race

OAKLAND — Mayor Lionel Wilson, a fixture in this city’s politics for three decades, was fighting off a nasty cold as he took his campaign for reelection to a hall filled with real estate agents recently.

In past years, Wilson could have stayed home to nurse his ailment. He long ago endeared himself to Oakland business leaders by presiding over a boom in downtown building that brought a glistening skyline to the city. As he seeks a fourth term, however, the soft-spoken mayor finds he can take no group for granted.

Concluding his speech to the agents, he pleaded, “Give me a chance to complete the job I started.” But on this day, in a city beset by a continuing drug crisis, crime, a troubled school system and the aftermath of last October’s earthquake, the applause for the mayor was polite, and nothing more.

At 75, Wilson is facing the toughest campaign of his career, challenged by politicians who barely were teen-agers when he began his government career in 1960. The most likely outcome is that no candidate will win more than 50% of the vote in the nonpartisan June 5 election, and the two leading vote-getters will face off in November. But a recent Oakland Tribune-Gallup Poll confirmed what local politicos have been saying for weeks: Wilson may not make it to the runoff.

Only 18% of the likely voters backed Wilson. Assemblyman Elihu Harris, a Democrat who is giving up the legislative seat he has held for 12 years to mount a well-heeled effort to unseat Wilson, led with 32%, the poll showed.

Harris’ closest rival was veteran City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr., liberal son of the former state superintendent of schools, who was supported by 22%. Five other candidates had lesser support. And 22% were undecided.

In a sign of Wilson’s past impact on Oakland, candidates Harris, Riles and City Councilman Leo Bazile all have been labeled his protege in the past. Now, though, they depict him as a figure whom time has passed by.

“It is sad,” Riles said of the sinking political fortunes of the city’s first black mayor. “He was probably the right person to break the color barrier. (But) I don’t know whether he should have gotten a second term, and certainly not a third term. . . . People are saying it is time for a change.”

The campaign has been mean even by Oakland’s fractious standards. Candidate forums routinely are interrupted by demonstrators, and campaign rhetoric frequently has been downright nasty.

At a recent candidates forum, Bazile, a city councilman since 1983, ignored a thoughtful question about the future of downtown and accused Harris of a cavalier attitude toward crack cocaine use because he has broached the prospect of legalizing drugs.

Harris restrained himself, answered the question about downtown, and waited until after the debate to respond. He said he did not advocate that crack be made legal, though he added that in the fight against drugs, “We should not be afraid to discuss all of the options.”

Such asides notwithstanding, the issues in Oakland are considerable. Last October’s earthquake hit the city hard; repairs to city-owned buildings may cost $250 million. Officials must negotiate with Caltrans over a replacement for the collapsed Nimitz Freeway.

Meanwhile, thousands of blue-collar workers could lose their jobs if a federal study recommending closure of Oakland-area Navy bases becomes reality.

Crack use is epidemic, straining the health care system and fueling crime. A city of 360,000 people, Oakland had a record 148 homicides last year. The murder rate was third-highest in the state last year for cities with populations of more than 100,000, and the overall crime rate was second-worst.

Oakland schools, though not the mayor’s responsibility, are a major campaign topic. A state trustee has been appointed to oversee the Oakland Unified School District, and a criminal investigation has led to the arrests of 13 district employees for theft and embezzlement.

“The solutions to those problems are going to have to come at a quickened pace,” said Alameda County Supervisor Don Perata, who is neutral in the race. “Rhetoric won’t get by. You’re going to have to have some very adroit leadership.”

Then, there’s football.

After initial reluctance, Wilson backed an ambitious plan to lure the Los Angeles Raiders back to Oakland with an unprecedented $600-million-plus package of loans, grants, guaranteed profits and a promise to rebuild the Oakland Coliseum, all to suit team owner Al Davis.

Politicians quickly discovered that while Oakland football fans may pine for the Raiders, they don’t miss Davis. This is the man who spurned them by moving the team to Los Angeles after the 1981 football season. The thought that the city would guarantee him profits angered so many that 31,000 residents signed petitions to place the plan to bring the Raiders back on the ballot. The referendum was put on hold after Wilson withdrew his support of the deal; city officials and the Raiders have reopened negotiations.

Wilson conceded that the proposal has been “a negative” for him. He added, “I got caught in the middle.”

Even Councilman Riles, who scored big by opposing the deal, was shocked at the reaction. The deal elicited more angry calls than any municipal issue Riles could recall. “I lucked out,” he said.

Riles, long Wilson’s nemesis, tried to unseat the mayor in 1985. An ally of liberal Rep. Ron Dellums (D-Berkeley), Riles battles the moderate Wilson on such issues as rent control and development. He contends that more should be spent on the city’s poor neighborhoods and less on big downtown projects.

Wilson encouraged interest in his job by strengthening the office. Under a 1988 City Charter change that he engineered, the next mayor will make $80,000 a year, up from the previous $30,000.

He also supported moving local elections to even-numbered years. For the first time, the mayoral campaign is being held in conjunction with major state races. Turnout could hit 50%; in the last two mayoral elections, it was less than 28%.

At the time the changes were being debated, Wilson was leaning against running. He changed his mind last summer, saying he concluded that no other candidate could see through to completion development of a major downtown retail center.

However, as many voters apparently see it, Wilson’s day is over.

Clinton O’Keefe Killian, a 32-year-old lawyer and Harris supporter, talks of Oakland’s “tremendous potential,” but points to opportunities lost under Wilson. He extols the lifestyle in his ethnically diverse city, though he has complaints with faulty city services and frets about sending his children to Oakland schools.

“Oakland could be the town in California where blacks and other minorities can show they bring something to the table,” Killian said. But for all its promise of becoming “Atlanta-West,” Oakland won’t “go any further unless somebody is pushing it.”

Harris has tailored his message to such voters. While Wilson proved to any skeptics that “blacks could run the city,” Harris said, there’s a need now to move “beyond presence and become more aggressive.”

Harris has built his campaign around high-quality public schools. In some ways, it’s an odd issue to champion, given that the mayor has no say over the schools, which are run by an independently elected school board.

Still, Harris made a name for himself last year by pushing state legislation that led to the naming of a trustee to oversee the school district. The bill came after years of poor academic performance by students, studies critical of district management, and, finally, the criminal investigation.

Harris won popular support with the bill, but has taken his share of hits over it. Wilson charged that he pushed it merely to gain needed name identification.

The move also angered members of a black neighborhood group called the People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement. Using a variety of disruptive tactics, Uhuru adherents have been hounding Harris.

Their point: Harris backs “white colonialists” and “the U.S. government’s war against the black community” with his support of the school trustee.

Eighty-three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 18 months, at a cost of more than $20 million.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced those stats this week, part of an annual report to the Legislature on how we’re spending a special fund set aside to combat President Trump’s overreach.

That doesn’t include more than 120 friend of the court briefs the Golden State has written in legal matters brought by others, or the multitude of cases in which the Trump administration has sued California and Bonta’s office is defending us.

That’s a whole lot of litigation. Is it worth it? Are we huffing and puffing for political points, or do all these lawsuits actually do something positive for the average Californian?

You get what you pay for

I’m going to sound like a bus bench ad for the legal profession, but, at this point, “the courts are standing as the only barrier to the president doing anything that the president wants to do,” Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of law at UCLA, told me.

And what the president apparently wants to do is make the poor and vulnerable poorer and more vulnerable. And don’t think there’s a middle-class exemption. In his second term, Trump has attacked healthcare coverage, special education, education in general, reproductive rights, gender rights, the environment, endangered species, immigrants and more.

“The disastrous impact of Trump’s lawlessness isn’t theoretical or hypothetical. It’s not imagined. It is real. It is hurting real people,” Bonta said. “It is hurting Californians, real families, real businesses, real communities every single day.”

You name it, if it’s not rich and connected, it’s probably under attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a very different war on poverty in 1964 with social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start. This new war on poverty seems intent on increasing it, not eradicating it.

It would be nearly impossible for the people affected by these attacks on government services to fight them on their own, said Richard Abel, a professor emeritus of law at UCLA and the author of multiple books on the Trump presidency.

“They don’t know why it’s happening,” he said. “They don’t have access to lawyers. Many of them are undocumented or afraid to mobilize the legal system.”

That leaves the states, which are often the only other entities that have a legal right to sue, because they too are being harmed by the cuts.

So yeah, our $20 million is well spent. Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding. But I’ll argue the true return on investment is California residents who have been protected in ways they don’t even realize.

Risks we don’t even realize

Take Massachusetts vs. Department of Agriculture, one of the cases California is involved in. This is Trump’s attempt to put new rules on USDA grants for food programs including emergency food assistance, school lunches and food stamps. It would tie compliance with his right-wing, discriminatory policies on immigration, gender ideology and diversity issues to receiving those funds.

California and other states sued and won a preliminary injunction stopping them in June — meaning most recipients kept their benefits without ever realizing they were at risk.

Then there’s New York vs. Administration for Children & Families, in which Trump goes after child welfare funds; Washington vs. Department of Education, which attacks mental health grants that help hire school psychologists and counselors; and Illinois vs. Vought, which targets California and three other states run by Democrats for cuts to transportation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for no other reason than politics, the states argue.

Food benefits, access to mental health care, lead poisoning prevention. Just a few more things most of us didn’t realize could be at risk for some of us.

In each of those cases, Bonta and the other Democratic attorneys general stopped the federal actions, even if only temporarily. Some of those cases are ongoing, but with restraining orders or injunctions in place.

Then there’s United States vs. Baass, Trump’s attempt to force Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, to turn over a bunch of applications for Medi-Cal benefits for the last five years so the federal government can go on a witch hunt for undocumented folks.

Supposedly these applications, which Baass and her agency were subpoenaed for, are needed for an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. California won in court in March, when a judge denied the federal government’s petition to enforce that subpoena.

Now, the feds are appealing to the 9th Circuit — and California continues to fight to protect the privacy and maybe even safety of the residents who just needed medical care, but could see their sensitive information, including addresses, turned over to immigration authorities if Trump had his way.

How could they possibly fight that on their own?

Then there’s a lawsuit in which Trump is trying to prevent California from continuing to give in-state tuition to Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as youngsters.

In battles such as that one, fought because it’s the right thing to do, Motomura sees a benefit greater than just protecting funding.

It forces us to push back against the federal government’s framing that immigration is “about invaders, you know, climbing walls,” Motomura said.

“This is about people who live in our communities,” he said. “And I think that when Bonta claims that space, he’s not just pushing back. He’s saying, ‘Let’s think about this in terms of building stronger communities,’ and I think that’s a significant shift.”

The rule of law may be battered and bruised, and even at times a bit hinky. But so far, it has held — in no small part because of Democratic attorneys general like Bonta who aren’t just filing lawsuits but have built the staffs and networks to do it effectively. It’s a much larger effort than we give it credit for, but one that has fundamentally protected our everyday lives so well that many have barely noticed the wolves at the door.

I’m sure there will be losses, wolves that crawl through windows, and we will all feel the bite of that. But 83 lawsuits will soon likely be 84, 94, whatever it takes to protect Californians.

Each one is a fight worth having, because every Californian is worth fighting for.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: From decorated U.S. Marine to arrested at Trump golf course: What we know about Jeanine John Taele
The deep dive: The obscure financial maneuver at issue in Dodgers owner probe explained
The L.A. Times Special: New park under neglected 6th Street Bridge stirs up hope, Boyle Heights gentrification fears

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

For all but one of the past 58 years, horse racing’s Triple Crown arrived at the same time on the calendar. The Kentucky Derby was run on the first Saturday in May, followed two weeks later by the Preakness and three weeks after that by the Belmont.

Three races for 3-year-olds in five weeks. Win them all and enter racing’s pantheon.

Those last two sentences remain true. But after 48 hours of upheaval this week, the times — and in particular the calendar — are changing. (The only exception since 1969 came in the pandemic year of 2020 when two of the three races were held in September.)

On Monday, Churchill Downs Inc. and the New York Racing Assn., which host the Derby and Belmont, respectively, announced a new six-race series for 3-year-olds that includes those two races on their traditional dates, but not the Preakness. The Thoroughbred Championship Series will feature a points system, with horses who compete in at least four races eligible to share a $5-million bonus pool that will pay down to the top eight finishers.

Then on Wednesday, the Maryland Jockey Club announced the Preakness would be moved back eight days, to the fourth Sunday in May. That date usually falls on Memorial Day weekend, though 2027 is an exception.

The goal is to get more Derby horses to run in the Preakness after more than 85% of the entrants in the last five years, including three winners — Rich Strike (2022), Sovereignty (2025) and Golden Tempo (2026) — skipped the Maryland race. Their trainers cited the short turnaround between the two events; very few horses these days compete in races two weeks apart.

“This extra week between the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness opens the Preakness to potential participants who use modern training methods,” said Bill Knauf, president and general manager of the Maryland Jockey Club.

“I think it’s a great idea,” Bob Baffert, the only trainer to win the Triple Crown since 1978, with American Pharoah (2015) and Justify (2018), said via text message. “Extra week and on a Sunday. Triple Crown tradition stays intact. Win-win for all because you have a choice to go for it if you think you have the right horse after winning the Derby.”

Baffert had said in a post Monday on X that the “greatest achievement in racing will always be winning the Triple Crown.”

But if horses were skipping the Preakness because of a 14-day turnaround, how many will run a week later knowing it’s just 13 days before the Belmont, especially since the latter race is part of the new series?

This year, no horse competed in all three races. Last year, there was one: Journalism, who sandwiched a win in the Preakness around runner-up finishes in the Derby and Belmont.

“As a traditionalist, sentimentally it’s difficult to see the timing and structure of the Triple Crown being adjusted,” Aron Wellman, president of Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners, which co-owns Journalism, said in a phone interview. “However, as a proponent of innovation and recognizing that the industry at large has fallen behind the times in so many respects, I applaud the innovation of Churchill Downs Inc. and NYRA.”

Did those outfits just put a dagger in the Triple Crown?

“I don’t know how much more of a dagger Churchill and NYRA should be blamed for putting into the Triple Crown when in the last two years, the winner of the Kentucky Derby has skipped the Preakness and waited for the Belmont,” Wellman said.

He also noted that Churchill Downs made an $85-million offer this spring to purchase the intellectual property rights to the Preakness, but the state of Maryland matched it.

“If anything, Churchill’s move to secure the IP [intellectual property rights] for the Preakness was a gesture on their part to try to save the Triple Crown because the daggers have already proven, if not fatal, then close to it,” Wellman said.

“So I don’t place any blame on Churchill and NYRA for the steady decline or demise of the Triple Crown. … And now knowing that they [can’t] institute whatever changes they were going to make, they’ve taken it upon themselves to try to do something positive for the industry and their respective brands. Which I applaud them for.”

The other races in the new series are the Matt Winn Stakes in July at Churchill Downs, the Jim Dandy in late July or early August at Saratoga, the Travers in late August at Saratoga, and a new “championship race” that will be scheduled in September at Churchill. Each race will have a minimum purse of $1 million (the Derby is worth $5 million; the Belmont and Preakness $2 million each).

NBC will televise the Churchill races, with Fox handling those in New York. NBC also announced a new deal to carry the Preakness through 2032, the same year its rights to the Derby expire.

WASHINGTON — The narrow victory of progressive doctor Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s bitterly fought Democratic Senate primary sets up a defining test of the party’s progressive wing in one of the highest-stakes U.S. Senate contests of the midterms.

Whether El-Sayed, a former public health official, can carry swing voters in a battleground state could both determine the outcome of a Senate seat viewed as crucial to determining control of Congress and have broader ramifications on the Democratic Party’s struggle for its identity.

El-Sayed, a 41-year-old epidemiologist, defeated U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, a moderate Democrat, by a narrow margin Wednesday after a long and intense campaign that was seen as a proxy for the party’s fissures.

The race was far closer than some polls had indicated. El-Sayed was leading Stevens by 15,000 votes, about 1 percentage point, with 99% of votes counted Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

El-Sayed will face former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, in the general election. The winner will succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat Democrats see as critical to retain for the party to have a chance at flipping the Senate.

“We’ve got an opportunity to bring ourselves back together, to come together around a movement, to take our democracy back,” El-Sayed said Wednesday on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

El-Sayed’s victory will put to the test in a swing state the broader strength of the progressive movement, which has found success in deep-blue places like New York City, where Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor last year, and Los Angeles, where City Councilmember Nithya Raman is locked in a tight race mayoral contest with incumbent Karen Bass. Both Mamdani and Raman are democratic socialists.

As Democrats struggle over the party’s post-2024 identity and grapple with how to win back voters, the divide between the party’s progressive and centrist wings has been on display in primary fights. Both camps have notched victories: Many of the leftist wins have come in intensely blue districts, such as in New York, while more moderate districts have chosen centrists, as in Iowa.

On Tuesday, two progressive congressional candidates in Michigan beat out establishment Democrats in House races — in one case, ousting an incumbent. But in Missouri, democratic socialist and former Rep. Cori Bush lost to incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell, a moderate, for a key House seat.

In California, a handful of progressive candidates are on the November ballot, including the challengers to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) and Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford). In the Aug. 18 runoff to fill the vacant seat of former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab is battling it out with fellow Democrat and BART board president Melissa Hernandez.

Progressive leaders celebrated El-Sayed’s win on Wednesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who backed El-Sayed, argue that his working-class-centered politics are more likely to have mass appeal.

“If you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says,” Sanders told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “I think many of them will end up voting for him, independents as well, of course.”

Throughout the campaign, Stevens argued that El-Sayed would not be able to defeat Rogers, a refrain some moderates repeated Wednesday. El-Sayed vowed to unite Democrats around defeating Rogers, who previously served seven terms in Congress, saying that he and Stevens would be focused on “bringing the party back together.”

Rogers on Wednesday portrayed El-Sayed as an “extremist,” saying in a statement that the election is “about deciding whether Michigan has a future built on common sense — or whether we hand the keys to the most fringe extremists in the nation.”

El-Sayed, a former city and county health official, focused on opposing money in politics and pushing for Medicare for All, among other issues. His opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and Stevens’ support for Israel became a major issue in the campaign. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, spent millions in support of Stevens.

Early in the primary race, El-Sayed sought to temper some of the concerns around his progressive agenda by presenting himself as a Michigan-first, working-class-focused candidate, said John Barry Ryan, a University of Michigan professor of political science.

But as excitement over his campaign began to mount among progressives on a national level, Ryan said, El-Sayed’s public posture swung to a middle ground.

“The signal he’s trying to send is, I’m not a moderate, but I’m also not an extremist,” Ryan said.

Whether El-Sayed can effectively sell his message to undecided voters against Rogers now becomes a key question of the general election, said Corwin Smidt, a politics professor at Michigan State University.

“[Rogers] has experience. He has credentials,” Smidt said. “El-Sayed doesn’t have that. But I do think he’s got the skill and the right language to get him over.”

At least two key Michigan Democrats signaled a desire to move past the primary’s fights. Late Tuesday, Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator who launched her own bid for the seat but suspended her campaign in early July, released an endorsement of El-Sayed.

“Whatever differences there were between the candidates in this race, those differences are nothing compared to the contrast in November,” McMorrow wrote on X. “The only way we get there is together.”

After conceding, Stevens sent a similar signal in a statement:

“We need to win this Senate race,” she said.

For the second time in as many weeks, a leading California-based thoroughbred has been retired.

Nysos, who would have been favored in the $1-million Pacific Classic later this month at Del Mar and was a top early contender for the $5-million Breeders’ Cup Classic this fall, won’t race again, Coolmore America announced Monday.

The 5-year-old son of Nyquist is headed to stallion duty next year at Coolmore’s Ashford Stud in Versailles, Ky., the same farm where Journalism, another horse who was being pointed for those two races, was sent last month after his retirement because of injury.

In a statement, Coolmore said Nysos is sound and uninjured but “the decision was made following a routine diagnostic evaluation that revealed subtle imaging changes on a scan.” Trainer Bob Baffert and Nysos’ owners, Baoma Corp. and Coolmore, “unanimously agreed to take a strict precautionary approach, prioritizing the horse’s long-term health and safety above all else.”

Said Baffert: “Nysos is not hurt or injured, but taking a precautionary approach is strictly about doing what is right for the horse. With the minor changes shown on the evaluation, we simply don’t have the time needed to prepare him for the Breeders’ Cup the way we would want to. He has given us everything and retiring him completely sound and at the top of his game is the proper decision.”

Nysos retires after eight wins and two seconds in 10 lifetime races, with earnings of nearly $5.3 million. He was considered a top prospect for the 2024 Kentucky Derby but was injured that winter and didn’t race again for 15 months.

He returned in May 2025 and won four of five starts last year, including the Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile at Del Mar. This year Nysos finished second to Forever Young in the Saudi Cup before defeating Journalism in the Met Mile in June at Saratoga, which turned out to be his last race.

SACRAMENTO — Today we’re talking about California’s Proposition 39, a bid to turn Trump’s election conspiracy fantasies into California law, and a proposal so disingenuous it’s caused Democratic legislators to sue the Democratic secretary of state in an attempt to stop the misinformation surrounding it.

As these lawsuits move forward and the November election rolls closer, we’re going to hear a lot about Proposition 39 — a measure that would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification, among other provisions. I fear most if not all of this debate will revolve around the false claim that large numbers of undocumented people vote illegally in our elections.

“It’s directly a product of all of the rhetoric that Trump has been putting out there regarding election fraud and voting fraud,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

Romero stresses that there is not and has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, and the state already has a system that effectively checks voter eligibility.

Proposition 39 is “seeking a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that actually could cause additional problems,” she said. “So in and of itself, it perpetuates this false and dangerous narrative that there has been voter fraud in California.”

That lie is part of the ongoing grievance-fueled Trump campaign against non-white “replacement” Americans, meant to undermine trust in elections — you may recall he’s gone so far as to say immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” It’s a venal and dark vein of partisanship aimed at keeping the far-right in power even at the expense of democracy.

But also an effective lie. Because many folks don’t know exactly how their ballots are verified but do have ID, they don’t see the full impacts of Proposition 39.

The easy ID myth

I’ll tell you more about Proposition 39, but I’m starting with a story about an all-American teenager I’ll call “Sofia.” I’ve been helping Sofia,18, attempt to get her first government-issued identification. I stress attempt.

Folks, there’s been hoops, there’s been hurdles, there’s been Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

For people like Sofia that don’t have bills or jobs or even accurate student records (she’s moved a lot), scraping up enough documentation to convince the DMV you are who you say you are is tough. First, you really need a certified birth certificate.

Sofia wasn’t born in the county where she lives (it’s county recorders that keep them), which means she had to either drive hours or go through the state’s third-party online vendor to order one, at a cost of about $30. But here’s the catch — she needed proof of identity to order it.

So to get a birth certificate to get her ID, she needed ID.

Stuck in this circular nightmare, we found, after much effort, a loophole: I could appear in front of a public notary with Sofia, to testify using my ID that she was indeed Sofia. Strange, but whatever. We did it.

That wasn’t enough for the DMV. Sofia also needed two bills or other documents verifying her address. Because they will literally give a credit card to anyone, she applied to an online company, and got her first statement. One document down.

Again, scouring the DMV rules for days, we found another weird loophole: The second document can be a letter from a nonprofit with the person signing it vouching for Sofia’s identity. We got the letter, and Sofia’s Real ID was issued.

But then she had to move before it arrived. She tried to arrange mail forwarding with the postal service, but guess what? They required ID.

So the ID was lost in transit, and we are back to square one.

Who Proposition 39 really targets

That means Sofia is one of thousands of Californians, born and raised in the Golden State, who lack official identification because its not as easy to obtain it as some want you to believe.

And because she lacks it, she could be prevented from voting if Proposition 39 is passed, even though she is a legal citizen with every right to have her ballot counted, and California already has a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.

Sofia is exactly the kind of voter that Proposition 39 is actually aimed at. This is a voter suppression law, plain and simple, and it will harm women with name changes, naturalized citizens, young people, older people and virtually anyone who cares about not returning to Jim Crow-style laws that push people out of voting with subterfuge.

Proponents of the proposition would like you to believe it’s something very different from what I just described. Their fight about how we talk about this proposal has led to two lawsuits so far — one filed by the backers of Proposition 39 because they don’t like the official title the California attorney general put on it, and one filed by the leaders of the state Legislature because they argue the statements written by proponents for official voting materials aren’t truthful.

I’ll give you a taste of both of those arguments. Right now, the state is proposing to title the measure “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the always-Trumper behind Proposition 39, helped lead a lawsuit claiming that is inaccurate.

DeMaio issued a statement claiming Democrats are “trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”

That frivolous lawsuit he’s complaining about is the one where the Democratic leaders of the Legislature last week sued the Democratic secretary of state and others over the language included in the state voter guide. The Democrats aren’t really angry at each other, it’s just that Secretary of State Shirley Weber is in charge of voter materials, so she’s one of the folks they’ve got to sue to make their case.

The lawsuit alleges, among other complaints, that proponents are falsely framing Proposition 39 as making it “easier to vote” when in fact it does the opposite.

“Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters,” the materials at issue read, according to the lawsuit. “No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”

So I take you back to Sofia. Because while Proposition 39 might not ask her to bring her birth certificate to the polls, it would ask her to bring her ID, which required her birth certificate to get.

A distinction without a difference.

“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” wrote the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, House speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón, in a statement. “As Californians and Latinos, we will not let MAGA cronies take Constitutional rights away from voters.”

That lawsuit will likely have its first hearing in court this week. But whatever a judge decides, the ballot box is where the fate of Proposition 39 rests.

Though it seems like average Californians could see through this sham, there are big bucks backing it, and money always speaks loudly.

The donors in support read like the guest list for a White House dinner. So far, they’ve raised more than $15 million. That includes $4 million from Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire and Trump supporter who often funds organizations and causes that promote election conspiracies and far-right candidates.

The crypto-billionaire Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, have each donated $250,000, along with other Silicon Valley types including former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan, who ponied up $370,000 in support of Proposition 39.

Oh, and by the way, L.A. developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso has donated $25,000 to the effort.

That’s a lot of dough being poured into stopping certain Californians from voting. If they succeed, it won’t just be an inconvenience at the polls — but instead a double victory for Trump, both suppressing the vote ahead of the presidential election and legitimizing his election lies through law.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: FBI Escalates Trump’s “Voter Fraud” Crusade With Disturbing Move
The California angle: How Trump’s Endangered Species Act rollback is roiling Northern California
The L.A. Times Special: Trump running out of options to fix inflation, economic woes before election, experts say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Esther Kim Varet has gotten a lot of questions recently from “depressed” liberals wondering whom they should vote for in November to represent them in the redrawn 40th Congressional District, which covers a large swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The Democratic art gallery owner placed third in last month’s closely watched primary for the seat, behind Republican incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona and Young Kim of Anaheim Hills. Calvert and Kim were pushed into the same district by last year’s Proposition 50 and will be the only two candidates facing off for the seat in November.

Kim Varet said her supporters have “obviously put a lot of thought into” which of the incumbents to support, but they have had a hard time swallowing the idea of voting for either. So she tells them why, “if we’re playing a kind of longer game,” they should vote for Kim.

She says Calvert is favored to win, so supporting Kim will “force both sides to spend more on this race” and reduce Republican spending on other races where Democrats still have a shot at beating a GOP incumbent. She says Calvert is “much more senior” than Kim, so ousting him would be “more significant.” And Calvert, as chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has funded Trump’s war in Iran and would be “morally the better target.”

In last month’s primary, Kim Varet and other Democratic candidates collectively won 42.9% of the district vote, compared with Calvert’s 34.9% and Kim’s 20.6%. If enough of those Democratic voters coalesced behind Kim, they could end Calvert’s 33-year run in Congress.

Whether they will, however, is unclear. Such “orphaned” voters — those left without a candidate of their party in a general election — are historically just as likely to abstain from voting or to vote based on far less strategic considerations. Californians created that dilemma more than a decade ago when they approved the top-two primary system that puts all candidates on the same ballot and only allows the top-two finishers to advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map under Proposition 50, said the backers of California’s primary system sold it years ago as a moderating force, where those orphaned voters would be encouraged to select the least partisan general election candidate.

But in reality, Mitchell said, “it doesn’t work that way.”

Voter decisions

Mitchell said intraparty matchups in the past have shown 35% of orphaned voters or more simply abstain from voting in that race.

A recent analysis Mitchell conducted of races, including for seats in the state Legislature, showed such undervoting among orphaned voters in every intraparty race for a state Senate seat in 2024 — one clear example being the competitive and costly battle between two Democrats, Laura Richardson and Michelle Chambers, in South Los Angeles.

Many others vote based on “tertiary things,” he said, such as a candidate’s race or gender, or whether they seem local or a Washington insider.

“Traditionally, it isn’t so much about somebody being more moderate,” he said, in part because voters can’t always discern moderation among candidates of an opposing party. “Republicans might be able to tell the difference between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican, but Democrats can’t tell the difference.”

Incumbency can also be a drag on a candidate if orphaned voters dislike their track record, even if their opponent is even further from those voters politically. As one example, Mitchell pointed to rural, more conservative parts of the state going for Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein when he challenged her in 2018, despite his running to her left.

“You’re like, how in the hell did these rural counties vote for Kevin de León? And it was because there were a lot of Republicans who, if they were going to vote in the U.S. Senate race, just wanted to vote against Feinstein,” Mitchell said.

Katelyn Stauffer, an associate politics professor at University of Georgia who has studied voter behavior in top-two races in California, said people “like to make decisions that are easy,” and “for most people, the ultimate cue is, does this person share my party?”

When party doesn’t differentiate candidates, voters tend to rely on other “simple cues or heuristics,” Stauffer said.

For example, based on her research, she said, women regardless of party and Democrats regardless of gender are more likely to vote for a woman in such scenarios.

Candidate messaging

Candidates could consider moderating their message to attract orphaned voters, though that can be perilous.

In a statement to The Times, Calvert accused Kim of trying to woo orphaned voters with a more bipartisan message, as evidence she is untrustworthy.

“Young Kim has bragged to some voters that she’s a moderate who censured President Trump. She’s then claimed to others that she [is] a 100% Trump Republican. It’s obvious Young Kim will say anything to try and hold on to her job, which is why voters from every party just can’t trust her,” Calvert said.

He said he has “been a consistent conservative in Congress for many years and that’s not going to change.” He also claimed to be “one of the most effective members of Congress,” saying he has secured funding to reduce traffic congestion, fight fires and improve water infrastructure in his district — things “voters from all parties want.”

Chris Pack, a spokesman for Kim, denied that Kim is changing her tune depending on her audience, and dismissed Calvert’s claims of serving his constituents well, calling him a “do-nothing dinosaur” who has failed to improve his constituents’ lives for decades.

“The truth is he’s had more than enough time to deliver for the people of California, and he hasn’t,” Pack said.

Similar intraparty battles are playing out in other congressional races between Democrats.

In the 4th Congressional District, which stretches through the Napa and Sacramento valleys, Republican voters could help decide between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Thompson — who has been in Congress since 1999 and sits on the powerful Ways and Means Committee — won 41% of the vote in the primary, while Jones won 22.2%. A slate of six Republican candidates collectively won 36.1%.

Jones, who backs progressive measures to expand Medicare and cut working-class taxes, said he hopes voters of all stripes look beyond political labels and see that he is the only candidate in the race who will take on big utilities, healthcare lobbyists and other big-business interests who fund Thompson’s campaigns.

“I want voters to realize that there’s a real choice in front of them,” he said.

Thompson said he is focused on doing his job, introducing himself to voters in the new parts of his district, reconfigured under Proposition 50, and “figuring out how I can work with them” to address their concerns. He said there is “a lot of commonality” among voters of all parties who want “good roads, clean air, water, strong [agriculture], safe communities,” and that he’s been endorsed by local Republicans and Democrats alike.

Thompson also rejected Jones’ criticism of his fundraising, saying he has “done a lot of good work that’s not necessarily in the interests” of those who have contributed to his campaign. He also said fundraising is necessary in a race against a wealthy opponent like Jones, who donated millions of dollars to his own campaign.

In the 7th Congressional District, Republican voters will help decide between incumbent Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) — who has been in Congress since replacing her late husband there in 2005 — and her challenger from the left, progressive Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang.

Vang won 31.2% of the primary vote. Matsui won 29.1%. Two Republican candidates together won 37%.

In a statement to The Times, Matsui said November’s general election “will be a significantly different race because there will be many more voters that didn’t vote in the primary,” and that she will “work harder to court voters by meeting them where they are and informing them how I’ve delivered on my promises,” including on healthcare, public safety and jobs.

Vang did not respond to a request for comment but has previously accused Matsui of not delivering on her promises for decades.

“After 20 years, families are living paycheck to paycheck, people of my generation are no closer to owning a home, and you still can’t afford a doctor visit,” Vang said last month.

Party involvement

Political parties have traditionally shunned meddling in races where they lack a candidate of their own, experts said. They sometimes endorse in races where two members of their own party are facing off against each other, but not always.

Nick Poche, a Republican National Committee spokesperson, said his organization is largely focused on three races in which Republicans are either looking to hold or win seats from Democrats: the 13th Congressional District, where Republican Kevin Lincoln is challenging Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced); the 22nd Congressional District, where Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is trying to fend off Democrat Randy Villegas; and the 48th Congressional District, where Republican Jim Desmond is facing off against Democrat Marni von Wilpert for the seat of retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall).

He called the Democrats in those races “radical socialists and emblematic of California’s far-left failures,” and said his party would be campaigning against them. But he declined to speak to the Calvert-Kim race, or the races in which two Democrats are facing off.

The California Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said his party is focused on “fulfilling the promise of Proposition 50” to flip five seats to help his party win control of the House, and is also focused on three competitive races: those for Valadao’s and Issa’s seats, and one in the 6th Congressional District, where Democrat Richard Pan is taking on Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin.

Hicks said the party will not endorse Calvert or Kim, whom he called “two rotten choices,” but has endorsed incumbents Matsui and Thompson in their races against fellow Democrats because they have “been leading” on issues of affordability and access to healthcare and “are best positioned to be reelected.”

Jones scoffed at his party endorsing his opponent. “Are we really excited that the Democratic machine keeps trying to choose our electeds for us?” he said.

Aug. 2 (Asia Today) — Chung Cheong-rae rebounded in the South Korean ruling Democratic Party’s leadership race Sunday, defeating Kim Min-seok in the southeastern region after narrowly losing the opening contest in central South Korea.

Chung and Kim have each won one of the first two regional rounds ahead of the party’s Aug. 17 national convention, leaving the race for party leader virtually even.

Chung received 25,189 votes, or 46.65%, from eligible party members in Busan, Ulsan and South Gyeongsang Province.

Kim finished second with 23,675 votes, or 43.84%, leaving Chung ahead by 1,514 votes, or 2.81 percentage points.

Former party leader Song Young-gil received 5,129 votes, or 9.49%. The officially reported percentages were rounded to 46.65% for Chung, 43.85% for Kim and 9.5% for Song.

Kim had narrowly won Saturday’s opening round in the Chungcheong region, which includes Daejeon, Sejong and North and South Chungcheong provinces.

Kim received 45.05%, compared with Chung’s 44.61%, a margin of 303 votes, or 0.44 percentage points. Song received 10.34%.

After the first two rounds, Chung held a narrow cumulative lead with about 45.5%, compared with Kim’s 44.5%.

The results announced during the regional contests represent only the first-choice votes of eligible party members. Delegate votes and the results of a public opinion survey will be announced at the national convention in Daejeon.

One-person, one-vote system raises importance of members

The Democratic Party finalized an electoral roll last week containing 17,667 delegates and more than 1.52 million dues-paying party members.

The leadership election is the first to apply a one-person, one-vote principle equally to delegates and eligible members, replacing a system in which individual delegate votes carried substantially more weight.

Combined votes from delegates and eligible party members will account for 70% of the final result, while a public opinion survey will make up the remaining 30%.

The large number of party members means their preferences are expected to play a decisive role.

The Chungcheong and southeastern electorates together represent less than 20% of the total party electorate, however, making it too early to predict the final outcome.

Chung told reporters after Sunday’s results that he had regained the lead.

“I have come from behind,” Chung said.

He compared his campaign with former President Roh Moo-hyun’s victory over Lee In-je during the 2002 presidential nomination race.

Chung said Roh defeated an opponent supported by an established political organization and numerous lawmakers despite having little comparable institutional backing.

“Just as Roh Moo-hyun defeated Lee In-je, who lined up organizations and lawmakers behind him, Chung Cheong-rae will defeat Kim Min-seok,” he said.

Chung also told party members during a speech at the BEXCO convention center in Busan that “organization cannot defeat a political wind.”

Candidates exchange accusations of factional betrayal

The close race has intensified a broader conflict over factions within the ruling party.

During a joint campaign speech in Ulsan, Kim called for an end to what he described as a damaging confrontation between factions aligned with President Lee Jae-myung and Chung.

“We must end the vicious cycle of the Lee-Chung conflict,” Kim said.

He said he would refer people responsible for improper factional activity during the campaign to the party’s ethics committee.

Chung responded by invoking Kim’s conduct during the 2002 presidential election.

Kim left Roh’s then-ruling party after joining lawmakers who pushed for Roh to form a unified presidential ticket with independent candidate Chung Mong-joon.

The group was widely criticized by Roh’s supporters as having abandoned the party’s presidential nominee.

“A person who betrays once will betray again,” Chung said, directing the remark at Kim.

The renewed dispute over the episode reflects the extent to which events from the 2002 presidential campaign continue to influence relationships and perceptions inside South Korea’s progressive political camp.

Song also criticized Chung’s attempt to return as party leader.

“The Democratic Party does not permit consecutive terms,” Song said. “Is there really a need to seek another term?”

Ranked-choice votes could determine winner

The Democratic Party is using a preferential voting system in the three-candidate leadership contest.

Voters rank the candidates by preference. Should no candidate receive a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate finishing last will be eliminated and that candidate’s second-choice votes will be redistributed to the remaining two contenders.

The redistribution process will continue until one candidate secures a majority.

The regional percentages released so far include only first-choice votes and do not show how Song’s supporters ranked Chung and Kim as their second choices.

With Chung and Kim each receiving less than 50%, Song’s redistributed votes could determine the winner if the close three-way pattern continues through the remaining regional contests.

The regional campaign will continue Saturday in Jeju and Incheon, followed by Gangwon Province, Daegu and North Gyeongsang Province on Aug. 9.

Voting in the Honam region, covering Gwangju and North and South Jeolla provinces, is scheduled for Aug. 15. The final regional events will take place in Gyeonggi Province and Seoul on Aug. 16.

A 5% strategic-region bonus will apply in the traditionally conservative Yeongnam and Gangwon regions.

The party leader candidates are also scheduled to participate in televised debates on KBS on Wednesday and SBS on Aug. 12.

The final result will be announced at the Democratic Party’s national convention in Daejeon on Aug. 17.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260802010000251

“RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars” winner Alaska Thunderf— will step into the spotlight this fall as the newest star to take on the title role of Mary in Cole Escola’s Tony Award-winning comedy “Oh, Mary!”

“You know how when in the ’90s in the Olympics, they would ask the winner ‘What are you gonna do now that you won the gold medal?’ and they’d say ‘I’m going to Disneyland.’” Alaska said in a recent interview. “I literally feel like that.”

Even after being cast, Alaska said it didn’t fully sink in until she began doing press for the production. Now, she’d celebrate with a flip if she could do one.

“It’s really happening, it’s just the best role, in the best play ever and I’m honored and I’m excited and I’m thrilled and I can’t wait,” she said.

The dark comedy follows a miserable Mary Todd Lincoln in the weeks leading to the assassination of her husband, who will be played by the Tony Award-winning actor J. Harrison Ghee. The one-act play reimagines the forgotten life of Mrs. Lincoln with absurdist comedy.

Since its 2024 premiere, the play written by comedian Escola — who also originated the title role — has become a Broadway sensation, earning $1 million in a single week and breaking its own box office record 13 times.

“RuPaul’s Drag Race” star Alaska will play Mary Todd Lincoln in “Oh, Mary!” at the Ahmanson Theatre this fall.

(Shaun Vadella)

The stage production received critical acclaim and earned multiple Tony Awards including best direction of a play for Sam Pinkleton and best actor in a play for Escola.

Alaska is joining a list of famed comedic actors who have played Mary Todd Lincoln, including Maya Rudolph, Meg Stalter, Tituss Burgess and Jane Krakowski. She isn’t letting the hype surrounding the show make her nervous, and said she remains focused on embracing the role.

“I’m really excited to wear the sacred bratty curls and the hallowed hoop skirt,” Alaska said.

The actor, who was also a finalist in “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” earned an Outer Critics Circle Award for her Off-Broadway play “Drag: The Musical,” which she co-wrote alongside Tomas Costanza and Ash Gordon.

Alaska is thrilled to play opposite Ghee, who won the 2023 Tony Award for best leading actor in a musical for their role in “Some Like It Hot.” Ghee said in a statement that they are excited to “set the road on fire with this electrifyingly hilarious play” alongside Alaska.

“I have seen Oh, Mary! three times and relished the beauty of this show — how different people shine so brightly in these roles, and yet you see the influence of Cole all over the production,” Ghee said. “The opportunity to get a crack at Mary’s Husband is beyond a dream come true.”

“Oh, Mary!” runs Nov. 10 through Dec. 6 at the Ahmanson Theatre. Additional casting will be announced in the coming months.

Come 2028, the Democratic presidential campaign promises to be a banger, with all sorts of intrigue and subplots layered within a wide-open fight for the nomination.

There’s the prospect of same-state rivals going at it. (California’s Gavin Newsom vs. Kamala Harris; Georgia’s Sen. Jon Ossoff vs. Sen. Raphael Warnock.)

There’s sure to be a generational divide, a split over how much time and energy Democrats should spend rehashing the Trump era, and, inevitably, a clash between standard-bearers of the left, the far left and the party’s increasingly small center-left.

All that remains in the offing, however, as none of the major prospects have formally declared their candidacies. Political tradition, and self-preservation, require waiting at least until after November’s midterm election to jump into the race.

In the meantime, Democrats have seemingly resolved at least one 2028 fight, a fracas marked by snarking, backbiting and plenty of acrimony — all the things that make our politics such a grand and glorious endeavor.

We speak of the contest to determine which state will hold the first vote of the 2028 nominating process. And the winner is … South Carolina!

This was a blow to Nevada, the runner-up in the calendar sweepstakes, and not a very sporting one at that. The state Democratic Party issued a huffy news release, insisting Nevada will be the candidates’ first true test of 2028 — emphasis added — reprising the argument over which state offers the best starting path to reclaim the White House and, thus, deserves the coveted lead voting slot.

(California, a perennially frustrated onlooker, is not set to vote until March 7, several weeks into the balloting, which is supposed to start Jan. 22.)

For decades, the political calendar was unchanged and, mostly, unchallenged.

Iowa went first, holding its quaint and quirky precinct caucuses — neighbors gathered in church halls, school libraries and the like as they worked through arcane rules involving “realignment” and “viability thresholds” — followed by New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.

In 2024, President Biden shook things up.

He’d failed miserably in Iowa in his runs for president, so Biden had no problem slotting South Carolina first after the state resurrected his lifeless 2020 candidacy. (Iowa didn’t help itself by making a thorough mess of its 2020 caucuses, taking nearly a month to certify a winner.)

The change set off a free-for-all this time around, as a dozen states bid for the chance to vote first.

(The two major political parties set the rules for choosing their presidential nominees, independent of one another. Republicans are expected to stick to the traditional lineup, starting with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, followed by contests in Nevada and South Carolina.)

Last month, after nearly a year of consideration, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted for six states to hold their contests in a window between late January and the end of February. They are, in order, South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia. The lineup will be presented to the full Democratic National Committee to be voted on and finalized later this month.

Doubtless, you — a normal person — have paid little or no attention to any of this. You’ve got more important things to do, like binge-watching “Widow’s Bay,” or not melting.

But party leaders and political insiders take the process extremely seriously. At stake: bragging rights, a modest economic boost and the chance for local analysts and office-holders to make frequent appearances as experts on the cable-TV chat shows.

The jostling grew particularly fierce between South Carolina and Nevada.

More than 50% of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina is Black. In Nevada, Latinos are a substantial and increasingly powerful voting bloc. So, naturally, the competition between the two states assumed fraught racial overtones, which is unfortunate but not surprising, given Democrats’ penchant for picking at sore spots and turning on each other at the slightest provocation.

It was also rather pointless. The order of the presidential calendar is consequential, but far from determinative.

South Carolina was vital to Biden’s success. But so, too, was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which sharply curtailed the Democratic nominating fight. Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in Iowa gave him a huge lift, but he lost to Hillary Clinton the following week in New Hampshire and had to fight another six months before winning the nomination.

Presidential campaigns have changed drastically in the 50 years since a little-known Jimmy Carter quietly burrowed into Iowa, spent months bunking in folks’ extra bedrooms, then burst to national fame by outperforming his more prominent rivals. Today, the race is a 24/7 affair, followed by voters in all 50 states.

While local concerns may come up here and there — the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, beach erosion in South Carolina’s Lowcountry — the same issues and controversies confront candidates and animate the contest regardless of whether a field of soybeans, a white church steeple or a Southern fish fry serves as the backdrop.

Obviously, the voting has to begin somewhere and the competition between states is well and good. But the trash-talking and, especially, antagonism over race and ethnicity is gratuitous and needlessly divisive. Candidates will show they have the stuff to win the nomination, or not, by building their best case and pitching it to voters.

No matter if it’s a Black church in Las Vegas or a Latino neighborhood in North Charleston. Any location will do.

SACRAMENTO — Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressuring his Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, to participate in a series of debates in the weeks leading up the Nov. 3 election to determine California’s next governor.

In a video shared by his campaign Friday, Hilton listed six debate invitations he has received from cable broadcaster CNN and television news stations around the state, beginning in late September.

“I have accepted every single one of these debates,” said Hilton, standing behind a debate-style podium and gesturing at an empty one beside him with Becerra’s name on it . “This guy, Xavier Becerra, has not accepted any of them. That is completely outrageous. We have to have a debate in this governor’s race. So come on, Xavier.”

The video shows Hilton walk out of frame and return with a cardboard cutout of Becerra, which he plunks behind the second podium while urging the candidate to “man up and show up.”

Becerra’s campaign said he will debate Hilton and blasted the Republican for “chasing” publicity.

“Snowflake Steve is melting faster than he can plan another press conference. While he’s there chasing media and doing Donald Trump’s bidding, Xavier Becerra is building a coalition of Californians ready to elect a governor who won’t bring Trump’s chaos to their front door,” Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement to The Times.

Hilton, a British immigrant who once advised a U.K. prime minister, is endorsed by President Donald Trump and finished second in the June open-party primary election with 24.6% of the vote.

Years of hosting a weekly show on Fox News has made Hilton comfortable on camera and the debate stage; he appeared at-ease during a series of debates earlier this year while lobbing attacks at his Democratic opponents and blaming the party for the state’s long list of problems.

Becerra served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Before that, he spent four years battling the first Trump administration as California attorney general and more than two decades representing a Los Angeles congressional district.

The longtime Democratic politician became the come-from-behind winner of the primary, finishing with 28.1% of the vote after polling near the middle or bottom of a crowded field for months. His meteoric rise came after another front-runner, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out after a former staffer and other women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct.

Becerra has kept a relatively low profile since the election with few public appearances.

Hilton has held several campaign events in recent weeks to court independent and Latino voters. As a Trump-endorsed Republican, he faces a steep climb in California, where the president is deeply unpopular and a GOP candidate has not won a statewide election since 2006.

Last week he accused Democratic leaders of “abandoning” residents in Boyle Heights, where flies, rats and the stench of rotting food have lingered weeks after a frozen food warehouse was damaged by fire.

Hilton also recently took out full-page ads in The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle to make the case to voters who dislike Trump but are dissatisfied with the status quo in California.

Scotland’s Melanie Woods has won the Commonwealth Games women’s 1500m T54 for the second time in under 40 hours after streaking to victory in the restaged final – however England’s Ellis Kottas could not replicate her silver medal.

Woods set a new Games record to triumph in Glasgow on Wednesday evening, but it emerged on Thursday morning that Para-athletics authorities had decided the race should be held again following appeals surrounding a first-lap crash.

However, the Scot kept her composure in her home city to replicate her initial success, break the record again, and reclaim the gold that was already hers – in mind if not around her neck.

Kottas, though, finished fourth, having said she was “low-key traumatised” when the race result was overturned.

Woods led from the start in her home city, although Noemi Alphonse of Mauritius and Australia’s Eliza Ault-Connell kept her honest over the first couple of laps.

The latter had fallen away by the final 200m, though, and the Scot held off the Mauritian as she was roared by down the home straight by the crowd.

“It was in my mind ‘what have I got left?’ and you do question what you’ve got in your arms,” Woods said.

“But I just needed to be confident I could stay out in front and it was nice coming down the home straight and not seeing her wheel moving in front of me.”

Woods – who has used a wheelchair since being hit by a car while riding her bike in 2018 – will also compete in the 400m later on Friday morning.

The heats of that will start a little more than 90 minutes after the replayed final.

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

On July 10, almost exactly a year after the Pentagon announced it was becoming the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the International Energy Agency put a number on what that deal was designed to prevent: $6.5 trillion in global downstream production now sits exposed to China’s rare-earth export curbs — restrictions currently suspended under an October 2025 truce that lapses again around October 2026. In the year between those two dates, Washington did not simply subsidize its way out of dependency on Chinese processing. It bought in: $400 million for 15 percent of MP Materials, a decade-long price floor for neodymium-praseodymium set nearly double the market rate, and a ten-year promise to buy everything a new Texas magnet plant produces. The Pentagon is now, functionally, a mining shareholder. The interesting question is not whether that has worked — MP’s private financing round attracted $1 billion from J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs within weeks — but what it costs to win a state-capitalist contest by becoming a state capitalist.

The stakes are structural, not cyclical. China controls roughly 70 percent of the world’s rare-earth and critical-mineral refining capacity, a chokepoint built over three decades while Western producers treated minerals as ordinary commodities rather than strategic assets. Beijing’s October 2025 tariff-war truce with Washington postponed, rather than cancelled, an expanded licensing regime that already cut U.S. yttrium imports from 333 tonnes to 17 tonnes in eight months — a squeeze aerospace manufacturers say could force production pauses. Washington’s answer has three parts: Project Vault, a $12 billion public-private stockpile signed by executive order on February 2, 2026, covering all 60 minerals on the USGS critical list; a fast-growing portfolio of direct government equity stakes in miners and processors; and a parallel push to sign allied-supply agreements with eight partners, including Australia, Japan, the UK and the UAE. Europe, meanwhile, is running a different playbook: a €3 billion RESourceEU plan, a joint-purchasing platform, and a stockpiling pilot — procurement and coordination, not ownership.

The MP Materials deal is the template, and its mechanics matter more than its headline. The Department of Defense’s July 2025 investment made it MP’s largest shareholder, attached a $150 million loan for expanding the Mountain Pass mine, and guaranteed a $110-per-kilogram floor price for NdPr oxide — a level industry analysts put at nearly double the prevailing market price — alongside a ten-year offtake covering the full output of a planned magnet facility in Fort Worth. Private capital followed the government’s signal almost immediately, which is precisely the point: Washington concluded that a guarantee was worth more to investors than a grant. That logic has since scaled. The administration has taken a $670 million stake in magnet producer Vulcan Elements, a 10 percent, $35.6 million position in Trilogy Metals, converted a renegotiated Energy Department loan into equity in Lithium Americas, and expanded the official critical-minerals list to include copper and metallurgical coal. Total direct equity commitments now exceed $1 billion, on top of Project Vault’s $12 billion stockpile.

The backlash has been immediate and specific, and it is worth taking seriously rather than waving off as sour grapes. Rival producers argue the price floor lets MP “undercut commercial bids, using federal subsidies to shield its margins,” while former White House and Pentagon officials warn the arrangement could “distort global NdPr pricing, crowd out innovation, and deter private investment in alternative supply chains” — in effect, recreating the very state-directed monopoly the policy exists to counter. That is the strongest objection, and it does not fully land: a government willing to take equity risk, rather than hand out grants, at least has an incentive to see the investment succeed and can in principle profit from the upside, which is the argument the Treasury and National Energy Dominance Council make for why this is smarter policy than Cold War-style stockpiling alone. But the objection identifies a real cost even if it doesn’t defeat the policy: an above-market, government-guaranteed price for one company makes every unsubsidized competitor in the same commodity harder to finance, which narrows rather than widens the eventual supplier base — the opposite of the diversification the strategy claims to deliver.

There is a second problem the price-floor logic obscures: capital committed is not the same as metal produced. The Center for Strategic and International Studies frames this as the difference between “distance” — how much progress has been announced — and “displacement” — how far supply chains have actually moved from their starting point. Japan’s experience with Lynas Rare Earths is the sobering comparison: fifteen years and $250 million of patient, low-drama investment before Lynas achieved the first commercial dysprosium production outside China, in 2025. Washington’s approach substitutes speed and scale for that patience, which may be the correct trade given the urgency, but it means the MP deal’s real test has not yet arrived — it arrives when the Fort Worth facility is supposed to reach full commercial output, not when Wall Street decides to match the Pentagon’s bet.

None of this is happening in a China-versus-America vacuum, either. The Democratic Republic of Congo has extended its cobalt export suspension specifically to tighten leverage over Chinese refiners, and Indonesia has repeatedly resisted pressure to loosen nickel export quotas, forcing processing onshore on its own terms. Producer states, not only the two superpowers, are now treating minerals as instruments of strategic leverage rather than commodities to be sold at whatever price clears the market. That reframes the whole contest: this is not simply Washington racing to catch Beijing, but a broader shift in which every government that sits on a mineral deposit is deciding whether to sell it or wield it.

Which is where Europe’s exposure becomes concrete. RESourceEU gives Brussels coordination and buying power, but no board seats and no offtake priority — and Chatham House’s own assessment is blunt that the UK and EU “cannot match the scale of what the US is attempting” and risk being “left behind” without equity of their own. That matters because Washington’s price floors do not stay domestic: a guaranteed $110/kg for MP’s output resets the benchmark every other buyer, including European manufacturers, has to price against, while offtake agreements tied to U.S. defense production can put European buyers behind the queue when supply tightens. The diversification Europe wants — away from dependence on Beijing — is real, but the replacement supply chain now runs increasingly through companies Washington part-owns and whose output is pre-committed to American industry first. Substituting one chokepoint for another is not the same as building a market.

What Happens Next

Base case (our estimate: roughly 55 percent probability). Washington’s equity-and-price-floor model extends to more minerals — copper and metallurgical coal are already on the list — and more companies, Project Vault’s stockpile builds through 2026–27, and the October 2025 China truce holds past its lapse date. Europe continues a purchasing-only strategy, remaining a price-taker on a benchmark increasingly set in Washington rather than Shanghai. This depends on Congress and private markets continuing to treat government equity as a credible signal rather than a fiscal liability, and on China preferring managed leverage over an open rupture.

Downside case. China allows the truce to lapse on schedule around October 2026 and resumes full licensing enforcement — already quietly restarting, according to recent customs-audit reports — before Vault-funded and MP-style projects reach meaningful output. Aerospace and defense manufacturers, already forced to ration yttrium and dysprosium at a fraction of pre-2025 volumes, face renewed production pauses in the exact window (2026–2028) when domestic capacity is still years from scale, exposing the gap between announced investment and actual tonnage.

Upside case. Government stakes prove to be a bridge rather than a permanent structure: MP, Vulcan Elements and Lithium Americas hit production targets on schedule, price floors become unnecessary as Japan’s Lynas eventually showed is possible after fifteen years of patient investment, and the eight-nation allied-supply framework matures into a genuinely plural, competitively priced market that Europe can buy into on equal terms rather than through Washington’s balance sheet.

The Pentagon’s bet on MP Materials shows that the fastest way to out-compete a state-directed rival was to become one — and by the only metric available so far, capital raised, that gamble is working. But capital raised is not resilience, and every mineral now being withheld or weaponized elsewhere, from Congolese cobalt to Indonesian nickel, shows the world’s supply chains are being redrawn along political lines everywhere, not simply rerouted away from Beijing.

Watch whether China lets its rare-earth export truce lapse on schedule around October 2026, and whether MP Materials’ Fort Worth magnet plant is producing at commercial scale when it does. If the truce holds and the plant delivers, Washington’s ownership model will keep expanding. If either fails, the U.S. will have discovered it bought a shareholding in a company, not a supply chain immune to the country it was built to out-manoeuvre.

SiriusXM is leaning into its sporty side.

The satellite radio company is launching a new subscription plan built specifically for sports fans, called the Sports Pass. For $5 a month, listeners will be able to follow live game broadcasts for every home and away game for nearly every major sporting event.

Launching Sept. 1, SiriusXM will offer one of sports media’s most comprehensive packages, including everything from the latest Formula One race to international soccer.

“SiriusXM Sports Pass brings that vision to life for sports fans by putting every game and event we carry, hometown voices, national personalities and the daily sports conversation into one simple, affordable subscription,” said Jennifer Witz, SiriusXM’s chief executive, in a statement. “No matter who you cheer for or where you listen, it brings you closer to the teams and voices that matter most to you.”

The subscription includes coverage of the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL; every NASCAR, IndyCar and Formula One race; the PGA Tour; WWE events among others. In addition to the live broadcasts, the Sports Pass will also include expert analysis, podcasts and 24 local sports stations, including ESPN LA 710.

The introduction of the subscription package emphasizes sports as an essential part of SiriusXM’s business. The company said in a statement that sports is one of its biggest engagement drivers and that more subscribers than ever are tuning in to sports. Other subscriptions include its All Music tier for $11.99 a month or its All Access tier for $25.99 monthly, which includes music, sports and news.

By having these sports available through a single subscription, SiriusXM is “creating a one-stop shop for any sports fan who’s listening to the radio,” said sports media analyst Lee Berke. This kind of convenience often increases the time listeners are willing to spend on a platform, he added.

“If all sports and all major coverage is available throughout one service, then there’s no reason to go anywhere else,” Berke said. “If you want to maintain subscribership 24/7, 365, you have to have all these things. You don’t want to just appeal to one type of sports fan.”

Outside of sports, SiriusXM is well known for its curated music channels, like Pitbull’s Globalization and The Kelly Clarkson Connection, and talk shows hosted by on-air personalities Howard Stern and Andy Cohen. The radio company, headquartered in New York, reaches roughly 255 million listeners and has 33 million subscribers, making it one of North America’s leading audio companies. SiriusXM also owns the streaming service Pandora, which it acquired for $3.5 billion in 2019.

“Every new channel, artist performance, live event, and creator collaboration advances our vision for the future of audio,” Witz said.

Yet 12 weeks later, Rogers was back in the pool doing rehab. And by summer 2024 she was in Paris winning Paralympic gold. But perhaps the most remarkable thing of all is that she is quicker now than she was pre-accident.

“I never in a million years thought that I could be faster,” Rogers, who is unable to straighten her right arm, tells BBC Sport. “Yes, it looks a bit different and there is definitely an impairment there. But I’ve worked harder, I’m fitter, I’m stronger.

“My message is just ‘don’t let anyone tell you what you can and can’t do’. We’re all different. We’ve all got our own stuff. But I think anything is totally doable if you put your mind to it.”

Not many Para-athletes have done what Rogers has.

It was last year that she resolved to put her “big girl pants on” and act upon a notion she’d had for a while to test where she was in the 200m fly. And the first time she did swim it, she realised she was only just a fraction shy of her pre-accident best.

With that, her mind was made up. She spoke to the selectors and it was agreed that, as long as three other athletes did not post faster times, she could compete at the Commonwealths. They didn’t, and Rogers was in.

“I found out a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been so, so excited ever since,” said the Edinburgh University student before the heats.

“There’s no pressure. I think it’s such a privilege to have the opportunity to stand up there and and to show other people with impairments that, no matter what you are told, and no matter what gets thrown at you, like there’s a way through it.

“We quite often get told we can’t. And this is my way of proving that we can.”

SACRAMENTO — Last week, news broke that an artificial intelligence thingamajig broke free from the constraints of its maker, OpenAI, and committed what could be considered a string of white-collar felonies if it were human.

Because the AI thingamajig is in fact not human, the incident raised a big kerfuffle but is largely being treated as a giant oopsie we can learn from, without needing the pesky intervention of new rules or laws to stop it from happening again.

Such is the state of AI regulation in America right now.

California Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) would like to change that. Last week, he introduced the bipartisan Frontier Act with Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.). While the bill might not make either safety advocates or big tech companies entirely happy, it offers up the most comprehensive and strongest regulations of this dangerous industry that we’ve yet seen at the federal level.

Roman Yampolskiy, an AI expert and professor at University of Louisville, called the Frontier Act a “positive step because it acknowledges that frontier AI presents risks requiring dedicated oversight.”

Now, the challenge becomes passing it, and passing it in a meaningful, not-watered-down form — no easy task in a dysfunctional Congress driven by money and Donald Trump, and paralyzed by its own sycophancy to both.

If anyone has a shot, though, it’s Obernolte, who is that rarest of birds, a legislator who understands science, and his colleagues.

Obernolte represents Inland Empire areas around San Bernardino, but grew up in Fresno back in the era when the movie “War Games” was just hitting theaters.

Those of a certain age will remember how far-fetched it seemed when Matthew Broderick’s high school genius character accidentally breaks into a military AI system to play chess, but “Joshua,” the computer, takes it too far and tries to blow up the world. Now, of course, that just sounds like a regular Tuesday.

By the time he was in high school himself, Obernolte was giving that Broderick character a run for his money. An apparent computer savant, Obernolte was competing in artificial intelligence contests as a teenager, back when most of us were still playing Pong on Atari. Then he headed off to Caltech and then UCLA for advanced AI degrees. He said AI was his “first calling,” sparked when his father bought him an Apple II computer when he was 8.

He ended up dropping out of UCLA after getting his master’s because his side hustle making video games, including “NFL ’95,” turned out to be more lucrative than being a starving student. He ended up founding his own video game company, FarSight Studios, and building up a personal net worth close to $100 million.

Not bad for a kid from Fresno. In Congress, he has stuck close to the MAGA power base and was one of seven California legislators to vote against certifying the 2020 election results, a vote he took in his first days in office. He has been endorsed by Trump multiple times, and now sits on a bunch of committees and subcommittees of relevance.

For the past few years, he has pushed hard, if unsuccessfully, to create a framework for regulating AI, combining his deep understanding of the technology with his equal understanding of MAGA distaste for intervening in business.

Now, though, we’re in a moment, thanks to more than one big oopsie by technology companies. Just a few months ago, Anthropic and the Pentagon had their own tense encounter after Anthropic questioned how its AI was being used by the military. Huffy Pete Hegseth is still huffing over that one.

The public is increasingly skeptical of allowing the AI industry to govern itself, which is pushing legislators to rethink their hands-off approach, even as AI money pours like Niagara Falls into elections. Even Trump seems more inclined to consider it, signing an executive order recently that largely called for voluntary restraints on AI companies.

The introduction of the Frontier Act “shows how far the Overton window has shifted just in the past few months,” wrote Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow with the nonpartisan Institute for Law & AI. “Not too long ago, a bipartisan bill this good and serious would have been a pipe dream. But things change quickly.”

Obernolte said the bill has been “a long time in the making,” but he hopes to package it with other legislation and is “cautiously optimistic” he can get something passed and signed by the end of the year.

As written now, the bill would allow the federal government to set minimum safety requirements and set up a framework for licensed, independent auditors to monitor compliance. That third party verification has been a key push by safety experts.

The bill would also give the government emergency powers to pause an AI model if it has a “present or impending catastrophic risk.”

It also borrows from state laws including California’s Proposition 53 that require some (not enough) transparency on the part of AI companies when things do go wrong.

To the consternation of some, the bill still contains curbs on what states can regulate on their own — basically carving out AI regulation as federal turf. This has been a huge sticking point in the fight over AI regulation because AI companies hate state laws and want them squashed. Their argument is that a patchwork of rules across states is too complicated.

“You don’t want to have 50 different state requirements for every single product that gets sold on a market, and that is particularly true of AI,” Obernolte told me.

To some extent that’s reasonable — but the problem so far has been that states such as California and New York have been the only level of government willing to try at regulation. California in particular has created some of the most comprehensive AI regulations to date and has about 30 pending bills on this issue this legislative season. The Frontier Act threads the needle on this by creating lanes where states can still pass their own laws — such as around consumer safety that would protect children or stop pornography.

But preventing catastrophic risk would largely be dependent on the federal oversight, which is great when the federal government is up to the task. Currently, we can’t even keep measles in check. So that’s a bit worrisome.

And Obernolte’s bill isn’t the only one vying for attention. Another Californian, Rep. Ted Lieu, introduced a bipartisan measure of his own with Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas). Dubbed the AI Kill Switch Act, it would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to shut down problematic models.

Yampolskiy, the Louisville professor, said that bill had promise as well, because it’s important for companies to have a way to “rapidly disable or contain systems that exhibit dangerous or unexpected behavior.”

But, he warns, that’s just one part of the “complete solution” we need. Regulation is going to require more than one law.

For Obernolte’s part, he’s shown a willingness to work on a practical solution, not just a political one. That alone is worthy of notice. The Frontier Act is a genuine attempt to govern a nascent industry that is too powerful and unpredictable to be left to its own devices.

“I’m hoping that this is we’ve landed somewhere that everyone can understand and be happy with,” Obernolte said. “AI is not something that needs to be a partisan issue, and I don’t think it should be.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How Jimothy the raccoon became the internet’s latest animal obsession
The California angle: Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him
The L.A. Times Special: Mayor’s press team uses disappearing WhatsApp messages, avoiding scrutiny
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

PARIS — Tadej Pogacar confirmed his status as one of cycling’s all-time greats after winning a record-equaling fifth Tour de France title in emphatic style.

Daring mountain attacks from deep, multiple stage wins and an ice-cool temperament all helped the 27-year-old Slovenian seal his victory on Sunday. He joined Belgian Eddy Merckx, Spaniard Miguel Indurain and Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil and Bernard Hinault as the only riders to win five Tours.

“I’m speechless. It’s an incredible day, there was an incredible atmosphere,” Pogacar said. “I’ve ridden seven Tours already and I’ve always finished on the podium. You might think this is a fairy tale, it’s incredible for me too.”

After competing strongly in Sunday’s 21st and exciting final stage in Paris, Pogacar finished 6 minutes, 26 seconds ahead of Belgian rider Remco Evenepoel in the overall standings.

Two-time Tour champion Jonas Vingegaard was Pogacar’s main rival heading into the race but the Dane crashed out on the 15th stage.

“Shame that Jonas and others crashed out of this Tour,” Pogacar said. “I hope we can all fight again next year.”

Pogacar’s UAE Team Emirates XRG teammate Isaac Del Toro, a 22-year-old Mexican making his Tour debut, was third at 9:42 back from Pogacar, who smiled and held up his hand to signify his wins. His teammates then joined him as they stood proudly on the Champs-Élysées.

“I don’t know how I do it,” Pogacar said. “I now have to find a new goal to chase. Which goal? Let’s just not jump ahead of ourselves, and enjoy this moment.”

Pogacar won the Giro d’Italia in 2024 but has not won the Spanish Vuelta, which starts on Aug. 22.

“Will I be at La Vuelta in a few weeks?” he said. “Let’s see.”

Peerless Pogacar

Pogacar won five stages at this year’s race to take his impressive tally to 26 overall.

He tried to win on Sunday, too, but victory ultimately went to Dutchman Mathieu van der Poel, who just held off the chasing pack on the home straight for his second stage win at this year’s race and fourth overall.

Sunday’s 55-mile stage looped around Paris and was mostly processional, although less so than in previous years, which were usually entirely flat stages for sprinters and not for the rest of the peloton.

The stage was shortened and its starting point in Thoiry, west of the capital, was changed to Paris so as to reduce pressure on emergency services combating wildfires in the southwest. Some security forces initially mobilized for Paris were redeployed to help response efforts.

For the second straight year the stage featured the hugely popular uphill climb through the Montmartre district, a sharp 0.62-mile dash which riders tackled three times before finishing on the Champs-Élysées.

It proved even too much for Pogacar, who could not match Van der Poel’s raw power in the closing stages.

Shortly before 6 p.m. local time, Pogacar shook hands at the start line with Evenepoel and Ecuadorian veteran Richard Carapaz, wearing the polka-dot jersey for the best climber.

“I battled hard to win this jersey, it was a great fight,” the 33-year-old Carapaz said. “It’s the best feeling to win it.”

Exciting finale

Van der Poel and Dane Mads Pedersen, the green jersey winner as best sprinter, were among the expected contenders for the stage win.

Crowds roared as the riders began the first climb up Rue Lepic in Montmartre, with the famed Sacré-Coeur basilica looming over them.

Pogacar moved ahead after the second ascension of Montmartre, with Van der Poel, Evenepoel and Pedersen alongside him.

Van der Poel attacked on the third and final climb with Pogacar responding well, and the one-day classics rivals surged ahead.

But they were caught with 700 meters left and, after Pogacar faded, the 31-year-old Van der Poel still had work to do.

He got his bike just over the line ahead of Belgian Jasper Philipsen, his Alpecin-Premier Tech teammate, and Pedersen. Pogacar eased up and finished 30th.

“I thought the sprinters would catch us up so I launched [my attack] from very far away,” Van der Poel said. “I gave everything I had left in my legs and it was just enough.”

Cycling pedigree

Van der Poel is widely considered one of the best cyclists in the world. He has multiple victories in one-day classics and Cyclo-cross world championship titles, and is also a former world road race champion.

His father Adri van der Poel won two stages on the Tour in the late 1980s.

His maternal grandfather was French cyclist Raymond Poulidor, who raced in the 1960s and ’70s, finishing second on the Tour three times and third five times. Nicknamed “Poupou” and “The Eternal Runner-up,” he was adored by French fans.

Women’s Tour

The nine-stage women’s Tour starts in the Swiss city of Lausanne on Aug. 1 and finishes in Nice on Aug 9.

Frenchwoman Pauline Ferrand-Prévôt won on debut last year.

Pugmire writes for the Associated Press.

The Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix were initially scheduled for April but were called off in March as a result of the war launched by the US/Israel against Iran.

F1 is keen to host at least 21 races, because any less than that would activate contractual clauses that could see the sport have to pay rights fees back to broadcasters and may also mean the same for teams with sponsorship budgets.

The arrangement between Bahrain and Malaysia was heavily influenced by Bahrain’s Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.

The Bahrain race has been Prince Salman’s pet project since it made its debut in 2024. Bahrain’s sovereign investment fund is also the owner of the McLaren F1 team.

F1 president and chief executive officer Stefano Domenicali said: “We are delighted to confirm that Malaysia will host the Bahrain Grand Prix in 2026. Once again, the sport has demonstrated its ability to adapt, find solutions, and deliver, creating an exciting moment for everyone who follows Formula 1.

“I would like to express our sincere thanks to His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain, His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa and His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, as well as their respective governments for making this extraordinary outcome possible through their vision, commitment, and decisive action.”

Sepang, which last hosted a race in 2017 and made its debut on the F1 calendar in 1999, is a popular track with fans and Domenicali added: “Malaysia is an incredible country, and Sepang holds a special place in Formula 1 history. It will provide a spectacular setting for racing and an unforgettable experience for fans at the circuit and watching around the world.”

BANGOR, Maine — Former state lawmaker and logger Troy Jackson secured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Maine on Saturday and will face longtime GOP Sen. Susan Collins in November in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

Jackson replaces Graham Platner, who won the Democratic primary in June but withdrew from the race this month following an allegation of sexual assault that Platner has denied. Maine Democrats met Saturday to choose a new nominee to face Collins.

Support coalesced around Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and fifth-generation logger from rural northern Maine who campaigned alongside Platner during a failed bid for governor and was a favorite among progressives to replace him.

“When the people in power refuse to listen, you have to organize, you have to stand in solidarity, together. And you have to make them listen,” Jackson said during a speech at a last-minute nominating convention held Saturday.

The Maine Democratic Party has been scrambling to choose a new nominee after Platner, who sailed to victory in the Democratic primary in June, was accused by a former girlfriend of sexually assaulting her in 2021. Platner denies the allegation, but quit the race after key supporters called on him to withdraw.

Democrats have seen Maine as the party’s best opportunity to flip a Senate seat this year because it is a competitive Senate race in a state that Donald Trump lost in 2024. But defeating Collins won’t be easy. The five-term incumbent holds a fundraising advantage, while the new Democratic nominee will have less than four months to sell himself to voters.

Maine law gave the state party authority to choose a replacement and required a new nominee to be named by Monday — 99 days before the Nov. 3 election.

Maine Democrats’ never-before-used process of voting on a new nominee involved hundreds of Democratic delegates gathering in Bangor, about 130 miles north of Portland. The delegates were elected at county party meetings last weekend. The nominating convention began Saturday morning and wrapped by noon.

Jackson’s victory was largely expected after his campaign touted that more than 480 delegates selected to go to the convention had promised to vote for him, a progressive who supports Medicare for all and dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He ended up winning 566 of 571 delegates who cast votes.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat in Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by the Vermont independent.

Other top candidates dropped out

Once Platner dropped out July 10, Jackson and a flood of other former gubernatorial candidates and others jumped in to try to take Platner’s place. But by July 19, most had abandoned their bids, with Jackson emerging as the clear favorite.

Jackson received early support from progressives who had backed Platner before he dropped out. Our Revolution initially backed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate. When Platner left the race, the group rallied behind Jackson.

Jackson previously ran Maine operations for Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. This election cycle, Sanders endorsed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate, though he withdrew his support for Platner after the sexual assault allegation. He said he didn’t plan to weigh in on which Democrat should replace Platner.

Just one other candidate remained in the race for the Senate nomination — women’s health company Chief Executive Saundra Pelletier. She faced long odds against Jackson, who has been a fixture in Maine politics for more than a decade.

Jackson has supported progressive positions such as Medicare for all. He also has called for the abolition of ICE, whose presence in Maine has been hotly debated since an agent fatally shot Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, near his home in Biddeford, Maine.

Maine key to Democrats’ Senate path

Democrats have a narrow path to take back the Senate in November, and it’s unlikely they can do it without a win in Maine. In addition, they need victories in most other competitive races — including in North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio and Texas — and they need to hang on to the seats they already have. That includes open Senate seats in Michigan and Minnesota, where Democratic incumbents are retiring.

Maine’s Democratic primary was one of the early contests where progressives took on establishment-backed Democrats. While Platner faced several controversies during his campaign, he easily outlasted Gov. Janet Mills, who was backed by Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York but dropped out before the June 9 primary.

Platner had backing from Sanders as well as Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. That support disintegrated after the sexual assault allegation surfaced this month.

Midterm messages

Jackson will need to convince the state’s large independent voting bloc that it’s time to replace Collins. Republicans have called Jackson too extreme for Maine voters, and Collins said this week that she knows Jackson well and that his positions are “clearly” in line with socialism.

She noted that Jackson ran democratic socialist Sanders’ first presidential campaign in Maine, adding, “He’s a Bernie Bro.”

Jackson also needs to scramble to make up a fundraising gulf against Collins, who has been raising money for months.

Federal filings show she has raised more than $16 million so far. Jackson’s campaign this week said he raised more than $1 million since jumping into the Senate race.

Jackson said Saturday he believed his team is up to the task.

“We’re not from the left, we’re not from the right. We’re from the bottom, and we are rising,” he said during a speech.

Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. AP journalist Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

Six days after winning his first race in nearly a year, the multiple Grade 1-stakes-winning colt Journalism has been retired.

Coolmore America and Journalism’s ownership group on Friday announced the 4-year-old son of Curlin sustained an injury at the start of Saturday’s San Diego Handicap at Del Mar. The nature of the injury was not revealed.

Journalism broke slowly in the race when he moved forward just before the gate opened, then hit the side of the stall. He spotted the field several lengths but rallied to capture the 1 1/16-mile race for his first victory in five starts since winning the Haskell Stakes last July at Monmouth Park.

In addition to the Haskell, Journalism earned Grade 1 wins in the Preakness Stakes and Santa Anita Derby and was second in the Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes and Pacific Classic. The San Diego was his third Grade 2 win, along with the Los Alamitos Futurity and San Felipe Stakes.

He retires with seven wins, three seconds and three thirds from 14 starts, with earnings of $4,770,755.

Michael McCarthy trained Journalism for an ownership group headed by Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners, which paid $825,000 for him as a yearling. The colt already was scheduled to begin stallion duty next year at Coolmore’s Ashford Farm in Versailles, Ky.

“What Journalism did at Del Mar was the mark of a true champion,” McCarthy said in the news release. “To suffer an injury in the gate, give away that much ground, and still win purely on heart and class tells you everything you need to know about him. He owes us absolutely nothing. While it’s tough to see his racing career end this way, protecting him is our top priority, and he goes to stud at the top of his game.”