races

Arizona voters head to the polls on Tuesday to choose party nominees in races that could help determine who controls the US House of Representatives and whether Republicans can flip one of the country’s most competitive Democratic governorships.

Once considered reliably Republican, Arizona has swung between the two parties in recent election cycles. Democrat Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020, while Donald Trump reclaimed it in the 2024 presidential election.

The biggest contest is the Republican primary for governor, where four candidates are competing to challenge Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs in November. The results will also set up key congressional races in one of the country’s most closely watched battleground states.

Here’s what to know.

When will polls open and close?

Polls will open at 6am (13:00 GMT) and most will close at 7pm (02:00 GMT on Wednesday). Anyone in line by 7pm may vote.

Who can vote?

Registered Democrats and Republicans can vote only in their own party’s primary, while independent voters can choose whether to vote in either the Democratic or Republican contest.

There are about 4.3m registered voters in Arizona, including roughly 1.5m Republicans, 1.2m Democrats and 1.5m independents or voters not affiliated with either major party.

What races are on the ballot?

Arizona voters will choose party nominees for governor, congressional seats, state offices, including secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer and state superintendent of public instruction, and all 30 seats in the state Senate and all 60 seats in the state House of Representatives.

Who is running for governor?

One of the most anticipated races is the Republican primary for governor, where four candidates are competing to challenge Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs in November. Hobbs, who is running for her second term, is one of only two Democratic governors seeking re-election this year in states Trump carried in 2024.

While four Republicans are on the ballot, the race has largely become a showdown between Andy Biggs and David Schweikert, two longtime congressmen who represent competing visions for the future of Arizona’s Republican Party.

Biggs, a former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is closely aligned with Trump and has built his campaign around the president’s agenda. He was among the Republicans who sought to block Congress from certifying Biden’s 2020 election victory and has long been associated with the party’s most conservative wing. Trump endorsed Biggs after previously backing another Republican candidate who later dropped out of the race.

Schweikert has also supported many of Trump’s priorities in Congress, but has cast himself as a more pragmatic conservative. Representing one of Arizona’s most competitive congressional districts, he argues Republicans have lost ground in the state by nominating candidates seen by voters as too extreme.

What are the congressional races to watch?

The primary will also decide who will compete for Arizona’s open 1st Congressional District, a seat left open after Representative David Schweikert decided to run for governor. Covering Scottsdale and northeastern Phoenix, it is expected to be one of the state’s most competitive races in November and could play a role in deciding which party controls the House.

Republicans are choosing between state Representative Joseph Chaplik, former NFL kicker and sportscaster Jay Feely, who has Trump’s endorsement, and technology executive John Trobough.

On the Democratic side, doctor and former state Representative Amish Shah, who narrowly lost to Schweikert in 2024, is competing against former news anchor Marlene Galan-Woods. The registered Republican until 2018 is the widow of former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a prominent Republican who later became a vocal Trump critic.

She is being backed by the national party, which backed Shah in 2024. Publisher Rick McCartney and entrepreneur Jonathan Treble are also on the ballot. Another closely watched House race is in Arizona’s 6th Congressional District, where Republican Representative Juan Ciscomani is seeking a third term against Democrat JoAnna Mendoza, a Marine Corps veteran. Both are unopposed in Tuesday’s primaries and will face each other in November in what’s expected to be one of the Democrats’ best opportunities to flip a Republican-held seat as they try to regain control of the House.

How are Israel and Gaza shaping the Arizona primaries?

The Democratic Party’s growing divisions over Israel’s war in Gaza are becoming apparent in some of Arizona’s congressional primaries, where candidates have clashed over US support for Israel and the direction of the party’s foreign policy. Two races in particular illustrate those tensions.

In Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, which is considered reliably blue, Representative Greg Stanton faces a primary challenge from progressive candidate Kai Newkirk. He has made US support for Israel a central issue in his campaign, arguing that Stanton has been too supportive.

Stanton, a staunch supporter of Israel who has been endorsed by AIPAC, recently voted against a proposal to restrict US military aid to Israel. According to Track AIPAC, an advocacy group that monitors pro-Israel political spending, Stanton has received about $322,000 in donations linked to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.

In the neighbouring 3rd Congressional District, Representative Yassamin Ansari has dramatically changed her position on Israel since first running for Congress, reflecting the changing dynamics within the broader Democratic Party.

Ansari received support from Democratic Majority for Israel in her closely fought 2024 primary, but has since become a sharp critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and said she will no longer accept backing from the group or AIPAC.

When will the results be announced?

Polls close at 7pm on Tuesday (02:00 GMT on Wednesday) across most of Arizona, although no results can be released until 8pm local time (03:00 GMT on Wednesday). Because Arizona conducts most voting by mail or through early voting, counties typically report a large share of ballots shortly after polls close.

More than 755,000 ballots had already been cast before election day.

Most races are expected to become clearer during the first few hours of counting, although close contests could take longer if additional mail ballots need to be processed.

Mogadishu, Somalia – Thousands of reel-to-reel tapes sit in an air-conditioned room in the archive of Somalia’s public radio, Radio Mogadishu, stacked on steel shelves and lined up like old manuscripts beneath a thick layer of dust.

Each reel contains a small fragment of Somalia’s 20th-century history, from news bulletins to speeches, music and voices that were once beamed out across the nation’s airwaves, some dating back to the early 1950s.

Abdiqadir Geedi Robleh, an archivist at Radio Mogadishu, threads a reel onto an old tape machine, connects it to a computer, and records the contents of each tape. A tape with a love song by Mohamed Mooge Liban, a prominent singer fills the room, and Robleh is transported, he says, to his youth.

He is working with a small team to digitise and methodically order approximately 400,000 hours of broadcasts, officials here say, before the magnetic tape deteriorates beyond recovery, taking with it a crucial record of the country’s past.

“This is the world’s largest store of Somali language music, culture, dramas and everything else, and at the moment it is locked away from the public in a kind of prison,” Robleh tells Al Jazeera. “We’re working to preserve it but also open it up in future to the public.”

Founded in 1951 during the Italian colonial era, Radio Mogadishu would grow into Somalia’s largest and most important public broadcaster. It initially broadcast in Italian and Somali before introducing foreign language services, including everything from Swahili and Oromo to English and Arabic.

In its heyday, it was among the most influential and distinctive voices in East African media, reaching audiences as far afield as Tanzania, Ethiopia, and the Middle East with a style of radical pan-African broadcasting reminiscent of Radio Cairo in the Nasser years.

With the exception of a brief hiatus in the 1990s, when it fell under the control of a warlord, it has served not only as a key source of news for Somalis and audiences across the region, but also as a vital repository of the country’s collective memory.

The effort to preserve its archives has gathered new momentum this year.

In early June, Somalia’s information ministry and the UNESCO regional office for Eastern Africa – the UN’s heritage agency – brought archivists from across the country to a workshop in Mogadishu, aimed at eventually registering its contents with UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme, which catalogues archives of important historical value.

“Protecting this knowledge isn’t just relevant for Somalia, but it is relevant for everyone,” said Guilherme Canela, a senior UNESCO official who is overseeing the project.

An expert assessment carried out in April counted roughly 45,000 tapes and reels, representing an estimated 400,000 hours of material recorded since the station’s founding. More than 85 percent remain playable, but around one in 10 has deteriorated with age, and more than 5 percent has been destroyed or severely damaged, according to UNESCO.

Radio Mogadishu’s collection was recognised both for its size and because so much of what it holds exists nowhere else.

Some were damaged in an electrical fire in 2018, Robleh says, while others were lost during fighting in 1992, when US forces battled Somali militias in the streets of Mogadishu.

During the worst of the civil war, police colonel Abshir Hashi Ali risked his life to prevent the contents of the archives from being looted. When fighting engulfed Mogadishu following the 1990 collapse of the government, he said he ran back “with the aim of conveying to Somalis the wealth that is stored here”.

Abdi Jeite, the station’s director, says the digitisation drive began as early as 2012, but has been held back for years by a lack of resources. By his estimate, only approximately 10 percent of the archive has so far been converted.

“We’ve got some new tools, and more training for our archivists, but there is still a lot of support needed,” he says.

To understand why the archive matters so much, it helps to understand what radio once meant in Somali life.

“Radio Mogadishu was arguably the preeminent media institution in post-independence Somalia,” Iman Mohamed, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota and historian of Somalia, tells Al Jazeera.

“In a society that prizes orality above the written word, radio was uniquely effective at creating a common public sphere through which ordinary people could feel bonded to one another and to a shared sense of nationhood,” Mohamed adds.

Though Somali audiences could also access BBC Somali, Radio Hargeisa, and opposition stations when the government began to deteriorate in the latter part of the 20th century, it was Radio Mogadishu that dominated the “soundscape of urban Somalia”, Mohamed said.

That dominance made Radio Mogadishu a national factory of talent. “If you were a musician, poet, playwright or producer, Radio Mogadishu was the platform you wanted to appear on,” Robleh, the archivist, said. “It made Somalia’s stars.”

Robleh, the archivist, added that many BBC Somali journalists who went on to have distinguished careers first cut their teeth at Radio Mogadishu, which became an important pipeline for Somali-language talent to the BBC.

Hassan Dahir, a former journalist at the station, was one of many Somali children who grew up dreaming of working there. For years, he recalled, Radio Mogadishu was virtually the only source of news for millions, “the eyes and ears of the community”, he told Al Jazeera.

“Its reach was so extensive that even nomadic herders followed events as far afield as the Vietnam War and the American Civil Rights Movement,” Dahir said.

Under Siad Barre, the military officer who seized power in a 1969 coup and ran Somalia for two decades under a self-styled socialist, revolutionary government, the station became an instrument of state ideology, mixing news, drama and religious programming with nationalist and anti-colonial content.

The station beamed pan-African songs Oh Africa, still asleep by Halimo Khalif Magool, which spurred the continent’s inhabitants to awaken and take charge of their own destinies. Mahamud Abdullahi Sangub’s Reject the Color of Imperialism was another popular song of the era in this same tradition of politically charged music, with lyrics like: “Africans listen to each other, reject the colour of imperialism, reject it, reject it, reject it!”

Many of those songs have been covered, sampled or repurposed since, and younger Somalis often encounter them with no idea who performed the originals, or the politics that shaped them, say Mohamed.

Its news coverage focused on anti-colonial wars in places such as Mozambique against Portugal, the struggle against apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa and the Civil Rights Movement in the US. It covered everything from colonial battles in Guinea-Bissau to the arrest of African American political activist and author Angela Davis.

“We were telling the stories of people resisting their oppressors”, said Dahir.

The station was a “mouthpiece of the government”, cautions Mohamed, but took on a crucial role of inculcating “a patriotic and revolutionary ideological orientation in the Somali people”.

One of the most important projects the radio supported was the Somali mass literacy campaign, when the government sent students to rural Somalia in 1972 to teach the newly developed Somali script. The campaign led to a dramatic increase in literacy across the country.

It also became deeply entangled with Somalia’s regional foreign policy, as the government spent much of the 20th century at loggerheads with Ethiopia before eventually invading in 1977.

That rivalry led Radio Mogadishu to dedicate airtime to Ethiopia’s marginalised ethnic communities, as well as armed rebel movements, particularly those from Eritrea. Among its most notable initiatives were broadcasts in Oromo and Sidama.

Dahir, the former Radio Mogadishu journalist who covered Ethiopia, told Al Jazeera that these were the first-ever radio programmes in either language, both of which had been suppressed for many years in Ethiopia under policies that privileged Amharic, the language of the country’s elite.

The station itself has taken on a far smaller role in Somali life since.

The collapse of the central government in 1991 broke the state’s grip on broadcasting, opening space for private radio, television and online outlets, which have proven popular with the Somali public.

It has lost most of its foreign-language programming, and with it, much of its revolutionary edge. The Somali state also continues to be constrained by limited resources as it rebuilds after decades of conflict.

In November 2021, the al-Qaida-affiliated armed group al-Shabab, which has waged a long rebellion against Somalia’s government, assassinated the station’s then-director, Abdiaziz Mohamud Guled, in a suicide bombing in Mogadishu.

Iman Mohamed, the historian, says that with the civil war in the country, now in its third decade, preserving the archive for posterity has become more urgent.

“The destruction of archives during the civil war has left an enormous gap in Somalia’s documentary record, which means that anyone researching the country’s history is almost entirely reliant on foreign archives or oral history,” Mohamed said.

“That is especially problematic for young people,” she adds. “Recovering what we can matters for the youth who will never have known the world that Radio Mogadishu broadcast in its heyday.”

PHOENIX — For decades, all that separated the U.S. from Mexico was barbed wire.

Now, after a massive infusion of cash from Congress, President Trump’s administration is swiftly building what it has dubbed a “smart wall,” a combination of 30-foot-tall steel fencing and an array of sophisticated technology like sensors, cameras and towers allowing Border Patrol to surveil the territory.

The wall is under heavy scrutiny for the billions of dollars being dedicated to it when border crossings are at their lowest in decades. Critics say the U.S. is militarizing the border as it increasingly deploys sophisticated surveillance technology to the area, impacting local communities.

“We are seeing a massive expansion of surveillance and surveillance technology across the borderlands,” said Ricky Garza, border policy counsel at the Southern Border Communities Coalition, an advocacy group. “The wall in all its forms is harmful to communities.”

Officials say the technology is complementary to the physical wall and frees up agents for other tasks.

“It’s a smart wall. It’s not just a barrier,” Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said during recent congressional testimony. “It maximizes the use of our most valuable resource, which is our agents.”

Contracts for hundreds of miles of wall already inked

The wall has been a top priority for Trump, a Republican, since he first ran for president.

During the administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, the border emerged as a flashpoint, with thousands of people seeking to cross into the country each day. Those numbers started to taper off shortly before Trump returned to office last year and then slowed to a trickle, with his broader immigration crackdown serving as a deterrent for would-be migrants.

Flush with $46 billion to finish the wall after an infusion by Congress for immigration enforcement, CBP is inking tens of billions of dollars in contracts to build the wall and push along the president’s signature project.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently that a preliminary part of the wall will be finished by “this time next year.” Scott said his agency is putting up 6 miles of wall a week.

Hundreds of miles had already been built before Trump returned to office. As of mid-June 2026, CBP has erected another 74 miles and aims to build hundreds more. There is no wall planned for roughly 535 miles of the roughly 2,000-mile-long border, because rugged terrain already serves as a barrier. Ground sensors and towers will be used instead.

CBP is also going back to hundreds of miles of already built wall and adding more technology, lights and roads. Along the long stretches of river in Texas that mark the border with Mexico, they’re deploying 12- to 15-foot-long cylinder-shaped buoys meant to keep migrants or smugglers from crossing the border.

More technology being deployed on the border

Technology is playing a greater role in the Trump administration’s effort to make illegal crossings along the border more difficult, part of a broader transformation of CBP in the years since Sept. 11, 2001, into an intelligence operation with a mass surveillance network whose reach extends far beyond the nation’s frontiers, according to reporting by The Associated Press.

And critics say the border technology poses a threat.

The Southern Border Communities Coalition says surveillance technologies can push migrants into more dangerous routes to avoid being detected.

Garza, the group’s policy counsel, warned that surveillance technology infringes on the privacy rights of border residents and that locals have found ground sensors used to detect smuggler or migrant traffic placed on their property without their consent.

Nayda Alvarez and her relatives own land along the Rio Grande roughly 125 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. She has found cameras placed on her family’s land, and just last week she spotted a surveillance tower about a quarter of a mile down the river from her house.

“Are we expecting a war or something?” she said. “It doesn’t make me feel safer.”

Dave Maass, director of investigations for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that focuses on civil liberties related to digital technology, said the technology has made the border area “a hostile environment” for locals and would-be migrants.

The foundation has published a guide on the various types of surveillance towers in use along the southern border designed to help local residents.

These can range from fixed towers with video, infrared and radar technologies that have a range of roughly 8 miles to remote video surveillance systems that have cameras and a spotlight fixed on top. Some are mounted on the backs of trucks so agents can drive them to different parts of the border.

Increasingly, these towers are autonomous. They can scan an area, analyze what they’re seeing using artificial intelligence and alert Border Patrol agents to something suspicious. Proponents say this helps keep Border Patrol agents out in the field instead of sitting in front of computer screens watching for activity. But it also increases AI decision-making along the border when experts have warned about the technology’s potential for bias or other problems.

The big GOP tax cuts and spending bill passed by Congress last summer requires that CBP buys only the autonomous towers, and the department is deploying an additional 95.

Underground, buried fiberoptic cables can sense movement, capturing data that is also then analyzed by AI.

“We follow the contour of the land. We go through trees. We go down into the river banks. We can go absolutely everywhere,” said Magnus McEwen-King, CEO of Sintela, which has a contract with CBP to install the cables. He spoke at a recent border security expo in Phoenix, where some of the technology was on display.

CBP also uses ground sensors and trail cameras to detect smuggling routes.

Concerns over cost and future plans

The nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has questioned both the huge amounts of money for the wall-building and whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.

In 2011, under Democratic President Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pulled the plug on a project to build a “virtual wall” of integrated technology like radars, sensors and cameras across the entire border after it ran over budget, faced technological glitches and was behind schedule.

Josh Sewell, director of research and policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the organization would like to see more “robust evaluation” of the technologies being used to avoid similar scenarios. And he criticized the Trump administration for lack of oversight on how the money is being spent, a charge CBP has denied, citing “oversight mechanism.”

In the Big Bend area of southern Texas, opposition to the department’s wall-building plans gathered strong bipartisan support especially in the most sensitive areas that run through a state and national park and a wildlife area.

CBP now says it is not planning to build a 30-foot-high bollard wall in those areas. Its recently announced plans include installing patrol roads and some barriers designed to stop cars and using detection technologies.

Clara Benson, who is one of the founders of the No Big Bend Wall coalition, says bright lights in the area designed to illuminate the border could pollute the skies in an area renowned for having some of the best views of the stars. Even without a 30-foot-tall steel wall running through the land, there is concern about CBP’s plans.

“There’s still a lot of fear and dread that the plan is still going to be quite damaging,” she said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

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 — As Janeese Lewis George paves a path to the mayor’s office in Washington, D.C., she’s told voters they could have it all.

Her unapologetically expansive, left-wing agenda includes subsidized or even free childcare, increased down payment assistance for homebuyers and community resources to reduce crime, plus a promise to aggressively confront President Trump’s attempts to reshape the nation’s capital.

“People are tired of hearing what government can’t do. They want to hear what government can do,” Lewis George said in an interview before the city’s primary, where she defeated her Democratic opponents and positioned herself to win the general election in November in a city dominated by Democrats.

Lewis George’s victory signals a break with a quarter-century of centrist governance in Washington, and it puts her in the vanguard of democratic socialists who have ascended in urban politics over the last year. Zohran Mamdani toppled Andrew Cuomo, the scion of a political dynasty, on his way to becoming New York City mayor. Katie Wilson won an upset victory to lead Seattle last fall. And this month, Nithya Raman clinched a spot in the November runoff against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

All of them are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA. The political organization has seen its membership ranks swell from a few thousand to more than 100,000 nationwide over the last decade after an influx of younger Americans joined following the presidential bids of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also a self-described democratic socialist.

There’s little sign of national coordination among the candidates, and it’s unclear whether voters are gravitating toward their promises of improved government services, their vows to fight the Trump administration or their critiques of capitalism.

But from coast to coast, confrontational progressives are advancing in mayoral races. City leaders can draw outsized attention for their successes and failures, and democratic socialists will be under pressure from residents to deliver on their vows for a new kind of governance. Whether that translates to national politics is a next test for their movement.

“They are all channeling a displeasure with a status quo and a serious desire for economic populism that the establishment Democratic Party hasn’t been preaching,” said Eric Stern, a Democratic strategist with Fight Agency, a political consulting firm that strategized Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.

Stern added that Democratic voters appeared more willing to support the most progressive candidate in mayoral races rather than in contests for the U.S. House. Candidates like Mamdani and Raman, Stern said, are “daring voters to dream and fall in love not just with the individual candidates but also the political process as a whole.”

A rising left navigates America’s urban challenges

The trend of progressives surging in urban areas may have limits for its broader impact on Democratic politics. Democratic mayors in cities including Atlanta, Houston, Miami and San Francisco won on relatively moderate platforms in recent years.

Progressive have also faced noteworthy challenges. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson was endorsed by the city’s DSA chapter during his 2023 mayoral run but has since faced criticism from both moderate and liberal local leaders on issues such as immigration, the local budget and public safety. Recalls and public pressure ousted progressives elected to district attorney offices in multiple jurisdictions over the last five years, when criminal justice reform efforts ran into dissatisfaction over public disorder following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump’s hardline immigration and law enforcement tactics have also become a challenge for liberal cities. The president’s agenda poses an especially serious threat to Washington, D.C., because of its status as a federal territory.

“Maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis,” Trump told reporters this month when asked about the potential election of a democratic socialist as the district’s mayor. “We won’t put up with it.”

But progressives hope the current wave of anti-Trump furor in deep blue cities across the country will help buoy the chances of those on the hard left.

“It’s not folks looking for the leftmost option so much as looking for a candidate who’s gonna be on their side,” said Ravi Mangla, speaking for the left-wing Working Families Party. The party often endorses the same candidates as the DSA and is readying to target more mayoral offices in the country’s biggest metropolises this fall and in 2028.

“It’s less about whether you are on the right or on the left so much as whether you are willing to punch up at the powerful,” he added.

Mamdani and Lewis George are both self-described “sewer socialists” who emphasize the need for responsive government services rather than critiques of market economics. The phrase recalls the socialist Gilded Age mayors whom critics derided as too preoccupied with managing public works projects.

The term’s revival is partly a strategic move to align leftist ideas with concerns over affordability and the economy, voters’ top concern in the midterm elections, and shift the public perception of democratic socialists from firebrands who support radical policies to independent-minded public servants.

“This is absolutely a change election and I’m excited to bring the change that people want, which is really putting people first in the city and having the moral clarity and courage to stand up to Trump,” Lewis George said.

For voters the ‘socialist’ label did not seem to matter

While conservatives have used the “socialist” label to attack Democrats as extreme or incompetent, some D.C. voters appeared ambivalent before Tuesday’s primary.

Several lifelong residents said they believed Lewis George was a “fighter” but didn’t think she’d have much of an impact on the local economy, given the city’s status as a federal district.

“I go back and forth on my own labels and whether I am supportive of that movement or not, but I am supportive of making D.C. more affordable,” Owen Fitzgerald, a University of Maryland graduate student, said of his support for democratic socialism.

Fitzgerald voted for Lewis George because she would stand up to Trump and said he’d first learned of her campaign from friends in his neighborhood. But he didn’t know she was a democratic socialist until he saw news reports describing her with the label.

“It sends a cultural message to this administration that the people who are surrounding them in the capital are opposed to their platform, opposed to their political agenda, and I think that it will send a message, both nationally and internationally,” Fitzgerald said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

When Vice President Dan Quayle tarred Murphy Brown as a symbol of the “poverty of values” that he claims helped fuel the Los Angeles riots, it was more than another bizarre turn in an already screwball political ride. His attack on “lawless social anarchy” resonates with the rhetoric of the Religious Right. That is no accident. This group assumes great importance as the Bush-Quayle campaign faces the tricky dynamics of a three-way race in the fall.

Quayle’s scolding also exposed a common theme in GOP legislative primaries throughout California, particularly in Orange and San Diego counties. How Republican voters respond could define the soul of the state GOP, the political future of Gov. Pete Wilson and the direction of public policy and spending.

Four years ago, the Religious Right mobilized around the politics of evangelists like Pat Robertson. Now the Robertson crowd has joined with other pro-life groups in stealth campaigns to capture low-visibility local offices.

This strategy has quietly surfaced in California. In GOP primaries in 13 legislative districts, a statewide coalition of Christian fundamentalists is fielding and financing right-wing candidates against moderates backed by Wilson loyalists. Among the more prominent contests:

— Conservative fundamentalist Barbara Alby, of Sacramento’s Capitol Christian Center, is challenging incumbent B.T. Collins (R-Carmichael), the governor’s hand-picked candidate, for the 5th Assembly District nomination.

— In Pasadena, Bill Hoge, running for the GOP nomination in the 44th A.D., enjoys the backing of several fundamentalist Christian groups. Former La Canada-Flintridge Mayor Barbara Pieper, a pro-abortion rights Republican with long-time ties to Wilson, is the moderate candidate.

— Redondo Beach Mayor Brad Parton is the Right’s man in the South Bay’s 53rd Assembly District. Campaign literature from opponent Dan Walker, a Torrance City Council member, blasts Parton for his “attempts to impose his fundamentalist religious views on others.”

On economic issues, there’s little difference among GOP contenders. Most are fiscal conservatives who oppose new taxes and support pro-business agendas. The split comes over social issues. Couched in terms of “traditional family values,” the Right’s agenda is relentlessly anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-Wilson.

Since Wilson took office last year, he’s made it clear he wants to remake the California Legislature into an instrument of his moderate political will. To do that, he has to break the grip of conservatives in the GOP Assembly caucus. That’s what the 1992 primaries were supposed to accomplish. But caucus hard-liners, whose goal is to dump Wilson allies from leadership posts, have joined with the Religious Right to take on Wilsonistas.

The most intense battles are being fought in the governor’s back yard–San Diego. A string of right-wing victories there could be fatal to Wilson’s policy agenda and to his political viability.

For a while, the governor’s people worked to keep this unhappy political prospect suppressed. But when Wilson learned how well organized the conservatives were, he dropped his neutrality and endorsed four GOP moderates running for the Assembly in the San Diego area. Since all four districts lean Republican, the GOP nominee should have the advantage in the general election.

In the 75th, right-wing candidate Connie Youngkin, head of San Diego’s Operation Rescue, trumpets herself as a “Pro-Family Tax Fighter.” She has downplayed her anti-abortion rights activism in the face of attacks from Wilson’s candidate, Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith.

The nomination battle in the 77th pits political consultant Steve Baldwin, and his army of Christian activists, against former Chula Vista Mayor Greg Cox. Baldwin, who helped engineer Religious Right victories in 1990 races for local offices, opposes abortion and gun control. Wilson-endorsed Cox does not.

In the 78th, former Assemblyman Jeff Marston, a pro-choice moderate, faces Dan Van Tieghem, executive director of the Christian Coalition of California. And in the 76th, Wilson likes former Del Mar Mayor Ronnie Delaney against anti-abortion conservative Dick Daleke.

Conservatives Youngkin, Baldwin and Van Tieghem have all been targeted by the California Abortion Rights Action League as “Enemies of Choice.” Their nominations could assume added importance if the U.S. Supreme Court, as expected, tosses the abortion-rights issue to the state legislatures. These religious conservatives would also likely wield long budget knives, first and most deeply, at health and social welfare programs.

What’s all this got to do with California’s primary?

Religious fundamentalists have boosted their voting numbers by “in-pew” registration drives. Add to this the fact that conservatives tend to be better organized, more motivated and more ideologically committed than middle-of-the-road voters. They turn out.

And with so many competitive races, turnout will likely determine many a political race.

If turnout is low, the extremes of both parties–liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans–will benefit, which means that the Legislature will likely remain factionalized and frozen.

The U.S. Senate races might be affected as well, particularly the tight contests for the six-year seat. On the GOP ballot, a low turnout could help conservative commentator Bruce Herschensohn. But if moderate Republican women come out to support pro-choice candidates running for the Legislature and Congress, pro-choice Rep. Tom Campbell might benefit.

In any case, despite the whining of press and pundits, the California primary is not irrelevant. The stakes are high this year. They include the definition of this state’s goals and priorities. And the selection of leaders capable–or incapable–of moving toward them.

California voters won’t be conned to the polls just to protest or confirm presidential nominees. But they can’t stay home, if they care at all about the future of their communities and state.

Here, too, turnout will tell the tale.

LAS VEGAS — Retired Air Force Lt. Col. David Flippo has won the Republican primary in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District after securing President Trump’s endorsement in the closing weeks of the campaign.

The race, which was called Wednesday, put Trump opposite Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo and retiring Rep. Mark Amodei, who both backed former state Sen. James Settelmeyer. Amodei announced he was retiring after 15 years, opening up a competitive primary for Nevada’s only Republican-held House seat.

Flippo said he will fight “relentlessly” for secure borders, American energy, tax cuts, national defense and “the America First agenda our country needs.”

“Nevada deserves a fighter, and that’s exactly what I will deliver,” he said in a statement.

Democrats had hoped for a Flippo victory, thinking it would make it easier for them to win over less partisan voters in November in the conservative-leaning district. They nominated the chief of staff to state Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, former majority floor leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson.

“I will ensure that Nevada families have an authentic Nevadan voice fighting for their needs in Washington DC,” Benitez-Thompson said in a Wednesday morning statement.

The 2nd District race is one of several Nevada contests that will be watched closely this year. In southern Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Susie Lee will face Marty O’Donnell, a composer known for writing the soundtrack to the video game “Halo.”

Trump won the 3rd district in 2024 and backed O’Donnell, who thanked Trump in his victory statement.

Tuesday’s primary also set the general election contest for governor, with Ford defeating a progressive candidate in the Democratic primary and moving on to face Gov. Lombardo. The incumbent, a former Clark County sheriff, is running on his record of public safety and job creation while pledging to work on housing affordability in a second term.

Ford is tying Lombardo to Trump in placing blame for soaring prices across the state and has pledged to lower costs for families. He would be the state’s first Black governor if elected in November.

In other races for statewide offices, Republican primaries for attorney general and secretary of state included several candidates who had pushed election conspiracy theories or been skeptical of election operations. Adriana Guzmán Fralick, who has expressed concerns about voting security, won the GOP nomination for attorney general and will face Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro.

The Republican primary for secretary of state, the office that oversees elections, included Jim Marchant, a former state lawmaker who has said the 2020 election “ was probably stolen,” and Sharron Angle, a former state lawmaker who was part of an effort to block the certification of Nevada’s 2020 election results. Another candidate who was competitive in the race, Shirley Folkins-Roberts, is an attorney who has denied that there is widespread voting fraud in Nevada.

In the 2nd District race, Flippo said he understands issues important to the region, including mining, water rights and fuel prices. He sought to turn Settelmeyer’s long political record into a liability, pointing to votes he said did not match conservative values.

He moved to the district this election cycle after losing a race in southern Nevada in 2024. The 2nd District covers all northern Nevada. It mostly rural but includes the major battleground county of Washoe, home to Reno.

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

More than a day after polls closed, voters still hadn’t learned which two candidates would run off in the November general election for dozens of races.

Many significant races are still too close to call. In the race for governor, Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra held leads, with Democrat Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco trailing. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter conceded the race Tuesday night.

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and projects the winner using vote returns and other data. Races can be called within minutes of polls closing on election night. However, if a race has tight margins or an high expected volume of mail-in ballots, it can take longer to call.

In some cases, such as for L.A. mayor and state treasurer, the tight race is between second and third place.

In California’s primary, the top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of candidate pool size, party preference, or whether one candidate receives a majority of votes. Locally and in nonpartisan races, however, a candidate can avoid the November election if they win with a majority.

Statewide

State Senate

State Assembly

Congress

Almost half of California’s 52 U.S. House of Representatives seats had known finalists on election night. But in tight races such as the Republican vs. Republican competition in the 40th District and the Democrats’ challenging of Republican Rep. David Valadao in a redrawn 22nd District, the top two vote-getters weren’t yet known.

Local

In Los Angeles County, there were still 27 races with uncertain results. The Times considers uncertain races those where no candidate has a majority or where the vote share for the top two is between 55% and 40%. The Associated Press does not call winners for most local races, such as city councils, city officers and ballot measures. If no candidate wins with a majority, the top two will face off in November. That could be the case for the sheriff and L.A. City Council’s 3rd District.

The L.A. County registrar will continue to count and confirm mailed-in, provisional and conditional ballots until June 26. Updates to the results charts below are expected approximately once a day in the early evening.

Close city races

Voters can track their own cast ballot here.

The secretary of state will certify results in early July.

The Times’ results pages reveal how Californians voted for governor, U.S. House seats and in local city, school board and ballot measure races.

Every registered voter in the state receives a ballot by mail. Polls close at 8 p.m. on June 2, and mailed ballots need to be postmarked on or before that day. Winners may not be known on election night due to the high volume of mail-in ballots arriving after election day.

The vote counts on these pages update periodically as results are reported by the Associated Press and the L.A. County registrar. On election day, those results include in-person voting as well as any mail-in ballots already received. In the days and weeks following, votes will be reported approximately once a day, as they are processed by county registrars. Voters can track their own cast ballot here.

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials. The AP projects the winner for all statewide and federal races using vote returns and other data. A race may be called before all expected votes are in. Results can change as more ballots are counted.

These pages will update until the secretary of state certifies results on July 10.

Los Angeles Unified School District incumbents — Rocio Rivas, Kelly Gonez and Nick Melvoin — surged strongly ahead in early returns Tuesday night for three seats on the Board of Education.

The first reported results were trending toward one-sided outcomes because the major political forces of recent years declined to do battle against each other: The teachers union supported Rivas, who represents a largely Eastside district; a charter-friendly retired businessman supported Melvoin, whose district is centered on the Westside. And the largest union representing nonteaching employees all but avoided the fray.

The third incumbent, Gonez, was the only candidate on the ballot in District 6, and faced one write-in challenger, Jose Sagredo. Thus, Gonez is poised to continue to represent a district centered in the east San Fernando Valley for a third and final term.

With no challengers boosted by high special-interest funding, the three incumbents had a virtually unobstructed campaign path.

If the early returns hold as expected, the Los Angeles Board of Education will continue to lean against charter schools and would stand in general agreement on most policies — including assertive support for immigrants and a continued holding pattern on the future of Supt. Alberto Carvalho, who remains on administrative leave as a federal investigation proceeds.

District 4, Westside

Well ahead in District 4 was two-term incumbent Melvoin. His challenger was Ankur Patel.

The funding advantage in Melvoin’s campaign was sizable through just before election day: Melvoin, $378,803; Patel: $22,662.

In addition, Melvoin benefited from an independent expenditure of $367,093 on his behalf by retired businessman Bill Bloomfield, who has been a major funder in recent campaigns, typically for candidates who also are acceptable to charter-school advocates.

Charters are privately operated public schools, most of which are nonunion. About 1 in 5 L.A. public-school students is enrolled in an independent charter operating within L.A. Unified.

District 2, downtown and Eastside

Also with a huge funding advantage was Rocio Rivas, who was headed toward a second term in District 2.

LAUSD Board Vice President Rocio Rivas was headed toward a second term in District 2. Her major funding source was $889,469 in an independent-expenditure campaign on her behalf, nearly all of it from the United Teachers Los Angeles union.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Rivas’ own campaign raised $66,218. But the major funding source was $889,469 in an independent-expenditure campaign on her behalf, nearly all of it from the United Teachers Los Angeles union. The union also spent more than $4,000 in communications to its members about the election.

These figures compare with $2,525 raised by challenger Raquel Zamora, who reported spending $5,089.

In Rivas’ successful 2022 run, her main funding opponent was Local 99 of the Service Employees International Union, which backed Maria Brenes for an open seat. Historically, Local 99 has not been inclined to oppose an incumbent, which Rivas has become. And, true to history, Local 99 has endorsed Rivas, but without spending money on her behalf.

An end to charter school wars

More broadly, this election cycle marks the end to a generation of bitterly contested Los Angeles school board races that became the most expensive in the country, with the L.A. teachers union and charter school advocates slugging it out to advance their vision for public education.

Charter school supporters — who had poured tens of million of dollars into races to elect board members sympathetic to their cause — largely stepped aside, a reflection of their diminished resources and evolving strategy.

The bottom line is that, if current vote-count trends hold, the board will be unchanged for the next two years.

This situation is less than ideal for charter schools. Charters with a mixed record face a tough review when they come up for renewal — about once every five years. Charter opponents want the board majority to move more aggressively to shut down charters when possible and to force them off district campuses — where, under state law, they have a legal right to operate.

Big board decisions looming

Big decisions before the board include how to manage a projected structural deficient — with union leaders calling the dire predictions an accounting mirage.

Meanwhile, Supt. Alberto Carvalho remains in limbo after a February FBI raid of his home and office. The investigation relates at least in part to a failed district chatbot project.

Carvalho maintains his innocence and would like to return to work. The board, however, has turned the reins over temporarily to acting Supt. Andres Chait.

This election cycle marks the end to a generation of bitterly contested Los Angeles school board races that became the most expensive in the country, with the L.A. teachers union and charter school advocates slugging it out to advance their vision for public education. Above, LAUSD headquarters in downtown Los Angeles.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

We’re tracking races across California, including primary elections for U.S. congressional districts that were recently redistricted. Results for governor, statewide officers such as the attorney general and insurance commissioner, as well as state Senate and Assembly contests are available on this page.

In state-level primary races, the top two finishers will move on to the general election in November. Their names will be indicated with checkmarks once their races are called by the Associated Press.

Initial results are expected shortly after the polls close at 8 p.m.

Every registered voter in the state receives a ballot by mail. To vote by mail, these ballots must be postmarked by June 2. They may take several days to process. Results from provisional and conditional ballots also take longer, and will be added to the tally once they are cleared.

The data on this page updates periodically as results come in from the Associated Press. The secretary of state will certify results in early July.

Governor

The California governor’s race is a tight battle between 24 Democrats , 12 Republicans and 25 candidates from other parties or with no party preference . Half a dozen of which had real support in the polls. The crowded field is vying to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. California has never elected a woman as governor and only once a person of color, making this race potentially historic for the state. The top two vote-getters move on to the general election regardless of party preference.

Back to top

Statewide races

Back to top

Board of Equalization

Back to top

U.S. House

California’s congressional map was redrawn last year after the passage of Proposition 50. Several seats are expected to flip from red to blue due to Newsom’s redistricting effort. In some cases, districts were moved slightly and incumbents remain unchallenged. However, in one area, lines have been redrawn with no overlap at all with their current boundary: Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District in the Inland Empire was eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. Calvert is now challenging Republican incumbent Young Kim in the 40th District. Both are marked as incumbents on the table below.

The 1st Congressional District — which was redrawn further south to cover portions of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba counties — is holding a special primary election to fill the seat left vacant by Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s death in January.

Back to top

State Senate

Back to top

State Assembly

Back to top

After the polls close in California on Tuesday, NBC News data analyst Steve Kornacki will just be getting started.

Since December, the khacki-clad vote-counting guru has been going live and uninterrupted on streaming platforms to provide results and analysis of every special election and even some state Senate contests.

The stream — called the Kornacki Cam — provides unadulterated number-crunching without any pundits weighing in. Rather than getting updates that last a few minutes, Kornacki provides continuous real time results until the last available total is counted.

“This all happens in full view,” Kornacki said Monday in a phone interview. “The audience gets to see the whole thing. They get to see the buildup, the anticipation, the payoff.”

In the 10 Kornacki Cam sessions streamed by NBC News so far, 20 million viewers have sampled on YouTube alone. The coverage — consisting of Kornacki, his Big Board, his producer and a Stedicam operator — is also available on NBCNews.com, the NBC News app and the division’s social media accounts on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.

The Kornacki Cam will focus on the primaries for Los Angeles mayor, California and several Congressional districts, shortly after the state’s polls close at 8 p.m. Pacific.

In a Monday chat with The Times, here are the trends Kornacki says he’ll be looking for on the night.

Polling in mayoral races is typically pretty unreliable. What do you make of the contest based on what you’ve seen?

You don’t always have super-competitive mayoral elections and they’re not all created equal. It’s not quite like a presidential election so you just don’t have a wealth of data to draw on for expectations either.

I’ve seen the polling you’ve seen. It suggests that of the three candidates, (Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV star Spencer Pratt and City Council member Nithya Raman) Bass is in the best position to get into the runoff. It also suggests that Spencer Pratt has had the most positive movement in the last month or so of the campaign. But we go in knowing there will be volatility and I’m open to any and all possibilities.

Spencer Pratt is an unusual candidate who has been able to take up a lot of oxygen in the race. Is there a hidden vote for him that people might not be eager to admit to pollsters?

You can look at the city and know where to look for whether Pratt is having a big night. The San Fernando Valley is gonna be more than a third of the vote, probably close to 40%. If he gets in the general election, he wants to be winning there by a big margin. 
If it’s not happening there for Pratt, I don’t think it’s happening anywhere else. Karen Bass is going to rely on central and south L.A., with probably a third of the vote coming out of those two places. Those should be her bulwarks. The Westside, I think could be more of a toss-up. There’s a fair chunk of the vote there.

We don’t do a ton of mayoral races around the country. So we’re still trying to figure out exactly how detailed we’re going to be able to zoom in, at the neighborhood level and the precinct level.

Turnouts usually are low for Los Angeles mayoral races. Will this year be different?

This mayoral race has received a lot more national attention than 2022. 
So my thought is that the turnout would be higher, just based on that. But this is something that is resonating nationally because Pratt has that celebrity factor. The number was 646,000 (total votes) for 2022. So that’s something we’ll be following — are we trending over or under that?

And what will be the best indicators for the gubernatorial race?

The place that I kind of got circled here is Orange County. In the last two sort of major statewide elections, it was the first to report out vote. 
At 8:06 p.m local time in California, in 2024, Orange County reported out half of its vote, right? So you’re getting, you know, you’re getting hundreds of thousands of votes, potentially, from this enormous county within, potentially within 10 minutes of polls closing. 
There were a couple others — the Central Valley, and we got a we got a good chunk of Merced and Fresno quickly.

So how long are we going to have to wait for a result on Tuesday night?

One of the other things that just surrounds everything in California, whether it’s the mayor’s race, or governor’s race, or anything else, is nothing is definitive in the first hour or so after the polls close. We’re probably realistically looking at a days or even weeks-long process of getting all the vote counted.

I know it drives many people nuts. Without editorializing on that, it’s just a fact that they can get out of about two-thirds of their vote on election night, and if the races aren’t clear and definitive, then you’re generally in for a pretty long haul.

We do know in California that they’re not going (to count) nonstop until they get a result. They’re going to then start doing updates as they process and count the remaining vote by mail, which is usually a considerable pile in a lot of these places. The vote by mail in California can continue coming in for seven days after the election.

So do you think your coverage reflects a shift in what the consumer wants? We already know how fragmented the audience is. Are there now enough political junkies who want the pure uncut stuff?

I’ve been doing this about 20 years, and when I would tell people that I reported on politics for a living, they either moved away from me or changed the subject. And now, you know, I found the last, you know, 10 years or something, has just totally changed. People come up to me, even if they don’t know I work in politics, and they want to talk politics. Everybody seems into it whatever side they’re on.

Before answering this question directly, it’s important to point out that not everyone views the new rules in such a negative way.

There is an acceptance in F1 that qualifying has been significantly negatively affected, in terms of the driving experience of being on the limit.

Efforts have already been made to address that up to a point this year, and larger steps are in the making for next year.

At the same time, most senior figures in F1 – including some of the drivers – agree that there has been a positive effect on the racing, even if some of the increased number of overtakes that have been seen can be argued to be artificial and down to offsets between states of charge.

TV figures over the first three races were up by more than 20% – all three of Australia, China and Japan had significant increases. Miami’s are not available yet.

Now, as for the genesis of the new regulations, the target when talks started five or so years ago was to attract more manufacturers.

At the time, the direction of road-car technology was firmly electric, so it was decided in concert with the manufacturers to increase the amount of electrification.

A nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electric was agreed. Fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuels were added for further environmental credibility.

The MGU-H, a part of the hybrid system that recovered energy from the turbo, was removed. The reasoning being it was complex and expensive – and therefore hard for new manufacturers to compete with existing ones – and not road relevant.

Following the announcement of those rules, first Audi committed to F1. Soon afterwards, Ford and General Motors did the same, and Honda reversed its decision to quit.

Had the rules not changed, F1 now would have a maximum of three manufacturers or possibly only two, Mercedes and Ferrari, if Renault had gone ahead with its withdrawal.

Instead, it has six.

The problems started when the teams started to look at what a near 50-50 energy split with an engine devoid of an MGU-H meant in terms of operating the cars.

Very early on, at least by 2023, there were warnings that the cars would be energy starved.

Energy recovery from the front axle could have solved this, but this was rejected on the basis that it could give Audi an advantage as it had experience in it from world endurance racing.

The result was a series of sticking-plaster solutions – such as active aerodynamics – that only tickled with the fundamental problem.

It’s hard to get a definitive answer as to why someone in authority did not ask everyone to stop, step back for a minute, look at the big picture, and ask whether the 50-50 split was really so important. And whether the sport should change tack. Clearly, that was a failure.

So now the rules have to be amended. And solutions that could have been introduced before 2026 – such as altering the energy split and making it more in favour of the internal combustion engine – are now likely to be introduced for 2027.

Parallel to that, talks are now ongoing on what comes next – from either 2030 or 2031.

The trajectory of road cars has changed. Electrification is still coming, but – it seems – not to the same degree or at the same speed as was thought five or so years ago.

In F1, a reversal away from electrification to some degree is inevitable. But how much remains to be seen.

A naturally aspirated engine – most likely a V8 – with token hybrid is being pushed by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.

But for various reasons that exact solution may not be acceptable to all stakeholders, nor the panacea its proponents claim. Negotiations are ongoing.