race

The race for the Golden Boot at World Cup 2026 is shaping up to be one for the history books.

After just two games, Argentina talisman Lionel Messi leads the way with five goals, followed by France’s Kylian Mbappe and Erling Haaland of Norway with four goals each.

Germany’s Deniz Undav has three with Jonathan David of Canada on the same mark after a hat-trick against Qatar.

A further 20 players have scored twice in their opening two games, including 2018 Golden Boot winner Harry Kane of England, Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, Vinicius Jr of Brazil and Mikel Oyarzabal of Spain.

The stars are all shining and, given the rate of scoring so far, it seems possible double figures might be needed to win the Golden Boot, something done only three times in history – by Hungary’s Sandor Kocsis in 1954, Just Fontaine of France four years later and Gerd Muller of Germany in 1970.

Fontaine holds the record of 13 goals in one World Cup in just six matches in Sweden, but the expanded 48-team format in 2026 means the nations qualifying for the semifinals in July will play an unprecedented eight games in this edition.

At the 2006 World Cup in Germany and in South Africa four years later, only five goals were needed to claim the Golden Boot while nobody has scored more than eight in the past 13 editions, a feat achieved only by Brazil’s Ronaldo in 2002 and Mbappe four years ago in Qatar.

Why have so many goals been scored at World Cup 2026?

It took just 33 matches for a century of goals to be racked up in this edition, second only to 1954 in terms of pace.

After Portugal’s 5-0 win over Uzbekistan on Tuesday, 139 goals had been scored across the first 45 games – the most in the group stages of a single edition of the finals, overtaking the 136 scored in 2014 in three fewer matches.

The record number of goals in one edition came in Qatar 2022 with 172 from 64 games. With an extra 40 matches in the new expanded format that went into effect this year, it was always likely to be broken, but the rate of scoring suggests the old mark will be obliterated.

One reason for the increase in goals might be the Adidas Trionda ball, which FIFA commissioned for this World Cup.

Before the tournament, FIFA said it boasts several key performance innovations, including intentionally deep seams designed to produce optimal in-flight stability by ensuring sufficient and evenly distributed drag as the ball travels through the air – in short, it flies through the air – while the surface of the ball is designed to increase grip when striking or dribbling in wet or humid conditions, which we have seen plenty of in the opening matches.

Austria head coach Ralf Rangnick said: “This ball is as fast as a cannonball. If you kick the ball in the right position, it’s extremely difficult to save.”

The controversial addition of hydration breaks to each half may also mean players are performing at their peak for longer, leading to the glut of late goals so far. Of course, the fact that 48 teams are taking part, drawn from the world’s leading 85 teams in the rankings, means there are some mismatches in the first phase.

Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo also said attackers are more protected by officials than they used to be, which may contribute to the increased scoring, adding: “They didn’t have this protection some 20, 30 years ago when they were hit a lot more, when rough play was a lot more common.

“Today, any team that defends well and uses counterattacks and tries to play can manage to do well.”

Who is likely to win the Golden Boot?

Much will depend on fitness and, of course, how deep a country goes in the tournament, but Messi has to be considered the favourite to win his first accolade.

The 38-year-old scored seven goals at the last World Cup and has now scored in six straight tournament matches, having netted in every knockout round in Qatar and the first two games of this edition. He even missed a penalty against Austria, which would have made it back-to-back hat-tricks.

Argentina’s final group game on Sunday is against already eliminated Jordan although Messi’s inclusion from the start in that one is by no means a given as his side have already secured the top spot in Group J.

They look set for favourable knockout fixtures, though, with the potential for Uruguay or Cape Verde in the last 32, potentially Australia or Iran in the round of 16 and the possibility of Croatia or Colombia in the quarterfinals, should they make it.

Only in the semifinal might they come up against a powerhouse nation, likely in the form of England or Brazil or dark horses Japan, Norway or Mexico.

Mbappe also looks likely to have a favourable run and is likely to feature against Norway on Friday in the group finale, which will decide the top spot in Group I.

Winning the group could mean a round of 32 meeting with Sweden, Germany the potential opponents in the last 16 and the Netherlands or Morocco awaiting in the last eight.

Whoever finishes second out of France and Norway could face a tricky task against the Ivory Coast in the last 32 with Brazil or Japan awaiting the winners and the possibility of England lurking in the quarterfinals, which might put a ceiling on Haaland’s prospects, despite having scored 59 goals in 52 international games for Norway.

Kane will seek to enter the conversation with England facing a must-win Group L finale on Sunday against Panama with the prospect of a last-32 meeting with Cape Verde to follow and Mexico likely lying in wait in the Azteca (known during the World Cup as Mexico City Stadium) in the round of 16.

Cristiano Ronaldo may have left it too late to begin a real quest, given Portugal face Colombia on Sunday in their final Group K game and could face resolute Ghana in the last 32 with Spain potential opponents in the last 16.

But Vinicius Jr could add to his two goals when Brazil face Scotland on Thursday in their final Group C game although the knockout rounds would appear a stiffer test.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Monday challenged a decision by a top state elections official to disqualify his candidacy and remove him from the August primary ballot.

A court filing, on behalf of the challenger Sullivan by his attorneys, said the decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualifying him violates state and federal law. It asks that he be placed on the ballot. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, has maintained that he’s a qualified candidate for U.S. Senate and that election officials lacked a legal basis to boot him from the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing age, citizenship and residency, his attorneys wrote.

“Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office,” the filing by attorneys Jeffrey Robinson, Bryn Pallesen and Zoe Eisberg states.

Sullivan’s entrance into the race, days before the June 1 filing deadline, drew condemnation from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They called the challenger a sham candidate and alleged he was working with Democrats to boost Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola’s chances in the race. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile contenders in a race with more than a dozen candidates. It’s one of the most prominent U.S. Senate races in this year’s midterm elections — one both parties consider crucial to their efforts to control the chamber.

Steve Kirch, a spokesperson for the division, said the agency had no comment and does not discuss “ongoing reviews, investigations or related proceedings.” Beecher has previously noted that ballots are due to be printed on Sunday.

Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the agency will defend the division’s finding and looked forward to a swift ruling from the court.

On June 15, a week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger Sullivan’s run, Beecher disqualified him. She concluded that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

In announcing an investigation, Dahlstrom cited “credible allegations” that Sullivan declared his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with an intent to confuse and “manipulate” voters. But in removing the challenger from the ballot, Beecher did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination with Peltola or Democratic Party officials.

The challenger Sullivan, when asked in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month if he’d had any contact with Peltola’s campaign, responded ”zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said she based her decision on factors including that he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats.

The form congressional candidates in Alaska complete asks them how they would like to be referred to on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted in line with a regulation that says a candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot with academic or professional titles or “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”

In response to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire last week said the regulation cited by Beecher does not forbid placing Sullivan’s name on the ballot. He said the elections division could comply with it by designing the ballot in a way that allows voters to distinguish between both Sullivans.

It’s a position echoed by the attorneys for the challenger Sullivan.

The challenger initially had been certified and listed on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan and denoted as the incumbent.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Round eight of Formula 1 season takes place in Austria this weekend in the stunning surroundings of the Styrian hills.

Last time out in Barcelona, Mercedes were beaten in a grand prix for the first time this year with Lewis Hamilton taking victory.

The Briton’s first grand prix win for Ferrari, combined with Kimi Antonelli’s retirement late in the race, narrowed the gap at the top of the drivers’ championship to 41 points.

Before Sunday’s race in Spielberg, BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers your latest questions.

A retrospective podium for Pierre Gasly. Justice? Or a can of worms best left unopened? – Clive

Formula 1 has clearly got itself in a bit of a pickle regarding the pit-lane speeding penalties in the Monaco Grand Prix.

The facts are that five cars were given penalties for pit-lane speeding when none of them had gone over the limit.

The length of the pit lane had been mis-measured – it was possible to drive a shorter distance than officials initially realised, by 77 metres.

And as the pit-lane speed limit is policed by the time taken to pass through a series of timing loops over a specific distance, that meant the drivers were wrongly penalised.

This led to a sequence of events that had a dramatic effect on the race result.

George Russell was most badly affected by what followed, having a third place turned into a 12th and losing 15 points in the process.

But McLaren’s Oscar Piastri and Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar also had their results changed.

Is it justice that Gasly is returned to a third place at the flag that he lost because Alpine refused to serve his penalty during the race, while the other drivers’ results are unaddressed?

Should the stewards who dealt with Alpine’s right of review over the Barcelona weekend have left it at that, and not raised the very obvious questions that followed on from it?

In terms of natural justice, the answer to both those questions is clearly no – there remain a number of issues raised by this situation that have not properly been dealt with.

McLaren and Red Bull have taken the case to the FIA court of appeal. No date has yet been set for that to be heard.

Mercedes have withdrawn their attempt to get the race result reviewed after concluding there was no viable mechanism for restoring Russell to where he could have finished, and it would not serve anybody to drag it all on.

As McLaren said in their statement about giving notice of intention to appeal: “We believe this case raises important questions concerning sporting fairness, regulatory consistency and the integrity of competition.”

The shame is that this could all have been avoided had the FIA and F1 acted differently before the race.

Teams warned the FIA that there was a problem waiting to happen with the pit-lane speeding limit during the Monaco weekend.

Officials did look into it, but their initial conclusion was that the concerns were unfounded. That was clearly an error. Had that been properly addressed at the time, none of this would have happened.

In terms of sporting fairness, it’s hard not to conclude that the issue should be taken to a full and proper conclusion.

Will Ferrari make Carlo Santi Lewis Hamilton’s permanent full-time race engineer, or is his role still considered temporary? – Anthony

The relationship between Lewis Hamilton and his new race engineer Carlo Santi has started off well.

Santi was initially meant to be a stop-gap before Hamilton received a new full-time engineer, but a Ferrari spokesperson says: “Carlo and Lewis are working pretty well together and there’s no plan to replace him.”

Hamilton has found a much more satisfactory relationship with Santi than he had with Riccardo Adami last year, and he’s tried to explain that without sounding too negative about his situation in 2025.

Hamilton said in Canada, where he finished second for what was his best result with Ferrari at the time, that Santi was “absolutely awesome and I’m really loving working with him”.

In Monaco he went further and compared the relationship with Santi to the one he forged over 12 years at Mercedes with Peter ‘Bono’ Bonnington.

“Driver-engineer working together is very, very important,” Hamilton said. “Last year, Adami and I had a really good relationship. He’s a lovely guy. We worked relatively well together.

“Catering to a driver’s needs takes time to learn.

“When you’re giving an engineer feedback, their understanding of through-corner balance, their understanding of all the elements that contribute to the struggles that you’re struggling with, you try to describe what it is, the problem you have, corner by corner, entry, mid and exit where you dissect it into five sections if you want.

“Having that driver-engineer collab, it’s hit and miss sometimes. With me and Bono, we hit it off from the beginning. He had a good working relationship with Michael (Schumacher). I do feel like Carlo is like my Italian Bono.

“He’s a bit of an OG. He’s an older guy that’s been around the block and he’s very calm. You can hear him on the radio. That’s the detail that we’re able to go into together. Our understanding of the engineer side, it’s something that’s very cool.”

Records have been falling from day one for the game’s most feared forwards.

Messi now leading the all-time World Cup list has taken a lot of the headlines, and rightly so.

But he isn’t the only one who has been setting records this tournament.

Mbappe now tops France’s goalscoring charts, Haaland is Norway’s leading World Cup scorer – after just two games – while Kane has equalled Gary Lineker’s World Cup record for England.

And all of them will have their sights set on France’s Just Fontaine’s 1958 record of 13 goals scored in one tournament.

Only three players – Fontaine, Gerd Muller for Germany in 1970 and Hungary’s Sandor Kocsis in 1954 – have ever hit double figures at a single World Cup.

It would not be a surprise if that select list has grown by the end of this tournament.

The new 48-team format certainly looks to have increased the potential for goals. With more lower-ranked teams, the world’s best attackers have prospered.

The World Cup winners will also have to play one more round than ever before – again increasing the chance for goals.

Former France defender Gael Clichy told BBC Sport: “Kylian Mbappe is part of the generation which [has] that fearless factor.

“I remember when I started you had to give respect to the older generation when you came in, and you were not trying to do a nutmeg to the old men.

“This generation, they have respect, but differently. Don’t talk about age, talk about performance.”

So, back to the small matter of the race for the Golden Boot.

“It’s not something I’m thinking about right now,” said Mbappe. “Leo always scores. He always has and always will.

“If I start watching him, I’ll feel like I have to do even more, so no, I don’t watch what he’s doing. I’m only thinking about helping my team – by helping the team, I score goals and get closer to that kind of level.”

Norway boss Stale Solbakken has, perhaps unsurprisingly, pushed Haaland’s cause.

“He is the best striker – he is not playing for France or Argentina, he scores for Norway. He’s scored four goals now, two braces on the biggest stage,” he said.

“It’s easier to win the Golden Boot when you play for France and Argentina, but we’ll try to give Erling more games, and more help also in the next games. So he’s on fire and I’m very happy for him that he can score on the biggest stage.”

USA striker Folarin Balogun has made a decent enough start to the tournament himself, with two goals in his first two games.

But he probably summed it up the best, when he joked: “I think it’s annoying. Seeing players like Messi, Mbappe, Haaland – they’re so inevitable. I think they’re scoring a goal a game, sometimes more.

“For me, it’s just about trying to get to that level – to be inevitable as well.”

SACRAMENTO — The man who brought California the top-two open primary now thinks it needs a drastic overhaul. In fact, he says the “top-two” part should be trashed.

Former state Sen. Abel Maldonado advocates returning to a “top-one” system where the winning vote-getter in each recognized political party — major or minor — qualifies for the November general election.

But he’d keep the “open” part that allows citizens to vote for any candidate on the state ballot, regardless of party.

Maldonado says he crafted the current system 16 years ago believing it would produce “pragmatic and commonsense” officeholders. But that has failed, he acknowledges.

The ex-politician, a Republican centrist who runs a Santa Maria farm operation, is one of several people from both major parties who contend the top-two system should be significantly altered or eliminated.

The movement gained momentum during the recent California primary. And I’ve got some other suggestions for reform that sprang from that election experience:

• We shouldn’t allow 61 people to “run” for governor. That many people, the vast majority of them on a laughable lark, clog the ballot and create a nuisance for voters. Just so they can tell a grandkid or a guy on the next barstool, “I once was a candidate for California governor.” Each got roughly 0% of the vote.

A solution: Quadruple both the current $4,900 candidate filing fee and the alternative collection of 6,000 voter signatures. That might dissuade frivolous “candidacies.”

• Hate language should be banned from the state’s Official Voter Information Guide. One so-called gubernatorial contender got a blatantly antisemitic “candidate statement” inserted into the information guide that was mailed to all voter households.

“It was disgusting. Horrible,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chairwoman of the Assembly Elections Committee and a member of the Legislative Jewish Caucus. She’s pushing legislation to prohibit such language in the guide.

You’d think that the secretary of state’s office would have burned the crud without needing a new law, but somebody dropped the ball.

• This has nothing to do with the primary, but the office of lieutenant governor should be abolished. It’s a non-job. The only real purpose is to wait for the governor to vacate the office by resignation or death. The last time that happened was 73 years ago when Gov. Earl Warren left to become a Supreme Court chief justice.

If another governor did ever depart — many fantasize about being elected president — the job could be assumed by, perhaps, the attorney general.

• Two other elective state offices should also be scratched: superintendent of public instruction and insurance commissioner. Those posts should be appointed by the governor, who is the logical person to be held accountable for education and insurance policies.
• And the state board of equalization. Junk that too. Hardly anyone knows what it does. Not much, after the scandal-plagued board was stripped of most of its tax duties a decade ago. They were shifted to two entities that report directly to the governor, rendering the board essentially superfluous.

But don’t expect any elective office ever to be eliminated by politicians. They desperately protect them as potential landing spots.

Back to the top-two open primary.

Maldonado jockeyed California’s oft-called jungle primary system onto the 2010 ballot as part of a late-night budget and tax deal. The senator agreed to vote for a gridlocked state budget and a hefty tax hike in exchange for legislative approval of the ballot measure.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed hard for the proposition and voters passed it.

Voters, regardless of party affiliation, can vote for any candidate. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the general election.

The idea was that candidates would be forced to appeal to centrist voters — not just party idealogues — and more moderates would be elected.

“Can you seriously say that the top-two system has led to more moderation? No, that’s asinine,” asserts Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who strongly supports returning to party nominations.

A few additional moderates have been elected to the Legislature, and some districts have become more competitive. But that’s mainly because of independent, nonpartisan redistricting, according to Eric McGhee, an elections expert at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Actually, the electorate has become so polarized in recent years — particularly during the Trump era — that very few centrist voters seem to be left.

The move toward abolishing or severely reshaping the primary system is nonpartisan.

Democrat Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, favors dumping the top-two.

For one thing, she says, there was too much focus this spring on whether any Democratic gubernatorial candidate would qualify for the November ballot. Fear spread that so many Democrats were running that they’d splinter the party vote and two Republicans would finish first and second.

She wanted to hear less talk about the horse race and more debate over substantive issues.

“People were obsessing about a Democratic shutout,” Gonzalez said. “And people were waiting until the last minute to fill out their ballot because they wanted to vote for the candidate who was ahead to make sure someone made the top two. We didn’t have a policy discussion.”

A top-two problem from the beginning has been that one party, usually the GOP, always gets locked out of some legislative or congressional elections.

In November, there’ll be eight congressional races with only Democrats running and one contest with just Republican candidates. And no general election write-ins are allowed.

That’s unfair to voters. They deserve a clear ideological choice.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio is pushing a proposed ballot initiative to wipe out the top-two. “It hasn’t delivered what it promised,” he argues.

Agreed. We gave it a try and it didn’t work out. Time to try something new–like Maldonado’s hybrid idea.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Behested payments aren’t illegal, but they are a problem. Especially for Newsom
Money for nothing: Billionaire tax proposal faces hurdles as it moves closer to November ballot
The L.A. Times Special: People are betting on elections in prediction markets. Congress is watching

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — In congressional races across the country, a new crop of super PACs is taking to the air with millions of dollars worth of advertisements to sway voters.

“President Trump said it best, ‘Celeste Maloy will never let you down,’” says one advertisement supporting the Utah Republican representative in her upcoming primary election.

“Standing up to big pharma, fighting for local jobs, Val Hoyle doesn’t back down,” says an ad backing the Oregon Democratic representative ahead of her primary victory last month.

The super PACs have nondescript names — such as Jobs and Democracy PAC and American Mission — and the text is so generic that it almost seems to have been created by artificial intelligence.

That isn’t so far off the mark. The AI industry has funded the ads.

One network of super PACs is linked to Anthropic, maker of the popular AI tool Claude, and the other to Open AI, maker of ChatGPT.

They have been among the most prolific political spenders so far in the 2026 midterm elections, splashing out more than $37 million to date to influence races across the country and making the groups among the biggest outside spenders so far in congressional races. That number could grow exponentially as campaign season heats up closer to the November election — and as the Silicon Valley giants prepare initial pubic offerings that are poised to raise billions of dollars for the companies and their executives.

The AI political spending boom comes as emerging technology companies have become increasingly “comfortable with using their power to achieve a political goal,” said Adam Kovacevich, a former Google public policy executive and founder of Chamber of Progress, a technology trade group with a progressive orientation.

The leading AI companies have a history.

Anthropic was formed by former OpenAI employees who were concerned that the company was less focused on its original mission to safely harness the power of AI.

The companies are now the leading drivers of the burgeoning AI industry, and their competing views about how the technology should be regulated are playing out in a wide-ranging political ad spending war that has targeted congressional races in big cities and rural areas alike.

OpenAI thinks AI should be regulated solely at the federal level.

Anthropic calls for more stringent regulation and supports efforts by states such as New York and California that have passed more aggressive AI laws.

The groups spending in these races are super PACs, which are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in federal races thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

In some races, the AI-backed political groups have spent more than the candidates they are backing.

“There was no way as a grassroots person that I could compete with that kind of money,” said Al Olszewski, whose opponent in a Montana Republican congressional primary beat him by 30 points after getting a boost from $877,000 in ads from a super PAC backed by OpenAI’s co-founder. “I got crushed.”

The AI behemoths have emphasized that they are independent from the political groups.

One group counts $25 million in support from OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, alongside $100 million tied to one of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms, which holds a large stake in OpenAI. The global policy chief for OpenAI was reportedly involved in conceiving the group.

The other side has gotten $20 million from Anthropic and millions more from donors whose identities are not public.

This anonymous political cash is commonly known as dark money, and its prevalence is growing.

(Los Angeles Times photo illustration; source photos courtesy of the Tech Oversight Project)

“This has become very normalized now,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign spending. “In 2024, we tracked over $1 billion in dark money.”

That total was $350 million higher than the previous presidential election.

The crypto playbook

The political activity of these AI companies and executives reflects a dramatic shift from how emerging technology companies have historically engaged with politics.

Google, for example, didn’t hire its first in-house Washington lobbyist until after the company had gone public in 2005.

“I think that for a long time, the tech industry lobbying strategy was just ‘leave us alone,’” Kovacevich said.

He sees the spending by these AI-linked super PACs as following the recent playbook developed by the cryptocurrency industry, which has funded the only network of political groups that has spent more on congressional races this year than those linked to OpenAI.

“I think what the crypto industry realized was that there’s no substitute for building up political power,” Kovacevich said.

The political stakes for these technology companies are significant.

“AI policy is far from settled,” said Asad Ramzanali, the former deputy director for strategy in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration and the director of artificial intelligence and technology policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration banned foreign nationals from using the most powerful AI model developed by Anthropic — and even banned the company’s own employees from it — which forced the company to restrict access for all users.

Manhattan matchup

The two super PAC networks have largely shied away from producing ads that mention AI and have mostly chosen to avoid competing against each other in the same races.

There’s one big exception.

In the marquee Manhattan Democratic congressional primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), each side has spent millions of dollars.

While the field includes Kennedy scion and social media star Jake Schlossberg and former Republican turned Trump critic George Conway, the target of all the AI-backed spending has been Alex Bores, a former Palantir data scientist who now serves in the New York state Assembly.

New York congressional candidate sponsored a state measure Bores requiring major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

That’s because Bores sponsored a state bill, known as the RAISE Act, that requires major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents. The bill was signed into law in December 2025.

The ads sponsored by the group tied to OpenAI, which has spent more than $7.5 million in the race, paint Bores as someone who can’t be trusted.

They cite his support from other tech billionaires, including former crypto mogul and convicted financial fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, whose super PAC spent $100,000 to support Bores in 2022 when he first ran for New York Assembly.

“Is that really who should be shaping AI safety for our kids?” one ad asks.

An ad sponsored by the Anthropic-backed network, which has also spent more than $7.5 million supporting Bores, makes the case that the bill he sponsored is exactly why he should be elected.

“As a computer engineer, Alex Bores saw how dangerous unregulated AI could be and he wrote New York’s RAISE Act to put real safeguards on A.I. and hold big tech accountable,” the ad says.

The AI ad barrage in New York has even included what might be considered a kumbaya moment in the ad wars — another super PAC created to support Bores is most heavily backed by both an employee of Anthropic and an employee of OpenAI, who both focus on AI safety.

The group, Dream NYC, has spent more than $1.7 million supporting Bores.

Bores and fellow New York State Assemblymember Micah Lasher have been atop the most recent polls in the race ahead of the June 23 primary.

A general view of businesses in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

Rural Republicans

For voters in many parts of the country, the debate over AI policy has played out locally as a debate over the massive data centers required to power the technology.

In Utah, a proposed data center in Box Elder County, backed by “Shark Tank” television personality Kevin O’Leary, has generated controversy because of questions about its impact on resources in the drought-prone state and its environmental effect on the nearby Great Salt Lake.

In the state’s most competitive Republican congressional primary — the vast, newly drawn 3rd Congressional District — both candidates expressed concerns about how the project has been developed and called for greater transparency in this plan and for future data centers in the state.

Utah congressional candidates Phil Lyman and Celeste Maloy in a debate on June 1. A super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $920,000 to support Maloy.

(Rick Egan / Pool / The Salt Lake Tribune Via Associated Press)

Despite their similar position on the project, a super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $950,000 to support Maloy, who is running in the new district after the boundaries of her old district changed.

“It’s a lot of money to throw at a race,” said her opponent, Phil Lyman, a former conservative Republican state Representative who ran to the right of Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox in an unsuccessful primary challenge in 2024.

Lyman insists he is no AI skeptic.

“I’m not anti data centers, I’m pro-transparency,” he said. “I think the future is bright with AI.”

The group said it is backing Maloy because it sees her as “someone who’s worked the issue” of AI regulation and who “has demonstrated leadership” with Republicans in Congress.

Maloy’s campaign didn’t respond to request for comment.

Utah congressional candidate Phil Lyman speaks during a Cottage Meeting at the SunRiver Community Center Ballroom in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

But Lyman suspects the group’s support for Maloy ahead of their June 23 primary has more to do with old-fashioned politics than any emerging technology.

One of the two co-founders of the political group is Chris Stewart, Maloy’s predecessor in Congress.

“Everything that they’re doing feels very coordinated,” Lyman said. “It makes you wonder if he’s still really controlling that seat.”

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood silent and stone-faced behind Donald Trump on Wednesday as the president joked of passing the buck if his deal with Iran, under increasingly withering criticism and scrutiny, ultimately falls apart.

The blame, Trump said, would likely fall on his vice president, JD Vance, who led the negotiations toward a memorandum of understanding with Iran and will sign the agreement this week in Switzerland — a ceremony that will generate indelible images for a politician openly considering a run for the White House.

The controversial diplomatic breakthrough poses a quandary for Vance, whose aides see Rubio as his most viable challenger for the Republican presidential nomination should the secretary choose to run.

“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the Iran deal, with Rubio by his side.

“If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD,” he joked. “You better be careful, JD!”

Silent secretary

Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security advisor, has remained effectively mum since news of a preliminary peace deal was announced by the administration on Sunday.

His absence has drawn notice across foreign policy circles — not only because Rubio has served as chief architect of the administration’s global strategy thus far, but also because he has become one of the president’s most effective communicators, both at home and abroad.

By contrast, Vance, on a scheduled press tour promoting his new book, has emerged as the face of an agreement that appears to be fracturing a Republican Party already divided over America’s role in the world.

The administration’s internal divide over Iran extends beyond the war to broader U.S. support for its historic allies, including Israel in the Middle East, Canada and Mexico in this hemisphere, and Ukraine and Europe against a revanchist Russia.

“Rubio has always been a hawk on Iran, and Vance has always been an appeaser,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describing the vice president as positioning himself “as Trump without the flaws.”

“Rubio has a harder job because he’s more of a traditional Republican,” she said, adding that a competitive presidential run by the secretary might require him to pitch “a return to normalcy.”

No guarantee of success

Behind closed doors, Rubio advocated against the deal in its current form, citing intelligence reports that found it highly unlikely Tehran would give up its nuclear ambitions, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Rubio’s internal skepticism was first reported by Axios.

The deal kicks down the road highly technical discussions over the mechanics of unwinding Iran’s nuclear program — with no guarantee of success — while granting Tehran immediate relief, lifting a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports that will allow Iranian imports and exports to resume.

In exchange, Iran has only agreed in principle not to pursue nuclear weapons — a vow it has made multiple times before — and to do its “best” to return commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz back to prewar levels. It commits in the deal to refrain from implementing a toll system in the strait, according to U.S. officials, for a mere 60-day period.

“This agreement is a road map for Iran to become a rising, stronger power in the [Persian] Gulf — stronger than it is even today,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

“That is going to be an issue for the balance of power with Israel, which before the Iran war was the rising power. Now it’s lost that paradigm,” Pape said. “And this is going to be an issue with the future disposition of American forces in the region, because the [memorandum of understanding] states quite clearly that Iran is expecting those forces to withdraw.”

Positioning by the vice president

Despite mounting skepticism, Vance has embraced his role in ending a war that a powerful faction of Trump’s base aggressively opposed from the start.

“I think there are some people who just want the bombing to continue, regardless of whether it accomplishes anything for Americans,” Vance told CBS News on Wednesday.

“I do think there are people,” he added, “who sometimes confuse the ends with the means.”

Because the preliminary Iran deal leaves key details unresolved, further negotiations virtually ensure the agreement remains in flux through the election season — potentially thrusting the talks into the center of the presidential primary campaign.

“Given the distance between the parties on the core nuclear issues, as well as the Trump administration’s poor track record with coercive diplomacy, I fully expect the 60-day window for talks to be extended, as the [memorandum of understanding] text permits, taking this issue to the heart of the midterms and beyond,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“There will be a lot of incentive in the administration,” Pauly added, “to distance oneself from this fiasco.”

As a guest on Megyn Kelly’s podcast this week, Vance acknowledged the political realities of Trump’s base splintering over the Iran war, noting that a coalition of isolationists — as well as those advocating what he called a more “aggressive” foreign policy — had together swept Trump back into office.

The war may be breaking that coalition apart, he said.

“We have a constituency right now that is saying, we’re going to send boots on the ground — they want Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran,” Vance told the former Fox News host.

“Those are Republicans,” Kelly said.

“We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent,” Vance replied.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: He graduated high school with honors. ICE detained him the next day
The deep dive: What we know about two SoCal men arrested in alleged plot to attack White House UFC fight
The L.A. Times Special: L.A. defies the skeptics for a World Cup marked by unity, mutual respect, fearlessness

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

June 17 (UPI) — Shortly after President Donald Trump rescinded his endorsement of Jackson Lahmeyer, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives from Oklahoma, Lahmeyer dropped out of the race, saying he didn’t want to be “a distraction.”

“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the past 24 hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer said in a statement, CNN reported. “I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Congress.”

Trump endorsed Lahmeyer, a right-wing megachurch pastor and founder for Pastors for Trump, before Tuesday’s primary, after which the candidate was expected to advance to a runoff for the Republican nomination against Rep. Mark Tedford.

On Sunday, however, The Daily Mail published texts between Lahmeyer and a former Miss Oklahoma pageant winner in which the candidate called her “cute” and mentioned an invitation to his hotel room, The New York Times reported. Lahmeyer acknowledged sending the messages but said they were “carefully cherry-picked,” the Times said.

Trump previously called Lahmeyer a “MAGA Warrior,” saying, “Jackson Lahmeyer has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Representative from Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” But in a social media post on Wednesday, he threw his support behind Tedford.

“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — he has always been with me, and I will always be wit hhim,” Trump wrote. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”

“HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump added.

Tedford and Lahmeyer had been running to succeed Rep. Kevin Hern, who is running for Senate. Tedford received 32% of the vote Tuesday while Lahmeyer received 25%. Both did not receive the majority needed to advance directly to the general election. The district heavily favors Republican candidates.

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Republican legislative leaders on Wednesday rejected Gov. Brian Kemp’s call to redraw congressional and legislative districts during a special session, citing concerns about moving too quickly after a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters.

House Speaker Jon Burns sent Kemp a letter hours before a special session was set to begin Wednesday, and he announced the decision as demonstrators filled the Georgia Capitol with chants of “Black voters matter!”

The decision marked a setback for both Kemp and President Trump, who has urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts to their advantage. Ten states already have enacted new congressional districts ahead of the November midterm elections. Georgia would have been the first to change districts for the 2028 elections.

Burns said lawmakers want to take their time after the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander and laid the groundwork for other Southern states to redraw their congressional districts. Burns said it was more important for lawmakers to focus on economic matters rather than “partisan games.” He also cited pending litigation over existing Georgia districts and the need for the state to understand the full ramifications for how race can or cannot be used in redistricting.

Republican legislative leaders did not rule out revisiting redistricting later this year.

Minority voting rights are especially salient in Georgia, where the Capitol complex includes a statue of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and sits blocks from where the slain civil rights icon lived, preached and led the movement that yielded the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Conservative justices gave the green light

Before Callais, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was understood to require maps — for Congress, state legislatures and local legislative bodies — that gave historically marginalized minorities a reasonable chance to select candidates of their choice. Nationally and in Georgia, those so-called “opportunity districts” have disproportionately elected Black and other nonwhite representatives.

For example, about a third of Georgia’s 180 state representatives are Black. Latino, Asian and other minorities bring the total nonwhite share to about 40% — roughly reflecting the state’s overall population. Georgia’s U.S. House delegation has five districts out of 14 total where the electorate is majority or plurality nonwhite. All elected Black Democrats in 2024.

With the Callais ruling, issued in April, a conservative majority of justices concluded that jurisdictions drawn with racial makeup in mind are discriminatory and violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The justices declared that apportionment should be “race neutral.”

Their stated reasoning did not hinge on party interests, and federal courts have said partisan gerrymandering is constitutionally permissible. But in Southern states, especially, party loyalty dovetails considerably with race and ethnicity. So the decision has allowed Republicans — a party dominated by white people — to redraw maps to goose likely GOP districts by redistributing nonwhite voters who tend to support Democrats.

That, many civil rights activists and experts argue, makes it impossible for Southern legislatures to be genuinely “race neutral” when drawing boundaries.

Emory University professor Carol Anderson compared Callais and the resulting redistricting push to poll taxes and literacy tests imposed by white Southern conservatives — and blessed by the Supreme Court — during the Jim Crow era.

“They used racially neutral language for policies that were clearly racially targeted,” said Anderson, who is also a board member of Fair Fight Action, a group organizing against the Georgia redistricting.

There were risks for Kemp and Republicans

It’s not guaranteed that Georgia Republicans can get what they want from new maps.

Partisan gerrymandering involves redistributing voters — packing certain citizens into fewer districts or dividing them across more districts. Around metro Atlanta, spreading nonwhite, Democratic-leaning voters across more districts could make more seats seem to lean Republican. The risk, however, is that more battleground districts emerge because white metropolitan voters are trending less conservative, which could give Democratic candidates of any race or ethnicity more chances to win.

That’s perhaps not a major factor in the Georgia state Senate, which already is considered gerrymandered for Republicans. But it could be a consideration when drawing state House and U.S. House maps.

Kemp was effectively asking Republicans, especially in metro Atlanta, to redraw their own boundaries and take on new, unfamiliar territory.

Trump started the fight before the Supreme Court decision

Nationally, a partisan redistricting battle started last year when Trump urged Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional boundaries to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority in Washington this November. Texas answered the call first.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in Sacramento answered with their own gerrymander that voters later approved. A succession of states followed. The outcome would have been close to even had the Virginia Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives, not struck down new Democratic-drawn maps approved by the state’s voters. All told, Republicans think they could gain as many as 16 seats from their redistricting efforts while Democrats think they could gain six seats from new districts in California and Utah.

That still may not be enough for the GOP to hold a congressional majority, given Trump’s lagging approval ratings. But it could mitigate Democratic gains and set Republicans up well for 2028 and beyond.

Barrow writes for The Associated Press.

Published on 16/06/2026 – 14:21 GMT+2•Updated
14:25

SpaceX is pushing deeper into AI with its largest acquisition yet, striking a $60 billion (€51.7bn) all-stock agreement to buy Anysphere, the developer of the AI coding assistant Cursor.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The purchase, announced on Tuesday, is intended to strengthen SpaceX’s position in the enterprise AI market, where rivals such as OpenAI and Anthropic have found early commercial traction.

Anysphere is a San Francisco startup that uses AI to automate large parts of software development, and its Cursor tool is widely used by programmers.

According to a regulatory filing, the two sides signed a merger agreement under which a SpaceX subsidiary, X67 Inc., will merge into Anysphere, leaving Cursor as a wholly owned subsidiary.

The merger is expected to close in the third quarter of this year, subject to regulatory approval.

The deal lands barely a week after Elon Musk’s company completed a blockbuster listing, and marks an aggressive move beyond rockets and satellites into enterprise AI software.

At the time of writing, SpaceX shares were trading a few cents below $200 in premarket trading, up more than 4% from Monday’s close and roughly 50% higher than its IPO price of $135.

Tuesday’s rally could see SpaceX overtake Amazon by market capitalisation if gains hold through the session.

The acquisition follows an option SpaceX secured in April, when it agreed to either acquire Cursor for $60 billion (€51.7bn) later in the year or pay $10 billion (€8.6bn) for a narrower partnership to provide compute.

Founded in 2022, Cursor has grown quickly, reporting roughly $2.6 billion (€2.2bn) in annualised business-to-business revenue, according to company data shared with Reuters this month.

The firm had previously raised more than $3 billion (€2.5bn) from backers including Nvidia and OpenAI.

SpaceX merged with Musk’s chatbot venture xAI in February, and this new deal could hand xAI a stronger position in AI-assisted coding, an area where it has trailed competitors, while giving Cursor access to far greater computing power.

Published on
16/06/2026 – 11:49 GMT+2

The world’s most valuable company, the chipmaker Nvidia, priced a $25 billion (€21.5bn) bond offering on Monday, marking its first issuance since 2021 and one of the largest by a technology company this year.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal was originally pencilled in at around $20 billion (€17.2bn) but was enlarged after demand ran more than three times the size of the bond, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg.

Investor appetite was the headline of the sale.

Orders reached as high as $85 billion (€73.2bn), allowing Nvidia to upsize the transaction and tighten its borrowing costs in the process.

The timing was also favourable.

The announcement of a US-Iran framework deal to end the conflict in the Middle East steadied credit markets, pushing investment-grade spreads to their narrowest levels since early February, before the Iran war began.

That backdrop helped Nvidia lock in relatively cheap long-term financing.

According to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Robert Schiffman, inexpensive long-dated debt lowers Nvidia’s weighted average cost of capital and helps bankroll its AI investments without threatening its AA credit rating.

A company spokesperson stated that the proceeds would be used for general corporate purposes, including repaying and refinancing existing notes.

Nvidia last tapped the investment-grade market in June 2021, when it sold $5 billion (€4.3bn) of notes across four maturities, according to a regulatory filing.

The contrast in scale underscores how quickly its financing needs have grown alongside the data centre build-out and increased demand from hyperscalers.

A wider borrowing frenzy

Nvidia joins a queue of technology giants raising vast sums to fund AI infrastructure.

Meta and Oracle have each issued $25 billion (€21.5bn) in bonds this year, while Amazon completed a single $37 billion (€31.8bn) deal, the largest US investment-grade offering of this year before Nvidia’s issuance on Monday.

For Nvidia, the raise also keeps share dilution off the table, giving it greater flexibility as capital commitments mount. The firm has invested $5 billion (€4.3bn) in Intel, pledged up to $10 billion (€8.6bn) to Anthropic and contributed $30 billion (€25.8bn) to OpenAI’s latest funding round.

Nvidia shares closed up 3.5% at $212.45 after the deal, valuing the company at about $5.14 trillion (€4.42tn).

On the other hand, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, opted for equity instead, pricing an upsized $84.75 billion (€73bn) capital raise earlier this month, after originally seeking around $80 billion (€68.9bn), according to a company filing.

The transaction, which includes a $10 billion (€8.6bn) private placement from Berkshire Hathaway, ranks as the largest equity capital raise on record and is intended to fund the group’s AI compute expansion.

Management has guided 2026 capital expenditure to between $180 billion (€155.1bn) and $190 billion (€163.7bn).

However, the equity move came on top of an already heavy borrowing run. According to its own filing, Alphabet raised more than $85 billion (€73.2bn) of debt across six major currencies and markets in the first quarter of 2026, taking its total debt balance above $100 billion (€86.1bn).

That included a US dollar bond round early in the year, leaving Google relying on both debt and equity financing to bankroll its AI ambitions.

SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature truly believe that slow vote counting is a horrible problem — which it’s not — right now is the time to fix it.

They’re crafting a new state budget. And they could choose to spend the money needed to help counties hire more temporary election workers, buy more sophisticated vote-counting machines and add space for all of it.

That’s the only way to significantly speed up vote counting and mute the MAGA drivel about California being a national “laughingstock.”

How much money?

“We’ve suggested $55.5 million,” says Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which pushes to improve the election process.

“That’s not a lot in the big scheme of the state budget.”

She’s right. It’s essentially pocket change in a proposed budget still being negotiated that tentatively totals $356 billion.

But don’t bet on much of it being allotted for swifter vote counting.

Regardless of all the potshots at California from cable news panelists about our “embarrassing” elections, faster vote tallying doesn’t seem to be a high priority for the Legislature.

Democrats are justifiably much more concerned about protecting poor people’s healthcare, in-home services for seniors and the unraveling safety net as the Trump administration and GOP Congress slash federal funding.

Federal cutbacks aside, the state for years has been spending more money than it takes in despite tax revenue exceeding expectations. Sacramento has a severe deficit spending problem that is projected to last for a while.

So, allocating more money to speed up vote counting by a few days isn’t very high on the governor’s and legislative leaders’ to-do lists.

“The reality is elections currently are underfunded,” says Assembly Elections Committee Chairwoman Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years.

She also says, referring to demands for faster counting: “The media outlets want to call the races and be the first. And that’s what this is all about.”

I don’t disagree. By our nature, we journalists are anxious to report fresh news, including the outcomes of elections. And we become impatient when vote counts roll in seemingly at a snail’s pace.

But come on, it’s not a horrendous burden on the public to wait a few days for an accurate vote count.

It does, however, provide an excuse for President Trump and MAGA Republicans to regurgitate unfounded accusations that elections won by Democrats are “stolen” from the GOP.

“Look what’s happening in California … it’s a rigged election,” Trump bellowed in a June 7 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker. “They’re cheating on the election.”

When Welker challenged him for evidence, Trump heatedly replied: “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked. Your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked. … You’re either crooked, or you’re stupid.”

To put this in context, the Trump diatribe came immediately after he called police officers attacked by Jan. 6 Capitol invaders “a bunch of dirty cops” and “crooked cops.” The Trump-inspired rioters were trying to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s “rigged” election.

It’s constantly puzzling why millions of Americans take this unhinged man’s blatherings so seriously. But they do.

And when the president lies about ballot fraud, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of our election system and undermines democracy. Americans become even more cynical and polarized.

So, the governor, Legislature and counties would do everyone a favor by investing in a faster vote count.

“It’s a problem,” Alexander asserts. “The slow vote count has become the norm in California, but it’s not normal for a democracy. It opens the door for false fraud claims.”

Much of the slow count results from tallying mail ballots, which amount to at least 80% of votes cast. They take longer to process, largely because each voter’s signature on the ballot’s envelope needs to be checked against one on file.

So, California could speed up counting by mailing out fewer ballots. Now, every registered voter gets one. We could go back to requiring voters to request an “absentee” ballot.

But forget that. We’re right to make it easy for people to participate in democracy — as long as safeguards are maintained to prevent fraud.

Some counties have taken advantage of a new law that allows a voter to drop off a filled-in mail ballot inside a voting center. There, it’s handled like an old-fashioned ballot that’s filled out at a booth. This significantly reduces processing time. But many counties say they need more state money to implement the program. I have no idea why.

Counting also is slow, of course, because lots of voters wait until election day — or near it — to cast their mail ballot. That clogs the system.

If the ballot is postmarked by election day, it’s allowed seven days to reach vote processors. Trump and fraud conspirators want to trash all ballots arriving after election day. That would speed up counting. But it’s un-American.

California election officials also try to pressure voters into mailing their ballots early. Rubbish.

Election day should mean something. It’s a day citizens are allowed to vote — whether they hand their ballot to a clerk at a voting center or drop it in the mail. They’ve got a right to take their sweet time in concluding what the wisest voting decisions are.

After all, the government allows us to drop our tax return in the mail on April 15 each year — and is very happy to receive our check a few days later. They process that check plenty fast.

“There’s nothing wrong with a slow count,” says Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who specializes in election law. “But it‘s a major problem because, unfortunately, it’s a manufactured crisis that can undermine public confidence. And it has gotten worse.”

So, Sacramento needs to undermine the demagogic manufacturers by stepping up vote counting while keeping elections virtually fraud-free.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump prosecutor in L.A. pushing unusual public search for voter fraud during ongoing count
California love: From the scene of South L.A.’s erupting sidewalks, 5 questions for Bass and Raman
The L.A. Times Special: Who loved Bass, Raman and Pratt the most? A district-by-district breakdown

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

As soon as enough votes were counted to officially knock Tom Steyer out of the California governor’s race, the anti-billionaire schadenfreude kicked in.

Social media and legacy media, conservative and liberal, all seemed to have a rare melding of the minds, delivering endless variations of, “How dare he try to buy elected office! We showed him.”

“I hope you received the message from California that a power-hungry communist billionaire cannot buy the state!” wrote one detractor on social media. “How much money did you waste spamming Californians? Do you know how many hundreds of millions of dollars you wasted?”

“What a waste,” screamed a New York Times headline, slamming Steyer for not donating that money directly to building houses or funding Planned Parenthood — one-off actions that prop up broken systems instead of changing them.

I get it.

In an age when income inequality is reaching serf-lord levels, hating the rich seems easy and reasonable. You could take several zeros off the $200 million Steyer spent on his campaign and it would still be more than most of us make in a lifetime. That’s a rage-inducing reality for many, if not most of us, for whom pairing a full tank of gas with a restaurant dinner seems like careless luxury these days.

I’m not here to defend the nine-zeroes class. But maybe we should take a beat and make sure our outrage is working for us, not against us. While Steyer has spent the last few months advocating for universal healthcare, better pay and protections for workers, and putting curbs on out-of-control corporations from the energy sector to AI, other billionaires have spent that time actively undermining democracy and our financial system. Heck, some even seem to be undermining humanity. Why aren’t we raging at them?

Take, for example, a certain billionaire who seemingly would prefer to be a trillionaire: Elon Musk.

Last week, his SpaceX held an IPO in which somehow the rules of Wall Street meant to protect small investors and pension plans were set aside to his benefit. Like it or not, if you hold a public pension or a 401(k) in America that uses index funds (which most do) you will likely be an investor in his unproven and possibly risky business. I’m sure that will work out fine.

Or consider the hundreds of millions of dollars right-wing AI and surveillance-company billionaires, some Californians, are dumping into political races across the country right now to ensure that their dangerous and unpredictable technologies are not regulated, or regulated in largely meaningless ways. It’s a situation so dire that one wealthy insider last week warned in his own op-ed that if his former colleagues are successful, “It could concentrate economic power in ways that would make the Gilded Age look quaint.”

Then there’s our president, king of self-enrichment, whose wealth has skyrocketed to more than $6 billion during his time in office. Much of that moola is in opaque cryptocurrency holdings, an industry he has championed as his fortunes in it have increased.

But don’t think Trump is in it only for himself: He’s enriching his family, too.

His daughter Ivanka recently made her own “eat cake” headlines over an alleged $1.5-billion project that would convert an uninhabited Albanian island into a luxury resort. The Albanians are so mad, they’ve been protesting in the streets for nearly two weeks. Meanwhile, her brothers have coat-tailed off their dad’s crypto-ventures to make their own fortunes, as other investors suffered losses.

Those are our individual billionaires, never mind the corporations, who can dump as much money as they want into our politics thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen’s United decision. In 2025, the oil and gas industry in California, led by Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Assn., spent about $34 million on lobbying. Not to be outdone, the Golden State’s water and electricity interests, including PG&E, spent about $35 million to bend politics to their will.

But sure, hate the goofy guy in the vintage Nikes pointing all this out.

“I’m proud of the enemies we made,” Steyer said in his concession. “In this race, those corporations revealed that they see a government that puts working people first as an existential threat — even when proposed by a billionaire. By spending $55 million — the most ever against a single candidate in a California primary — they showed the lengths they would go to in order to protect a status quo that only serves them and their profits.”

I don’t like the amount of money in our political system either, but the truth is, it’s there. And worse, the majority of those who have it seem intent on diminishing the political and economic power of those who don’t.

We are increasingly moving toward a country where the well-being of the majority of people will depend on the largesse of the few — Silicon Valley’s tech industry now talks about a universal basic income as a great boon for the coming mass unemployment they are creating.

But is existence off a charity-pittance really what we want for ourselves and our children? Do we really want these ultra-wealthy overlords to use their money unchecked to make decisions that will shape our future, diminish our rights and ultimately leave us without the power to fight back?

If Steyer wants to use his money to join this battle to keep power by the people and for the people, then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Like it or not, us average worker bees need money to fight money. In this age when animus eats discernment like the rich eat caviar, the luxury we really can’t afford is hating the good guys just because it’s easy — even if they’re billionaires.

Now in its 40th iteration, Grand Performances will celebrate this milestone with dazzling performances all summer long at the California Plaza in downtown L.A.

The free concert series kicks off with a performance by the Latin hip-hop funk band Ozomatli on June 13. Tropicalia group Healing Gems and the Afro-Latin fusion band Jungle Fire will also make special appearances, all while DJ Liza Richardson keeps the groove going.

“For 40 years, Grand Performances has been a gathering place where Los Angeles comes alive through music, culture, and shared experience,” said Rafael González, president and CEO of Grand Performances, in a press release. “This year, we honor that legacy by continuing to open our stage, free and for everyone, so that every Angeleno can find themselves in the experience and feel part of something larger.”

On June 27, the Chicano troupe Culture Clash will return to the Grand Performances stage with comedic sketches colored by political and social satire. The trio — which includes Richard Montoya, Ric Salinas and Herbert Sigüenza — formed in 1984 in the San Francisco Mission District. Through its avant-garde live skits, the group has weighed in on topics like race, immigration and politics, including the 2016 election race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Also joining the comedy show are retro cumbia-quebradita musician É Arenas (bassist of Chicano Batman) and the cumbia-fusion, luchador-masked cumbia group La Nueva Ola de Cumbia, as well as DJ Dali. (Editor’s note: De Los is co-presenting the Grand Performances on June 27.)

This summer will also pay tribute to a host of musical legends.

There will be an intergenerational dance party on July 18 with DJ Spinna on the booth, in honor of 76-year-old R&B-pop artist Stevie Wonder — who performed a memorable summer concert in 2013 alongside Ozomatli and La Santa Cecilia.

On Aug. 1, a 12-piece jazz ensemble will gather in tribute to the late Roy Ayers, the pioneering jazz-funk vibraphonist and godfather of neo soul.

Chicano trailblazer Ritchie Valens, best known for classic rock tracks “La Bamba,” “Donna” — will also get his due on Aug. 22, with a stacked program that features live music, narration and archival visuals honoring the late Pacoima legend. There will be performances by Nick Waterhouse, Shannon Shaw (of Shannon & the Clams), Joey Quiñones (Thee Sinseers), Bryan Ponce (The Altons), Denise Carlos & Hector Flores (Las Cafeteras), Angie Monroy (The McCharmlys), Irene Diaz and Jose Varela (Cutty Flam).

The season will wrap up on Aug. 29 with Mexico City cumbia punks Son Rompe Pera, joined by the all-femme percussion ensemble Bloco Obini and violinist Quetzal Guerrero, also known as QVLN (Q-Violin).

Grand Performances has hosted free outdoor performances annually since 1987. The organization’s focus is on giving a platform to both global and local performers, including previous headliners iLe, Adrian Quesada and Ana Tijoux. The full 2026 lineup can be found here.

Thank you, Steve Hilton, for calling out President Trump for the liar he is.

Hilton on Tuesday addressed the president’s unfounded but vociferous claims that Democrats have massively cheated in our recent election.

“We’ve got teams standing by, we’ve got lawyers standing by, very focused on that,” Hilton told reporters, including my colleague Seema Mehta, outside the L.A. elections headquarters. “We don’t want to let anyone down, we don’t want to let anything slip away, and we’ve seen nothing.”

We’ve. Seen. Nothing.

How refreshing to have a MAGA insider repudiate the lies.

If only more RITOs (Republicans in Trump Only) would follow suit. But, alas, the conspiracies rage on, aided and abetted by L.A.’s own First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who recently told right-wing commentator Glenn Beck (among others) that he expected his office to charge people in voter fraud cases in coming months.

“But we need a wide-scale audit of the California voter roll,” Essayli told Beck.

Voter rolls are a huge refrain in conspiracy theories and the subject of numerous (mostly unsucessful) lawsuits by Trump‘s Department of Justice. Trump is demanding that the federal government “audit” the voter rolls to ensure ballots go only to legal voters, which is one of those scary and ill-conceived ideas that sounds reasonable on the surface.

Trump’s lawyers, some of whom made careers out of civil lawsuits around voter conspiracy allegations before being appointed to office, claim untold thousands of ballots are sent out erroneously, then somehow, via Democrats, land in the hands of undocumented immigrants and others who use them to vote illegally.

It is nonsense, but also now government-backed nonsense.

“It certainly is a new level of danger that the people who spent unlimited amounts of time and money trying to prove that the 2020 election was stolen are now leading and staffing the Department of Justice,” Eileen O’Connor told me. She’s a senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, a nonpartisan effort to protect democracy.

“There have just been people who have spent every waking moment of their lives, practically for decades now, searching for all of this voter fraud that they claim is happening and not finding it,” O’Connor said. “And they’re still failing to find it.”

So what’s the deal with voter rolls? Are they really the dark heart of a Democratic scam to rig elections? Or is the scam that Trump and MAGA are attempting to use the boring and bureaucratic nature of voting rolls to do the very thing they claim to be fighting — undermine of free and fair elections?

What the heck is a voter roll?

Voter rolls are the lists of eligible voters kept by each state.

States run elections, because, well, the Constitution. But that structure is also a good idea because states keep closer track of who is a legal resident and where they are than the federal government.

Those like O’Connor who care about democracy and fair elections point out federal meddling with an “audit” of these lists is vastly overstepping federal power — and likely will knock of numerous voters who have a right to cast a ballot.

Part of that is because voter rolls are “loose,” according to Chris Fowler, a professor of geography and demographics at Penn State who specializes in voting rights. Most states have laws that strive to be inclusive and are slow to remove people from the lists, precisely because we want as many people to vote as we can get.

Some people in California are added when they get a driver’s license. Some people move and ask the postal service to update their voter registration. Some people register once, move dozens of times and never think to tell their secretary of state.

Some people die. Some people get married and change their name. Some people don’t vote for 10 years, then do. You get the idea. Life happens, and updating voter registration is rarely our first thought.

And yes, there are cases of folks illegally getting onto voter rolls, such as one Essayli recently pointed to in which a signature gatherer was paying folks on Skid Row to register to vote. The key there being register, not actually vote.

One-off cases like this should be and are prosecuted, but the inclusive nature of the rolls is by design, not a flaw.

“They’re imperfect,” Fowler said.

Why not audit?

Fowler added, though, if someone wants to make a big stink about fraud without any actual evidence, that inaccuracy is the perfect sleight of hand. To the average person, it sounds bad that we can’t keep a clean list of eligible voters.

But here’s what the conspiracy folks leave out: Being on the voter roll doesn’t automatically mean a vote will be counted or even that a ballot will be sent. It’s just the starting point of everyone who might be invited to the party.

There are numerous safeguards, such as signature verification, that cast ballots go through before the vote is considered legitimate. When there is doubt, the vote is “cured,” which is an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying local election officials may go as far as tracking down the actual voter and making sure they are legit. Yes, if there is a question, actual people contact an actual voter. If they can’t get in contact, the vote is usually set aside.

The MAGA demand to audit voter rolls ignores all this reality and is instead based on the false idea that voter rolls translate directly into counted votes.

The game MAGA is running with voter roll audits is that it was never about election integrity. It’s about suppressing the vote of Black people, brown people, young people and others who tend to vote Democratic and also tend to have more unsettled lives that would lead them to have inaccurate information, such as conflicting addresses, on the voter rolls.

Federal audits would, instead of protecting elections, allow a conspiracy theory to be weaponized into a way to keep legal voters from casting their ballot. Call it the new Jim Crow — a disingenuous way to suppress certain votes all gussied up as safety.

But the effort creates a win-win for Trump. If his Department of Justice is successful in getting state voter rolls — which it has been in more than a dozen states that have voluntarily turned them over — they can demand as many names as they want be removed.

The federal government has not said what criteria it will use to “clean” these rolls, who will be in charge, how the information will be used or kept, or how people will even know they’ve been knocked off until they try to vote. There is even concern the information gathered from audits will be used for other purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance activities.

And for the many states such as California who are fighting the demand in courts — the DOJ lost its California case and has appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — MAGA is simply screaming that the mere fact of protecting these lists from federal interference is proof that we’re covering up this vast conspiracy.

“It is part of laying the groundwork to just be able to say either we have all these voter rolls and we’ve analyzed them and they’re full of errors, or to be able to say, ‘Oh, you didn’t hand over the voter rolls. What are you hiding?’ O’Connor said.

None of that is actually good for elections, or democracy. That’s the real scam with voter roll audits.

They are a Trumped-up attempt to make us doubt a system that is working just as designed, imperfectly and inclusively, protecting democracy while encouraging legal voters to participate.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump Previews Fall Strategy With Baseless Claims of California Vote Fraud
The deep dive: Spencer Pratt could have been a real contender. His greatest enemy was himself
The L.A. Times Special: Why the L.A. mayoral runoff is about to be a ‘knife fight’

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

On election night, Santa Ana City Council member Jessie Lopez found herself in third place, far behind fellow Democratic council colleague David Penaloza and Republican business owner Mayra Ruiz in the race to represent Orange County’s 68th Assembly District.

Tearful supporters at a California Working Families Party shindig at the Mission Control bar and arcade in downtown Santa Ana hugged Lopez, gifted her flowers and wished her well.

If the 37-year-old was sad, she didn’t show it. Lopez had seen this game play out before.

In 2023, the councilmember decisively beat back a recall attempt funded by Santa Ana’s police union and apartment owners who didn’t like her unabashedly progressive views in a city where centrist Democrats have dominated politics for decades and lefty ones were long ostracized.

I wrote a column shortly after, heralding Lopez’s overwhelming victory as a new era for Latino politics in Orange County, where Latinos make up a third of the population but still wield little power.

Lopez spent the next three years along with her fellow progressive Santa Ana council members shoring up the city’s rent control policies and its immigrant defense fund. Nevertheless, few gave Lopez a chance in her assembly race.

Penaloza — who declined to vote when the council deadlocked on whether to cancel Lopez’s recall election — had the backing of the Orange County and California Democratic Party establishment, from current 68th District Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (who’s running to represent the 34th Senate District) to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to Katie Porter, a former Orange County congresswoman who ran unsuccessfully for governor this year.

Penaloza’s campaign mailers and video ads were so ubiquitous these past few weeks that they filled up my mailbox and interrupted my binging of Hulu’s “Vanderpump Villa.”

So did anti-Lopez mailers and commercials, funded by nearly $2.7 million in independent expenditures. Yet Lopez once again beat back her well-funded opposition.

As of Wednesday evening, the latest Orange County Registrar of Voters election results had her in second place — less than 1,000 votes away from Penaloza.

“Voters proved that while money can influence politics, it can’t buy community support,” Lopez said this week as she unsuccessfully tried to enjoy tacos and guacamole at Lola Gaspar in downtown Santa Ana, where well-wishers kept calling her or congratulating the candidate in person. “This race is about the future of California — whether we answer to corporations and insiders or to the hard-working people we’re elected to serve.”

With Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento easily winning reelection and Unite Here Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño currently coming up short in her bid to represent the 67th Assembly District, which includes parts of Los Angeles County, Lopez may be the sole O.C. Latino progressive running in November for a seat beyond the local level.

Expect Lopez versus Penaloza to become a referendum on whether the leftward trend of Latino voters in Orange County continues — or whether its center holds.

“I’ve chosen my side,” Lopez told me. “I’m proud to stand with working people.”

Then she excused herself — someone else wanted to say what’s up.

California Democrats made it out of last week’s primary election having kept the promise of Proposition 50 alive — advancing candidates to November runoffs in all five Republican-held Congressional districts that last year’s redistricting measure targeted.

They now head into November bullish about turning those districts blue, wresting control of the U.S. House from Republicans and delivering their party important leverage to challenge President Trump through the remainder of his second term.

“As Democrats, we are united in our fight to flip this seat and to take back the House for Democrats here in ‘26,” progressive college professor Randy Villegas told The Times on Wednesday after besting his Democratic challenger to advance and take on Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the redrawn 22nd Congressional District. “We know the path to taking back the House runs through the Central Valley.”

Robert Jones, a Valadao campaign strategist, said Valadao “is always humbled to receive the support of Democrats, independents and Republicans across the Central Valley,” and that his “brand of independent, bipartisan leadership is all too rare in Congress and California.”

“We look forward to a campaign that puts the Central Valley ahead of any political party and wins again in November,” Jones said.

In a social media post Wednesday, former state Sen. Richard Pan, who advanced in the redrawn 6th Congressional District in the Sacramento suburbs to take on Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin), cheered his race being added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program highlighting winnable seats. He said his race is “one of the top chances to flip a House seat and take back the majority.”

Kiley did not respond to a request for comment, but wrote on X that the November race between him and Pan “will be a choice between the extreme partisan policies that have made California the most unaffordable state in the country, and the independent leadership that allows our local communities to thrive in spite of the state’s failures.”

The two races are considered among the most competitive in California in November, but primary results to date show substantial momentum in the Democrats’ favor, experts said.

In the 22nd Congressional District race, Valadao had received substantially less than half of the vote as of Wednesday, while Villegas and his Democratic rival, moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano), had together received well over half the vote.

In the 6th Congressional District race, Kiley and the leading Republican candidate had together received well under half the vote as of Wednesday, while Pan and four other Democratic candidates had collectively won well over half the vote.

Those results are not final, nor do they necessarily reflect how voters will break in November’s head-to-head competitions. Just because a voter cast a ballot for a Democrat or Republican in the primary doesn’t mean they will back another candidate of the same party or partisan alignment in the general, experts said.

Still, the Democratic candidates clearly have an advantage in a year when the electorate — facing high gas prices and other economic headwinds — appear to be shifting against the president’s party, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant in the state.

“We’re in an anti-Republican moment,” Madrid said. “Is there time to turn it around? I guess. But there’s also time for it to get worse — and that’s the way it seems to be heading.”

Bob Shrum, a longtime Democratic strategist and director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future at USC, said Democrats stand to perform even better in November based on historical trends that show much larger Democratic turnout in general elections.

“I would not be surprised if Democrats won all five targeted seats, and the primary certainly increases the possibility that happens when you look at the results,” he said. “Maybe one of these places will surprise us, but right now, just looking at the numbers, I don’t think Republicans are in good shape.”

In the redrawn 1st Congressional District in Northern California, where incumbent Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) died in January, Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher handily won a special election — using the old district lines — for the remainder of LaMalfa’s term.

However, in the primary race for the next full term using the newly drawn district, state Sen. Mike McGuire and other Democrats collectively outperformed Gallagher by a substantial margin as of Wednesday — giving McGuire the momentum heading into the November runoff with Gallagher.

In the redrawn 41st Congressional District in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier) and Republican Mitch Clemmons advanced. As of Wednesday, Sánchez and her fellow Democratic candidates had collectively outperformed Clemmons by a wide margin.

In the redrawn 48th Congressional District in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) retired rather than run for reelection, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond advanced alongside Democratic San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert. Results as of Wednesday showed Von Wilpert and other Democrats in the race collectively outpacing Desmond and the other Republican in the race.

Republicans have long held on to hope that Valadao might be able to hold on to his San Joaquin Valley district, spoiling Democratic hopes for a flip there. They also seemed buoyed by early results in the Kiley race. But neither race went as Republicans hoped — and both Kiley and Valadao face a tough road ahead, experts said.

Having abandoned the Republican Party to run as an independent in a district that was designed to favor a Democrat, Kiley “now has to work all three lanes,” Madrid said. “He has to get a consolidation of the Republican vote, he has to communicate directly to independents, and he’s going to have to get crossover Democrats.”

That’ll be extremely difficult, especially given that any move he makes back toward Trump, to woo Republican voters, risks alienating moderate voters he also needs to win, Madrid said.

Shrum blamed Trump for the difficult spot in which the GOP now finds itself, referring to the president calling on Texas Republicans to redistrict in favor of Republicans.

“These California Republicans are paying the price for Trump starting this mess in Texas,” Shrum said.

“Kiley in his old district probably would have been easily reelected. This new district is a whole different story.”

Shrum also said it “doesn’t look good” for Valadao, despite the political argument picked up by GOP leaders that Villegas is too progressive for the Central Valley.

“Randy Villegas endorses every far-left policy that would destroy any hope for Central Valley residents looking for relief from Gavin Newsom’s high-tax, high-fraud system,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a recent statement.

Shrum said he doubts that message will resonate with enough voters to sway the race to Valadao “in an environment where the things people are worried about are the cost of living, the war.”

Madrid had even less confidence in a Valadao victory, saying that “in an environment like this, a tree stump could beat Valadao” given how frustrated voters are with the economy and the president’s party.

Villegas, who racked up endorsements Wednesday from a raft of Democratic leaders in the state, said the district’s primary results were “rooted in the reality that Central Valley residents are fed up with David Valadao” — not just Trump — and want a change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SACRAMENTO — State Treasurer Fiona Ma and former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero have been declared the two winners of a crowded primary election for lieutenant governor, securing themselves spots on the November ballot.

Ma is a Democrat. Romero is a former Democrat who said she registered as a Republican after splitting with Democrats over the push to oust President Biden as the party’s presidential nominee in 2024.

Both were declared as the top-two winners by the Associated Press. Under California’s primary system, the first and second place finisher advances to the November general election, regardless of their political affiliation.

Ma is a certified public accountant serving as state treasurer. She previously sat on the California Board of Equalization and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She also served three terms in the California Assembly.

Romero is an adjunct professor at Pepperdine School of Public Policy. She served as a Democrat in the Assembly and state Senate, becoming the Senate’s first woman majority leader in 2005.

Other notable candidates included former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs and Josh Fryday, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s cabinet. Both are Democrats.

The position is largely ceremonial. The lieutenant governor serves on various boards that oversee the University of California, California State University and community college systems, and can be called upon to break a tie in the state Senate. If the sitting governor dies, resigns or is removed from office, the lieutenant governor would assume the role.

Ma and Romero have offered some similar viewpoints. Both candidates previously expressed support for the death penalty and opposition to the state’s plan to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

Neither candidate supports the controversial Billionaire’s Tax Act. Romero, however, has further vowed to shun all potential tax increases.

Ma and Romero will now face off in November. The winner will replace Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who is finishing her second term and could not seek reelection. Kounalakis instead ran for state treasurer.

June 10 (UPI) — Maine Democrat Graham Platner secured his party’s nomination to challenge Sen. Susan Collins in November and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., failed to advance in her gubernatorial bid.

Primaries in Maine, Nevada, South Carolina and North Dakota shed some light on where voters stand heading into November’s midterms. Platner’s victory in Maine, running on a progressive platform seeking to shake up the establishment, came in spite of a series of controversies during his campaign.

Platner received nearly 75% of votes in his primary as of Tuesday. Among his main challengers was Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her campaign when pre-primary polls showed Platner with a commanding lead.

“Over the last nine months I have seen Mainers come together behind a vision to take back our power from corporations and billionaires,” Platner said Tuesday.

Democrats have targeted Collins’ seat as a key to earning a majority in the Senate.

“Over the past year, we have created a path to win a Democratic Senate majority and put a stop to the chaos and damage of the Trump administration by defeating the Republicans who enable his harmful agenda,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, wrote Tuesday. “In November, Maine voters will elect Graham Platner, and we will win a Senate majority.”

Trump’s endorsement in South Carolina’s gubernatorial race advanced to a June 23 runoff. State Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson were the top two vote-getters on Tuesday but neither surpassed the 50% threshold. Trump endorsed Evette over Mace, who has often aligned with Trump throughout her career.

Mace was one of the few Republicans to criticize Trump and his administration over the release of files related to the investigation into convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

“I chose to expose the abusers of children. And apparently, I chose wrong if the goal was winning an election,” Mace posted on social media on Tuesday. “I’m at peace with that. Because when a candidate is OK with corruption and cover-ups — something is broken. That’s not a political opinion. That’s a moral emergency.”

The race for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham‘s Senate seat in South Carolina has been set as the incumbent earned more than 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff election later this month. Graham will be challenged by Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who ran for Congress in 2022.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, clinched one of the top spots in California’s gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, earning him the right to challenge veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra in the November election to determine the state’s next governor.

The contest offers voters two starkly different politicians. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump and has wooed his MAGA supporters, blaming Democratic policies for California’s homelessness crisis, high cost of living and other entrenched ills. Becerra campaigned as a battle-tested warrior against the Republican president and a champion of affordable healthcare. He could make history as the state’s first elected Latino governor.

Hilton’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Tuesday, days after Becerra secured one of the top spots and a week after the June 2 election. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation. According to the latest vote count, which is ongoing, Becerra has a slight edge over Hilton.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, center, flanked by lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, left, and California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin, right, hold a press conference to discuss election and voting reforms at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters on Tuesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Democrat Tom Steyer finished in third place. The hedge fund founder and environmental activist spent $216 million of his own money on his campaign, and now joins the legion of other high-profile, self-funding candidates rejected by California voters.

Becerra heads into the Nov. 3 election with a distinct advantage — Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

The contrast between Becerra and Hilton, both on policy and political personas, couldn’t be more pronounced.

A British immigrant and former political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Hilton, 56, embraces traditional conservative ideals that have echoed across the country since the days of President Reagan — cutting taxes, weeding out government fraud and waste and promising to unbridle entrepreneurs and homebuilders from stifling state regulation.

But he’s also ventured into MAGA territory, declining to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and promising to extradite California doctors who provide abortion pills to other states for prosecution.

Becerra, 68, came up in Los Angeles politics in the 1980s and has long supported policies to expand protections and resources for immigrants with or without legal status. Married to Harvard-educated OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, Becerra has also staunchly opposed abortion restrictions throughout his career.

In Congress and other positions, Becerra earned a reputation as a cerebral, analytical politician who would fully commit to his positions after taking time to mull them through.

A straight-laced family man with a Catholic upbringing, Becerra was more reserved during the debates — a quiet confidence that drew some voters to support him. He also faced criticism from his rivals for failing to offer detailed housing and healthcare policies.

Hilton, who cuts an unmistakable image with his bald crown and clipped English accent, proved himself as a polished communicator during the debates, skills honed by his years as a Fox News analyst.

Television hosts must translate complex issues into easily digestible sound bites, said Republican strategist Matt Klink. “Most voters want a CliffsNotes version of the issues,” Klink said.

Republican strategist Kevin Spillane credits Hilton’s TV show, “The Next Revolution,” which ran for six years, with boosting his profile, calling Fox News the most important media vehicle within the conservative and Republican framework.

Hilton “understands how politics and how communications work,” Spillane said.

He often appeared relaxed during the gubernatorial debates, at points even complimenting or joking with his rivals as they parried on stage.

At a CBS debate earlier this year, Becerra referred to President Trump, who endorsed Hilton, as the Republican candidate’s “daddy.” Hilton responded with a quip that quickly deflated the attack.

“It would be rather amazing,” said Hilton, at the possibility of being Trump’s son. “My daddy was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team.”

In an interview last week, before the election, Hilton said he enjoyed the debates. “In a weird way, I was sad when we had the last one,” he said. “I’m looking forward to debating whoever it is.”

As a former political advisor to Britain’s Conservative Party, Hilton helped usher in a green, socially liberal strain of conservatism.

He also infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of unconventional ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton, who founded a nonprofit on California policies, was known for his frequent visits in the last couple of years to the state Capitol for discussions with legislators.

Rival Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who was trailing Steyer in fourth place in the latest vote count, ultimately didn’t seek to appeal to those beyond his rural, MAGA base, Klink said.

By contrast, Hilton presented himself as the “more cosmopolitan” candidate who “can talk to the hedge fund manager or the small-business owner or the Sacramento lobbyist,” said Klink said.

“Hilton was more energized at the end, when it mattered,” said Spillane, contrasting the two Republicans.

Past Republican candidates, including businessman John Cox in 2018 and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in 2010, have self-financed their campaigns with their vast fortunes.

By contrast, Hilton spent just a few million dollars on media advertising, he said in an interview last week.

He said he ignored advice from consultants who told him to do a launch announcement and then unleash a wave of ads in the last month of the campaign.

“I just said, ‘I want to do it the old-fashioned way,’ and that’s what we’ve been doing,” said Hilton in the interview before the election. “We’ve been to nearly every single county…. stepped it up with our town halls.”

Nina Royal, 83, who lives in Los Angeles and is a community advocate for her Tujunga neighborhood, voted for Hilton, saying that he understands California’s problems.

“He’s a realist,” said Royal. “He has a clear view of what needs to be done.”

Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

AUSTIN, Texas — A lawyer who represented Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton for nearly a decade over accusations of corruption and securities fraud is supporting Democrat James Talarico — and not his former client — in one of the biggest U.S. Senate races.

Talarico on Monday drew attention to his campaign winning the endorsement of Houston attorney Dan Cogdell, who was part of Paxton’s defense team during the Republican’s historic impeachment trial in 2023 that ended in acquittal.

The legal troubles that shadowed Paxton in public office in Texas are a central attack line of Talarico’s campaign, though in his endorsement, Cogdell didn’t cite concerns about his client’s past.

Cogdell said he didn’t dislike Paxton as a person and felt that Texas lawmakers were right to eventually acquit the attorney general. But as a politician, Cogdell said, Paxton is too focused on appeasing President Trump.

“I worked my ass off for the man for nine years,” Cogdell said in an interview with the Associated Press. “But that’s a different inquiry, my obligation to Ken ended at the courthouse steps and my obligation as a citizen is to do what I think is the right thing.”

Cogdell said Texas needs a lot of work, pointing to education and health care, “and to simply bootlick or rubber stamp Trump, that’s not what we need in D.C. right now.” He also recently spoke to Talarico at length on Cogdell’s podcast.ty.

Asked for comment, an aide to Paxton’s campaign said Cogdell is a Democrat and called the endorsement unsurprising.

The lead defense attorney in Paxton’s impeachment trial, Tony Buzbee, reiterated that on X. Buzbee added that he was supporting Paxton in the race.

Cogdell described himself as a registered Democrat, although voters in Texas do not register by political party. He added, however, that he considers himself a moderate who has given more campaign contributions over the years to Republican candidates than Democrats.

Talarico has given Democrats hope of flipping the statewide seat in Texas blue as the party scrambles to retake control of the U.S. Senate in November.

Paxton’s insurgent campaign beat Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary runoff last month, helped by a Trump endorsement in the final days of the race.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.