, while more than 55% said it is getting worse. Almost 30% feel it is staying the same.
Los Angeles has seen significant reductions in street homelessness for the last two years, after years of steady increases.
Bass has attributed the declines to her signature Inside Safe program, which clears encampments and places homeless people in short term housing.
“There is no doubt that Inside Safe, by bringing thousands of people inside and reducing street homelessness by 17.5 percent, has saved lives and helped drive this decline,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday.
The Emerson poll also asked California residents about the governor’s race. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) had the most support at slightly more than 17%, followed by Republicans Steve Hilton at just over 13% and Chad Bianco at more than 11%. Billionaire Tom Steyer came in at about 11%.
Nearly a quarter of California voters were undecided, according to the poll.
Paul Mitchell, a political data expert, called the Emerson poll flawed. Not enough Angelenos were polled, and the sample skewed too heavily toward young people, when older residents are more likely to vote, he said.
Mitchell called the poll an “amuse-bouche.”
“This tells all of the candidates [they] should be doing a poll,” he said.
As anxiety mounts among California Democrats about the potential of a Republican being elected governor, the state party will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling to assess the viability of the sprawling field of candidates hoping to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to plans released Tuesday.
“Candidates have filed, and now they’ve got the opportunity to showcase their viability, their path to win. I want to simply ensure that everybody has information to fully understand the current state of the race,” said Rusty Hicks, the leader of the California Democratic Party.
As campaign season ramps up, the series of six polls will allow “candidates, supporters, the media, voters, anyone and everyone to have a clear understanding of what is or is not happening in this particular race,” he said.
The filing deadline to appear on the June 2 ballot was Friday. Three days earlier, Hicks released an open letter urging candidates who did not have a path to victory to withdraw from the race. Of the nine prominent Democrats who had announced runs for governor, only one heeded his call: former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.
That means the eight other candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, regardless of whether they decide to later drop out. And that creates the possibility of a Republican winning the race because of how California elections are decided.
The state has a voter-approved top-two primary system, under which the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.
Two prominent Republicans will appear on the ballot: former conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Even though Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, and the state’s electorate last elevated Republicans to statewide office in 2006, it is mathematically possible for Democrats to splinter the vote, allowing the two GOP candidates to advance.
Under such a scenario, not only would Republicans be guaranteed the leadership of the nation’s most-populous state, but Democratic voter turnout also would probably be depressed in November, potentially affecting down-ballot races such as those that could determine control of Congress.
Hicks’ call last week prompted concerns among candidates of color, including former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, that the effort was aimed at every nonwhite candidate in the race.
The state party chairman responded that his letter was not aimed at any specific candidate.
“It’s not something I lose sleep over,” Hicks said when asked about the racial claims. But he added that the voter surveys will be conducted by Los Angeles-based Evitarus, the state’s only Black- and Latino-led full-service polling firm, and will oversample historically underrepresented communities: Latino, Black and Asian American voters.
Hicks said the polling will cost “multiple six figures” but did not specify the exact amount.
The first poll will be released on March 24, and then five additional surveys will come out every seven to 10 days until voters start receiving mail ballots in early May.
“We’re putting this forward to ensure everyone is armed with the information they need to clearly have an eyes-wide-open assessment of where the state of the race currently is between now and when ballots land in the mailboxes of voters,” Hicks said.
Jordan Rivers, who is running to represent a harbor-area district on the Los Angeles City Council, said he will continue his campaign after a report surfaced that he stabbed a neighbor when he was 12.
Rivers, 22, is the sole challenger to incumbent Tim McOsker in the June 2 primary election.
In a lawsuit, Nicholas Parszik and his parents alleged that Rivers stabbed Nicholas, then 8, while the two boys were playing video games in the garage of Nicholas’ San Pedro home on July 30, 2016.
Rivers “stabbed Nicholas repeatedly around the neck and shoulder areas,” inflicting “severe and life threatening physical and emotional injuries,” the lawsuit said.
On Monday, Rivers said it was an “accident” that happened a decade ago.
“I do not believe that past situations or indeed past mistakes define or determine who a person is or what they are,” he said in a statement.
Rivers, who is Black, said that an initial media report about the lawsuit had “a racial undertone” and seemed meant to damage his reputation ahead of the election.
The California Post first reported the lawsuit on Monday, which was also the last day for candidates to withdraw paperwork to run for office.
McOsker is seeking a second term representing District 15, which includes Harbor City, Harbor Gateway, San Pedro, Watts and Wilmington.
“I am saddened and troubled that this happened here in our community, and my heart breaks for the victim and his family. I hope they have gotten the care needed. My office will be here to provide advocacy and support for anybody who has been traumatized by this incident,” McOsker said in a statement.
Asked whether Rivers should withdraw, McOsker campaign consultant Dave Jacobson said, “Only Mr. Rivers could decide whether to run, and only he can decide whether he should stay in the race.”
Rivers, who listed his occupation as “community organizer” on campaign filings, has not reported any campaign donations. By Dec. 31, McOsker’s campaign had raised over $190,000, according to the city’s Ethics Commission.
Juvenile criminal records are sealed. Rivers said that law enforcement “got involved” but that he did not serve time in juvenile hall.
Paul Parszik, Nicholas’ father, said he was doing dishes when he heard screaming from the garage and Nicholas ran into the house with stab wounds on his neck and shoulders.
Paul Parszik recalled shoving his fingers into the wounds to staunch the bleeding.
Nicholas fully recovered and is about to turn 18, his father said, but still has physical scars.
In an interview with The Times, Rivers denied attacking Nicholas. He said he had been cooking and accidentally brought a cooking knife to the younger boy’s home.
He forgot that he had put the knife under a video game controller, and the two began “play fighting,” he said.
Rivers said he didn’t notice anything was wrong until Nicholas was already injured.
Rivers’ mother, Eunice Rivers, wrote in a 2016 filing in the lawsuit that her son “was eating an apple and had a small peeler in his hand to cut his apple when the Plaintiff started wrestling with the Defendant. While wrestling Plaintiff Nicholas was injured.”
Eunice Rivers settled the case, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, for $10,000 in 2018. The settlement did not include an admission of fault.
In an October court filing, Paul Parszik claimed that Eunice Rivers never paid the settlement and owes $7,941.71 in interest.
Parszik said the lawsuit was primarily intended to pressure the Rivers family to move away, which they did not do.
He plans to attend Rivers’ campaign rallies.
“I can’t wait to go home and go to his first rally and say, ‘Hey, you stabbed my kid and you have no remorse,’” he said.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Adrian Kempe scored his second goal of the game with 1:26 left in overtime to give the Kings a 5-4 win over the Columbus Blue Jackets on Monday.
With the victory, the Kings moved within a point of Seattle in the race for the final Western Conference wild-card spot.
Columbus tied the score late for the second straight home game. Kirill Marchenko scored on the power play at 18:04 to force the extra period.
Brian Dumoulin had a goal and two assists. Scott Laughton scored for the second straight game since joining the Kings from Toronto and added an assist. Artemi Panarin also scored. Anton Forsberg made 28 saves for the Kings in the opener of a five-game trip.
Connor Garland scored twice — his first goals since coming to Columbus from Vancouver — and Denton Mateychuk added a goal and an assist. Jet Greaves made 26 saves for Columbus, which has lost two straight at home.
The Blue Jackets are two points behind Boston in the race for the second Eastern Conference wild-card spot, and three points behind the Islanders for third in the Metropolitan Division.
The Kings killed off a high-sticking double minor to start the game before Dumoulin set up Laughton in front of the net at 6:46 of the first. Panarin made it 2-0 at 14:47 with his second goal since joining the Kings from the New York Rangers on Feb. 4.
Garland cut the lead in half with 2:25 left in the period, snapping a career-long 24-game scoring drought. Mateychuk tied it with 9:07 remaining in the second period, and Garland’s second goal put Columbus ahead 81 seconds later.
The lead was short-lived as Kempe tied the game with 5:51 remaining in the second period. Kopitar’s assist was his 167th on a game-tying goal, the most in Kings history.
Dumoulin scored with 9:53 left in the third period, but Marchenko tied it with a power-play goal with 1:56 left,
Columbus defenseman Erik Gudbranson, who missed 42 games earlier this season due to injury, left in the first period with an upper-body injury and did not return.
The game had a rare afternoon weekday start after being rescheduled from Jan. 26 because of a blizzard in Columbus.
SACRAMENTO — One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back. And bravo for her.
The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge. That’s unusual for a politician. It’s normal to promise the moon without specifying how to get there.
She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce.
And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.
But at least there’s a potential governor who’s advocating tuition-free higher education and proclaiming it to be a priority.
Why is this Democrat, a UC Irvine law professor, pushing the issue? Tuition cost doesn’t show up anywhere on voter lists of important concerns. But California’s high cost of living is a gigantic gripe. And “affordability” these days is one of the most overused words in any politician’s vocabulary.
“When we talk about affordability, there’s lots of talk about the problem, but people want to hear what [candidates] would do about it,” Porter told me over coffee last week. One thing she’d do is eliminate much of the tuition at public universities.
Another reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education.
But that was 66 years and nine governors ago. A lot has changed.
Actually, tuition-free public higher education was a California birthright long before Gov. Pat Brown’s master plan.
Policymakers regarded tuition-free college as a sound economic investment. It was in the state’s self-interest to produce highly educated innovators and skilled professionals to grow the economy. The middle class expanded, with people landing good-paying jobs that resulted in higher tax revenue for state coffers.
That didn’t mean college was free — and it wouldn’t be under Porter’s plan. There’s still housing, meals, books and annoying fees.
But Sacramento switched priorities in the 1970s, spending tax money on other things: enhanced welfare, healthcare and specifically K-12 schooling.
Free tuition existed before the creation of Medi-Cal healthcare, which now eats up 20% of the state general fund. It also was prior to Proposition 13 in 1978 that dramatically cut property tax revenue for K-12 schools. The state felt obliged to make up the difference.
Naysayers contend California can’t possibly afford to educate students today without their paying tuition. Nonsense. The state could happily afford it long before we expanded into the world’s fourth largest economy. It’s about priorities.
And today, free tuition could be the PR tonic California needs to brighten its faded image across America. It could attract middle-class families to California and keep those already here from fleeing.
Porter promised a return to yesteryear in a speech that was a far cry from old-time political rhetoric. Addressing more than 2,000 delegates at a recent Democratic state convention in San Francisco, she held up a whiteboard with two words in large letters: “F— Trump.”
And she led the delegates in shouting “F— Trump.”
That was a bit of a turnoff for this old traditionalist, who thinks politics has gotten too coarse and foul-mouthed.
I asked Porter what prompted the profanity and whether she had any regrets.
No, she answered. Candidates were allotted only four minutes to speak and “I was economical with my time.
“I wanted to be very clear in the first 15 seconds that I would fight Trump. I wanted the other three minutes and 45 seconds to be about all other stuff.
“Some people just want to talk about Trump because they don’t want to talk about our own problems.”
Plowing into her speech, she quickly promised to “deliver single-payer healthcare, less-expensive housing, free childcare for all, zero tuition at our UCs and CSUs, and [elimination of] income tax for those earning less than $100,000.
“Those are real affordability solutions.”
Right. But no specifics. How does a state wading in red ink afford all that?
I pressed her when we met later. She didn’t have time for details at the convention, she said. But this is her plan on tuition:
Free tuition only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college.
Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students. Kids are better educated in their first two years at community college anyway, the UC professor said.
Many liberals complain that free tuition would waste tax money on rich kids who don’t need it.
“I’m a believer in universal programs” that don’t base eligibility on income, Porter said. “Something I learned in Congress. You know what never gets cut? Universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”
Anyway, she added, “Kids from really wealthy families go to Harvard or USC or other options.”
Public school tuitions are bargains in California compared to other states and private universities.
At UC, annual tuition is roughly $14,900 and at CSU it’s around $6,500. Without tuition, UC would lose roughly $5.9 billion and CSU $3.7 billion, state budget officials say.
But under Porter’s plan, the universities would lose much less. They’d still collect tuition from freshmen and sophomores and hefty levies from non-Californians. Also student aid could be cut back if kids weren’t saddled with tuition.
Hiking the corporation tax from 8.84% to 9.5% “would generate way more than I need for tuition-free,” Porter said. “I would use any extra money for free childcare.”
Political promises often aren’t worth a nickel. But tenacious and feisty Porter’s free tuition pledge might be worth at least a few bucks. And, maybe some votes.
Victory was decided by a single stride Sunday morning during the 41st Los Angeles Marathon.
American Nathan Martin needed every foot of the 26.2-mile course to chase down leader Michael Kimani Kamau of Kenya, winning by 00.01 seconds an exciting finish that left spectators and athletes alike breathless. Martin posted a time of 2 hours, 11 minutes, 16.50 seconds and forced the closest finish in race history.
“In any race, I just want to give 100%,” said Martin, 36. “I saw an opportunity to race at the end and give one last push. All I wanted to do is push myself.”
Martin, who clocked a personal best 2:10:45 at the Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth., Minn., in 2023, surged in front as he got to the finish line alongside Kamau, who immediately collapsed and was attended to by medical personnel before being carried off on a stretcher.
Kenyan Priscah Cherono waves her hands in the air as she wins the women’s elite race during the L.A. Marathon on Sunday.
(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)
“I made an actual move five miles out … when I saw no one else was picking up the pace. I decided I needed to push,” Martin said. “At a mile and a half to go, I could see the leader and with 800 meters to go, I was thinking, ‘I’m catching him.’”
Ethiopian Enyew Nigat (2:14:23) was third, former University Florida runner Josh Izewski (2:14:43) was fourth and 2024 winner Dominic Ngeno of Kenya was fifth in 2:16:17.
Martin is the second straight American champion, following former Montana State University standout Matthew Richtman, whose time of 2:07:56 in 2025 was the second-fastest in race history and the fastest on the Stadium to the Stars course, which debuted five years ago.
Runners take part in the L.A. Marathon, moving through downtown on Sunday.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
This year’s race drew 27,000 runners, beginning at Dodger Stadium and ending on Santa Monica Boulevard at the Avenue of the Stars in Century City. Traditionally held on the third Sunday in March, this year’s race got moved up one week to avoid clashing with the Oscars, which will be held on March 15 at the Dolby Theatre along the race route.
Kenyan Priscah Cherono took the lead immediately in the women’s race and was already two minutes ahead of the chase pack by the ninth mile. The 45-year-old cruised to victory in 2:25:18.31, well ahead of runner-up Kellyn Taylor, who won the Austin Marathon in 2:33:29 on Feb. 15.
It is fitting that Cherono, on International Women’s Day, earned a $10,000 bonus for winning the Marathon Chase as the first runner, male or female, to cross the finish line. The women were given a 15-minute, 45-second head start and in the 16 Chase competitions to date a woman has won the race-within-a-race on 11 occasions.
Cherono, who won The Marathon Project on Dec. 21 in Chandler, Ariz., in a personal-best time of 2:25:17, was only three seconds off that pace Sunday and said afterward she knew she would win.
Runners compete in the L.A. Marathon, moving through downtown on Sunday.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
“I was feeling OK and I felt I could take it all the way,” said the mother of three who represented her country in the 5,000 meters at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. “Normally I train alone, so I was happy running by myself.”
Taylor, a 39-year-old mother of four and a certified firefighter from Wisconsin, clocked 2:27:36:00 to earn the second-place medal, one spot in front of Antonina Kwambai, last year’s runner-up.
“I would’ve liked to have won, but my time is fair for this course,” Taylor said. “I did everything I could to stay in it, but [Cherono] went out really hard and ran a great race. We were hopeful she was gonna come back, but she didn’t.”
The men’s wheelchair winner was 25-year-old Miguel Jimenez Vergara, whose time of 1:42:13.28 was good enough to hold off Colombian and three-time winner Luis Francisco Sanclemente, who settled for second in 1:45:33.01. Canadian Josh Cassidy (1:45:53.60) was third.
1
2
3
4
1.Shadows are cast on the road as L.A. Marathon runners move toward the finish line.2.Spectators watch the L.A. Marathon and hold up signs cheering on participants.3.Kenya’s Michael Kimani Kamau is tended to by personnel after falling at the finish line.4.Priscah Cherono, of Kenya, celebrates with a crowd of supporters after finishing first in the L.A. Marathon women’s race.(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)
“I did this last year and got second,” Jimenez Vergara said after maintaining a robust 3:54 per-mile pace. “I absolutely got my butt kicked last year on Mile 4, but that’s where I took the lead this time and I tried not to look back.”
Jimenez Vergara, who resides in San Diego, set a personal-best of 1:27.17 at the Grandma’s Marathon two years ago and is looking forward to making his Boston Marathon debut on Patriots’ Day in April.
Hannah Babalola, a former Nigerian now living in Chicago, won the women’s wheelchair division for the third year time in four years in 2:17:48.86.
The Los Angeles Marathon was first held in 1986, with Rick Sayre (2:12:19) and fellow American Nancy Ditz (2:36:17) taking the men’s and women’s Open titles. Markos Geneti set the men’s course record of 2:06:35 on the previous Stadium to the Sea course in 2011 and fellow Ethiopian Askale Marachi set the women’s mark of 2:24:11 on the same layout in 2019.
The former state controller has been running for California governor longer than just about anybody in the cheek-by-jowl field. And yet the Democrat is bumping along near the bottom, a blip in polls and a laggard in the money chase.
Beyond that, she said, it’s not as if anyone’s running away with the contest; most polls have shown the leading candidate — which depends on the survey — standing atop the pile with around 20% support.
“The public is still shopping,” Yee said. “In the next month or so, we’re going to try to get [a TV ad] on the air, basically make our case and hope that can spread as voters are getting more focused on the race.”
Which is not to say Yee is delusional.
“As a candidate, I make that assessment every day about whether we’re going to be viable or not,” she said last week, just before stopping by the Alameda County voter registrar‘s office to file paperwork for the June 2 primary.
“Right now, it’s less than a 50-50 chance,” Yee said, suggesting it’s her job to boost those odds by getting voters to appreciate what she offers, which amounts to unvarnished talk about the challenges facing the next governor and the ways Sacramento — which has been run for years by fellow Democrats — isn’t working.
“ ‘Accountability’ has kind of become a dirty word … where it’s about who we’re going to throw under the bus, rather than stepping back and saying, ‘What have we gotten for the dollars that we spend and, if we’re not getting those outcomes, how do we do better?’ ”
Yee served two terms as controller, in effect the state’s chief financial officer, and 10 years before that on the Board of Equalization, which oversees property tax assessments. She’s isn’t trying to buy the governorship, like billionaire Tom Steyer, or leverage her political celebrity, like cable-TV fixtures Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell. Instead, Yee is running a grassroots campaign, visiting nearly all 58 California counties and holding as many face-to-face meetings as humanly possible.
“I’m in the trenches,” she said. “I knock on doors every election cycle because to me, that’s the reality check of where people really are in terms of their lives.”
Which is certainly an admirable approach, albeit a rather idealistic strategy in a state of nearly 23 million voters, spread over roughly 800 miles from north to south. It would take more than two years of round-the-clock campaigning just to give each and every one a quick handshake.
The most notable feature of Yee’s candidacy is her message. She’s not selling barn-burning populism or viral take-downs of President Trump — “I don’t have any gimmicks, I don’t swear, I don’t have a reality-TV show personality” — but rather practical know-how and a deep understanding of state government.
It’s almost quaint in today’s theatrical political environment.
Seated at a sidewalk table outside a coffee stand in downtown Oakland, Yee focused on California’s stretched-thin budget, which happens to be her area of expertise.
“People ask what would you do in your first days as governor, if you have the privilege of serving,” Yee said, as her butterscotch latte sat cooling. “I’d come clean with the voters about where we are fiscally.”
After years of surpluses, she said, the state is spending more than it can afford. Facing a structural deficit, the next governor will have to cut programs and raise taxes, not just one or the other, with corporations and California’s richest residents being forced to cough up more. (She’s dubious, however, of a proposed November ballot measure imposing a one-time 5% tax on billionaires, questioning whether it would stand up in court.)
Sacramento’s credibility, Yee suggested, is on the line.
Before any expansive new programs can be implemented — and she has some notions for how to make life more affordable, increase access to healthcare and create jobs — Californians have to be convinced their tax dollars are being well spent and delivering proven results. “I would really insist on and invite stricter accountability of what we do with our money,” Yee said.
She’s not beyond criticizing the current administration.
“I mean, I’ve been termed out as controller since January 2023. I still get calls from companies in the [European Union], Canada, even Mexico about how we want to do business with California. Who do we talk to?” Yee said. “So I’ll send them over to the governor’s Office of Business Development and they tell me, ‘Well, we try to call people, but nobody’s answering our call.’ ”
(In response, a spokesman for the Office of Business and Economic Development touted California as “a premier hub for international business” and described foreign trade and investment as major drivers of the state economy.)
As for Gov. Gavin Newsom, while she supports his teenaged trolling of Trump, she said it shouldn’t be done through official channels, , or on the taxpayers’ dime.
“We have to focus on making the state work,” Yee said, “and that’s where I’m more focused on because people … want service delivery. They want government to be responsive to their needs. Somebody just pick up the damn phone on the other line to help them.”
Tough medicine, as she described it, and “stabilization” — which is “kind of my theme” — won’t make a great many hearts go pit-a-pat. But Yee hopes that straight talk and her distinct lack of ornamentation will count for something with California voters.
“The climate now is that people are very drawn by the performative approaches,” she said. “However, I think that will change. I want to give [voters] credit, because I do think they are very discerning when they’re ready to mark their ballot.”
The coming weeks will test that premise. And Yee is staying put.
The Kentucky Derby will be run in eight weeks, which allows plenty of time for considerable changes in the field.
And yet, there’s really not much time at all. Each Derby candidate has only one or two chances remaining to earn one of the 20 stalls in the oversized starting gate at Churchill Downs.
That means every prep race, including Saturday’s San Felipe Stakes at Santa Anita, takes on added importance as horses run into or out of contention. Others will disappear from the trail because of illness or injury.
For now, the favorites are horses coming off victories in races in Louisiana, Florida and Arkansas — Paladin, Commandment, Nearly, Renegade and Class President.
But anyone who thinks they know what will happen between now and May 2 probably also believes they can find a hotel room on Derby weekend near Churchill Downs for less than $400.
No one understands that better than the trainer who has won the race a record-tying six times.
You don’t take horses to the Derby, Bob Baffert said this week. “They take you to the Derby.”
Recent events served as another reminder. Barely more than a week ago, Baffert likely would have listed his top Derby candidates as Plutarch, Litmus Test and Brant.
Then, on Feb. 25, Baffert revealed Plutarch had a minor setback after his win last month in the Robert B. Lewis Stakes at Santa Anita and would not make the Kentucky Derby.
Three days later, Litmus Test faded to third place in his first start of the year, the Rebel Stakes at Oaklawn Park in Arkansas.
In between those disappointments, though, there was surprisingly good news for Baffert. Cherokee Nation, winless in five career starts, ran the fastest mile (1:34.50) in nearly a decade at Santa Anita. It was only a maiden race, but Cherokee Nation won by 10 lengths and earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 100. Only one 3-year-old, Fountain of Youth winner Commandment, has a higher figure this year in a race longer than a mile, and that was by one point.
“What he did … was pretty impressive to me,” Baffert said of the son of Not This Time who sold for $1.15 million as a yearling. “His stock went way up.”
Suddenly, Cherokee Nation could be Baffert’s top prospect, though he’ll have to prove it next month in the Santa Anita Derby, in which he’ll need to finish first or second to have enough points to qualify for the Kentucky Derby.
Brant, right, ridden by Flavien Pratt, finished third behind Ted Noffey and John Velazquez, center, and Mr. A.P. and Antonio Fresu, left, in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile at Del Mar in October.
(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)
Or maybe it’s Brant.
The son of Gun Runner who cost $3 million at a sale last March recorded a 101 Beyer figure in a flashy 5½-furlong debut last summer, and followed that win with another in the Grade 1 Del Mar Futurity. But he was third in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile and hasn’t raced since.
That changes Saturday with Brant making his 3-year-old debut in the Grade 2 San Felipe, one of four graded stakes on an 11-race card at Santa Anita. He is the even-money favorite on the morning line for the 1-1/16-mile race, which will award 50 Derby points to the winner, guaranteeing a spot in the starting gate.
“He looks good,” Baffert said. “The freshening did him well. He grew a little bit. He’s not a real big horse but he’s starting to grow right now. … It’s a tough race. There’s some nice horses in there. It’s a pretty salty prep race, but they usually are.”
Baffert has another San Felipe starter in Potente, an Into Mischief colt who cost $2.4 million as a yearling. He’s run only once, winning a sprint five weeks ago, and while Baffert would have preferred to run him in a two-turn allowance race, there aren’t any available for 3-year-olds at Santa Anita.
As he saw with Cherokee Nation, though, no one knows who will prove worthy or when.
The 2-1 second choice is So Happy, a winner of two sprint races who was sired by a sprinter (Runhappy) but is getting a chance to see if he can run farther than maybe his breeding would suggest. He is an obvious sentimental favorite; he is trained by Mark Glatt, whose wife of 25 years, Dena, died Feb. 12 from cardiac arrest. She was 57.
Not-so-Big ’Cap
With heavily favored Skippylongstocking and San Pasqual Stakes winner Westwood scratched, the $300,000 Santa Anita Handicap on Saturday is down to five starters, none of whom has won a Grade 1 or Grade 2 race. In fact, new morning-line favorite Just a Touch never has won any stakes race, though he’s been second or third six times in seven tries (he was last in the 2024 Kentucky Derby).
The only graded-stakes winners in the field are Baffert’s Getaway Car, who won a Grade 3 sprint as a 2-year-old, and Midnight Mammoth, who won a Grade 3 marathon race two years ago but lost his last two stakes tries by a combined 56¾ lengths.
The other two starters are Vodka Vodka, whose lone stakes win came in a turf race restricted to California-bred horses, and British Isles, who has never won a stakes race. The latter’s trainer, Richard Baltas, won this race with Idol in 2021. Baffert has won it six times.
The first of the four stakes races is the $300,000 B. Wayne Hughes Beholder Mile, with Splendora the 4-5 favorite for Baffert after winning four straight races, including the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Sprint last fall at Del Mar and the D. Wayne Lukas Stakes last month at Santa Anita.
El Potente is the 5-2 favorite in the wide-open, $200,000 Frank E. Kilroe Mile, which this year was downgraded to a Grade 2.
March 6 (UPI) — U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, announced on Friday that he is ending his campaign for re-election after acknowledging an extramarital affair that he had been denying for months.
House Republican leadership called for Gonzales to pull out of the race after the House Ethics Committee said it was investigating the three-term member of Congress over the affair and he then admitted to it on a radio show hours later.
After Tuesday’s primary, Gonzales was to face a runoff for the Republican nomination for his seat after he and YouTuber Brandon Herrera each failed to win more than 50% of the vote.
“After deep reflection and with the support of my loving family, I have decided not to seek re-election while serving out the rest of this Congress with the same commitment I’ve always had to my district,” Gonzales said in a post on X.
“Through the rest of my term, I will continue fighting for my constituents, for whom I am eternally grateful,” he said.
Gonzales has for months been denying he had an affair with his former staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, in 2024, who later died by suicide after lighting herself on fire.
Gonzales had denied the affair happened since texts were shared by her husband, Adrian, of him asking for a “sexy pic” and her favorite sex position, The Washington Post reported.
Wednesday, not long after the ethics committee announced its investigation, Gonzales said on a radio show that he took “full responsibility for those actions,” admitting to the affair, and said he has reconciled with his wife.
House GOP leadership on Thursday, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., publicly called for him to end his campaign after the admission.
Herrera’s campaign manager told NBC News in a statement that he appreciated Gonzales for “making the appropriate decision.”
“I look forward to being the voice of TX23 that our district deserves … It’s an honor to be chosen and together we will make Texas proud,” he said in the statement.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., speaks to the press outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Earlier today, President Donald Trump announced Mullin would replace Kristi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.
I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.
The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”
The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.
Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.
In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.
Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.
Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.
The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.
And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.
Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.
The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”
Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”
Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.
Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?
Me neither.
With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.
This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.
It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.
Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)
There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.
Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”
Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.
In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.
More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.
This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.
Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.
Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.
His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.
“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.
Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.
“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”
Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.
But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.
“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”
Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.
“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.
Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.
Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.
“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.
“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”
Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”
Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.
During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.
“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.
That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.
A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.
Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.
“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”
Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.
“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”
Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.
Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.
While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.
Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.
“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”
Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.
After months of fretting, California Democratic leaders are now truly freaking out about too many of their own running for governor, potentially allowing two MAGA Republicans to advance to the general election.
Someone find me the world’s smallest violin.
It’s the latest mess created by a party that has held supermajorities in the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion for most of the last 15 years, yet has done little to make life better for its constituents while blaming President Trump for everything.
What does it say about them that no Democratic candidate of color is considered a favorite to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, when whites are only a third of California’s population? That a party casting itself as the champion of the working poor against Trump’s oligarchic reign isn’t telling a billionaire like Tom Steyer — who spent $341 million of his own money on a failed 2020 presidential run — to bow out and throw his support and moolah behind someone else, just because he’s polling in the top five?
California voters have made the state Republican Party as relevant as the Angels in baseball — yet under Democratic rule, life keeps getting harder for too many. Especially galling is how the state Democratic Party has done next to nothing to help Latinos become household names who can win.
Three Latinos with distinguished resumes — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — are running for governor, yet they stand as much a chance of moving on to the general election as Alfred E. Neuman.
Latinos are a plurality of California’s population and the bedrock of the Democratic Party. Yet there’s a good chance that after November, no Latino will hold a statewide elected position for the first time since 2014.
So excuse my schadenfreude upon hearing earlier this week that California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks wants low-polling candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, claiming in an open letter that their continued presence will “imperil” democracy.
Candidates are definitely choosing — to spite Hicks. We all should. He could have made his move long ago, as the top Democrat in the state. Instead, waiting until just before the candidate filing deadline is more amateur than a Little League game.
Worse, his move reeks of el dedazo, the kingmaking process under Mexico’s long-ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional that translates as “the finger point,” because that’s how undemocratic it was.
“El dedazo is not appropriate in California,” Becerra told me, referring not to Hicks but to other Democrats who have suggested that he and others withdraw. “And I suspect that very few voters in California think that a variety of choices [for governor] is not a good thing.”
Candidate Xavier Becerra chats in a hallway during the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco last month.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
As of this columna’s publication, not only has no Democratic candidate dropped out, but most are officially filing papers to jump in. Thurmond even posted a video on social media implying that Hicks’ request is racist because almost all the potential spoilers are people of color, while the top three Democratic hopefuls — Rep. Eric Swalwell, Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter — are white.
“To me, this act doesn’t reflect the Democratic Party of 2026,” Thurmond thundered. “Aren’t we supposed to be the party who embraces democracy?”
Hicks’ move and the embarrassing aftermath reminds me of Will Rogers’ famous quip that Democrats are members of no organized political party — even if I do understand why Hicks and other Dems are so nervous.
No Democrat is towering over the field, which is why party leaders and activists futilely tried to recruit big names like Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Those who are running are nice enough. But politically, they’re carbon copies of each other. As a group, they’re as inspiring as printer paper.
The subsequent free-for-all has allowed Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco to occupy two of the top three slots in the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll alongside Porter, with Swalwell and Steyer close behind.
No other candidate polled higher than 5%, but together, the rest of them added up to 30%. Factor in the 10% of voters who are undecided, and that’s a significant slab of the potential electorate. If just two Democrats drop out, that would almost certainly stop both Hilton and Bianco from advancing.
A Republican governor for California in the Trump era would be embarrassing, terrible and a political self-own without precedent. It would make previous California political earthquakes where conservatives pounced on liberal cluelessness, like Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and the Gray Davis recall, seem as innocuous as a bounce house.
But telling candidates to kill their campaigns to make it easier for people who supposedly have a better chance is the type of least-worst choice that Democratic leaders have forced upon party faithful for too long.
They need a rude awakening. Making them sweat about a gubernatorial primary is a start. That’s why I’m glad Hicks’ plea is going nowhere. If people want to scatter their votes, it’s not only their choice — it’s democracy.
When I asked Becerra if he or his fellow underdog Dems should accept responsibility if a Republican becomes California’s next governor, he brushed off the question.
“That’s more than speculative — it’s not going to happen,” he said, predicting that undecided voters will “crystallize” soon to make the issue moot. He once again joked that there are “too many dedazos in the air.”
Villaraigosa’s answer was more damning: “It would be a collective responsibility that as a party, we failed to convince the electorate.”
Winner of May run-off between Republicans John Cornyn and Ken Paxton to face Democrat James Talarico.
Published On 4 Mar 20264 Mar 2026
Share
James Talarico has topped States Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in an expensive and fiercely contested Senate Democratic primary in the United States state of Texas.
Who Talarico will face depends on a May run-off between longtime Republican Senator John Cornyn and MAGA favourite Ken Paxton – a race expected to get increasingly nasty over the coming months and that could hinge on whether or not President Donald Trump offers an endorsement.
Texas, along with North Carolina and Arkansas, on Tuesday kicked off midterm elections with control of Congress at stake and against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war with Iran.
A jubilant Talarico told supporters in Austin before the race was called: “We are not just trying to win an election. We are trying to fundamentally change our politics. And it’s working.
“This is proof that there is something happening in Texas,” he said, adding that the state “gave this country a little bit of hope”.
Crockett’s campaign said she planned to sue over voting issues in Dallas, and she spoke only briefly on Tuesday night to warn that “people have been disenfranchised.”
Republicans head to round 2
Cornyn, meanwhile, is seeking a fifth term but is facing a tough challenge from Paxton, the state attorney general. Cornyn hopes to avoid becoming the first Republican senator in Texas history to seek re-election and not be renominated.
The GOP contest also featured Representative Wesley Hunt, who finished a distant third and conceded. But his making it a three-way race made it tougher for any candidate to reach the 50 percent vote threshold needed to win the nomination outright and avoid the May 26 run-off.
All three campaigned on their ties to Trump, who did not make an endorsement in the race. Now both Cornyn and Paxton will again fiercely compete to curry the president’s favour.
Cornyn was facing a tough enough battle that he did not hold an election night party. Instead, in comments to reporters in Austin, he sought to make the case that a run-off win by Paxton would leave “a dead weight at the top of the ticket for Republicans”.
“I’ve worked for decades to build the Republican Party, both here in Texas and nationally,” Cornyn said. “I refuse to allow a flawed, self-centered and shameless candidate like Ken Paxton to risk everything we’ve worked so hard to build over these many years.”
Addressing supporters in Dallas, Paxton made a point of saying he felt like he had during a recent trip to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida estate.
He also proclaimed: “We proved something they’ll never understand in Washington.
