reshape

From the first time decades ago he was lampooned as a quirky upstart until now, the final stretch of his unprecedented fourth term as California’s governor, Jerry Brown has reveled in his reputation as a cheapskate.

“Nobody is tougher with a buck than I am,” he boasted during the 2010 campaign that sent him back to Sacramento.

Eight years later, Brown is poised to earn a place in the history books as the leader who helped right the ship of state. His mantra of measured spending could be a standard by which future governors are judged.

“We’re well positioned, but if the next governor doesn’t say ‘no’ at critical moments, things will get worse,” Brown said in an interview with The Times.

His promise of similar straight talk about California’s budget prevailed in the 2010 election, held in the shadow of financial collapse. The projected budget deficit he inherited — even after two years of cuts under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — stood at $27 billion.

All of which seemed a distant memory Wednesday as Brown signed a budget creating a $13.8-billion cash reserve, the largest in state history. “I think people in California can be proud that we’re making progress,” the 80-year old Democrat said standing beside legislative leaders — the oldest of whom was only 12 when Brown was first elected governor in 1974.

Gov. Jerry Brown displays a playing card with his dog, Sutter, on it during his State of the State speech in 2014. The cards, handed out to legislators, urged them to save — not spend — all of the growing tax revenues.

(Rich Pedroncelli / AP )

While supporters tout his record on combating climate change or raising the minimum wage, the through line of Brown’s second chance as governor has always been the budget, a topic that demanded a fiscal reckoning just days after he took office.

“What surprised me was how deep the deficit became during Schwarzenegger’s last few years,” he said. “We had to get in there and cut, and find some new revenue and work it out the best way we could.”

Brown’s first moves in 2011 were to cancel new cell phones and government vehicles for state workers, political symbolism not unlike the bland Plymouth sedan he chose in the 1970s from the state vehicle pool. By spring, he convinced lawmakers to cut $8.2 billion from programs like higher education, daytime elderly care services and doctor visits for the poor.

When substantive efforts to solve the rest of the problem stalled that June, the governor did something his predecessors had never done: He vetoed the budget ratified by lawmakers.

“For a decade, the can has been kicked down the road and debt has piled up,” Brown said as he signed the veto message. “California is facing a fiscal crisis, and very strong medicine must be taken.”

The veto was a shot across the bow to the Legislature. “It communicated very clearly that there was going to be a minimum standard for the legislative budget, and they just couldn’t slap anything together and put the name ‘budget’ on it,” Brown says now.

“We were frustrated,” remembers John A. Pérez, who was Assembly speaker at the time. “But it laid the foundation for what has become eight years of on-time, balanced budgets.”

Deeper cuts ultimately were made. Within months, ratings agencies moved California’s credit outlook to positive, the beginning of a trend that has driven down interest rates for government borrowing, one way the state has saved money.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s wall of debt crumbles, but more walls are behind it »

He later turned his attention to the short-term obligations that piled up during the financial crisis, from raided school funds to Wall Street-backed deficit bonds. Branded by Brown as the state’s “wall of debt” and once towering at nearly $35 billion, today the balance is less than $5 billion.

“I tell my friends that Jerry Brown is one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats that I know,” said Connie Conway, a Tulare County Republican who served as Assembly GOP leader from 2010 to 2014. She recalls saying at one point that Brown “is the adult in the room because at least he’s admitting we have debt.”

Still, it was Republicans who handed Brown his first real budget setback in 2011, refusing to support a special statewide election to extend temporary taxes. The governor, never a back-slapping kind of politician, nonetheless mounted an intense charm offensive. He hosted private dinners for legislative Republicans where California wine flowed freely. He brought along his affable Corgi, Sutter, for visits. GOP lawmakers wouldn’t budge.

In hindsight, it was a lucky break. Special elections have historically had a disproportionately high turnout of conservative voters who likely would have rejected the plan. When Republicans balked, Brown and a coalition of business and labor leaders qualified a tax increase for the ballot in 2012, a presidential election year with strong turnout from Democrats.

Gov. Jerry Brown holds up a sign in support of Proposition 30 while visiting a San Diego school on Oct. 23, 2012, in San Diego. The ballot measure passed with 55% of the vote.

(Lenny Ignelzi / AP )

The resulting Proposition 30, a surcharge on the state’s sales tax and the incomes of wealthy taxpayers, provided revenue for six years — a more robust plan, Brown now says, than what he asked Republicans to support. “We’d have been right back in the soup” with the original plan, he said. “This way, we got a couple of more years.”

Brown campaigned hard for the ballot measure, shrewdly making it about the budget’s biggest beneficiary — schools — and about his own commitment to balancing the books. On election day, it passed with 55% of the vote.

“There’s no way in hell the voters would have approved those taxes if not for their faith in his fiscal stewardship,” Pérez said.

The taxes and California’s recovering economy have since produced historic tax windfalls. The state Department of Finance estimates the 2012 tax initiative and an extension approved by voters (but not explicitly endorsed by the governor) in 2016 has, to date, generated $50 billion in additional revenue.

Brown’s budget dominance begins with a firm grip on tax revenue forecasts »

Not that all of the modern Brown era has been all about less spending. State government spending has risen by 59% since 2011. Much of that has gone to K-12 schools, as required by law, and Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Healthcare spending, in particular, has more than doubled in seven years, to about $23 billion in general fund costs. California has fully embraced Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Brown has lashed out at efforts by President Trump to rescind the law.

The rush of revenue also has allowed for a substantial savings account. Brown and lawmakers crafted a robust rainy-day reserve fund, ratified by voters in 2014. “That’s the kind of collaboration you don’t often see between legislators and governors,” Pérez said.

Through lean and flush years alike, the governor’s job approval ratings remained strong. Liberal activists routinely criticized him for not doing more to help those in need, suggesting with an increasing frequency through the years that the scion of a prominent political family had never experienced those struggles first-hand.

Health and human services advocates hold a Los Angeles rally to protest Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget in 2014.

(Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times )

“They’re always asking for more,” he said. “There’s no natural limit. There’s no predator for this species of budgetary activity, except the governor.”

Even critics acknowledged that Brown kept listening to advocacy groups. In 2016, he agreed to remove a provision in the state’s welfare assistance program, CalWORKs, that denied coverage to children born while their families were already receiving benefits. The ban had been in place for almost two decades.

“We came a long way,” said state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the chair of the Senate’s budget committee and a vocal advocate for changing the welfare rule. From the beginning, she said, Brown’s advisers said it was about the cost, not the policy.

This year, Mitchell convinced him to go even further — a small increase in the size of CalWORKs’ monthly cash grants, subsidies that failed to rise with inflation for more than a decade.

Mitchell recalled a flight from Los Angeles during which Brown, a voracious reader, spoke at length about a book that chronicled poverty around the world. “And I was able to say to him, ‘Yes, that chapter right there, that sounds like Central California,’ ” she said.

Likening income inequality to his celebrated efforts on climate change, Mitchell said she once told Brown, “By you just making it a priority, you’ve had worldwide impact. So have the same attitude about poverty.”

In recent years, Brown has agreed to expand childcare programs, Medi-Cal coverage for children regardless of immigration status and a state earned income tax credit for the working poor.

“His track record on issues of poverty, inequality and economic security adds up far better [over two terms] than it often looked in individual budget years,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the nonprofit California Budget and Policy Center, which advocates for the working poor.

Looking beyond the one-year-at-a-time approach to state budgets may be an important legacy of the Brown administration. The governor pointed to recently adopted five-year plans as a way to get a better look at what’s over the horizon. “It gets people thinking about the inevitable consequences of the decisions in this budget,” he said.

It also may help break one of the more ignominious traditions of California governors: leaving a fiscal mess for the next person to clean up. It’s the kind of dilemma his father, the late Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, left Ronald Reagan in 1967 and he left the late George Deukmejian in 1983.

“The story is one of governors always hitting a wall and leaving a big, fat deficit,” he said. “I wanted to avoid that if I could.”

[email protected]

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

Background

Norway heads to the polls on September 7-8, 2025, in a closely fought general election that could reshape both domestic economic policy, as well as the wider European energy landscape. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store’s Labour Party, in power since 2021, seeks to extend its rule after eight years of Conservative-led governments. Labour governs as a minority with backing from both the Socialist Left and Centre Party.

What Happened?

The election places the centre-left bloc led by the Labour Party against the centre right, dominated by the populist Progress Party and Conservatives.

Inequality and taxation top the list of Nordic voter concerns, followed by cost of living pressures, job security, and food price inflation (5.9% over the past calendar year).

Labour promises stable taxes, though allies push for higher rates on the wealthy; Conservatives and Progress advocate deep tax cuts across all income levels.

The campaign has also been shaped by debates surrounding Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, oil and gas exploration, and power exports to Europe.

Why It Matters:

Norway is Europe’s leading gas supplier, replacing Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The election outcome could determine whether new oil and gas fields are opened or restricted, with consequences for both domestic revenues and Europe’s energy security. In addition, political control over the sovereign wealth fund could reshape debates about Nordic investments, including calls from the Socialist Left to divest from companies with links to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Energy policy and fiscal direction will not only shape Norway’s future but also ripple across the European Union, where stability of gas flows and power exports are closely monitored and viewed as a key commodity.

Stakeholder Reactions:

Socialist Left Party: Urgently demands divestments tied to Israel’s war in Gaza as a condition for backing the Labour Party in the next government if they were to emerge victorious.

Labour Party: Rejected the demand but may face pressure to revisit it post-election depending on both the landscape of the Gaza conflict and overall party productivity in regards to addressing the concerns of the everyday Nordic citizen.

Smaller Parties (Liberals, Greens): Deeply divided on oil exploration, some pushing for expansion with controls to ensure domestic revenue inflows, others calling for tighter restrictions or eventual phase-outs to become a greener economy.

EU observers: Undoubtedly watching closely as Norway debates limiting electricity exports, which would breach single market rules established by the Union.

What’s Next/

Election days: September 7-8, with polls closing September 8th at 1900 GMT.

Results: Early exit polls expected the same evening; final outcome could possibly take until September 9th to be announced.

Likely Scenarios: A continued Labour-led minority government, or a centre-right coalition led by Conservatives or Progress Party.

Wider Implications: Coalition negotiations will decide Norway’s position on tax policy, sovereign wealth fund investments, oil and gas exploration, and electricity exports, with consequences for both domestic voters and European partners.

With information from Reuters

A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back.

The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years, if not longer, and sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections — which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump’s political agenda.

What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation’s Democratic resistance.

The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were expected to be submitted to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and widely leaked on Friday. They are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission.

The changes would ripple across hundreds of miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats’ grip on California and further isolating Republicans.

The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California’s GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall.

“This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

How will the ballot measure work?

For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the “Election Rigging Response Act.”

The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

The ballot language has not been released. But the decision about approving the new map would ultimately be up to the state’s electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California, providing a decided advantage for supporters of the measure.

Newsom has said that the measure would include a “trigger,” meaning the state’s maps would only take effect if a Republican state — including Texas, Florida and Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps.

“There’s still an exit ramp,” Newsom said. “We’re hopeful they don’t move forward.”

Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly.

“It’s summer in California,” Kousser said. “People are not focused on this.”

California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl.

“It’s tens of millions of dollars, and it’s going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,” Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is “not insignificant… considering the 90-day sprint.”

The ballot measure’s campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats.

Those who oppose the mid-decade redistricting are also expected to be well-funded, and will argue that this effort betrays the will of the voters who approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010.

What’s at stake?

Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance.

The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump’s controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office.

Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterms.

At Trump’s encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats.

Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan.

The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois.

California Republicans in the crosshairs

The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California.

The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as “vote sinks.” Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats.

The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated.

Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats.

Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat.

Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa.

Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans.

The lines are “third-world dictator stuff,” Orange County GOP chair Will O’Neill said on X, and the “slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.”

In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley’s district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on the social media site X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would “defeat Newsom’s sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.”

LaMalfa’s district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County,

In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Reps. Josh Harder (D-Tracy) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Gray won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country.

Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.

Feeding frenzy for open seats

The maps include a new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades.

Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat.

Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and may be out of the mix.

Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier).

In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa’s district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.

CHICAGO — During Donald Trump’s campaign for president last year, he sought to ease the concerns of voters alarmed that the Supreme Court he helped shape during his first term had overturned the constitutional right to abortion, saying that he did not oppose abortion but thought the issue should be decided by individual states.

More than six months into Trump’s second term in the White House, a review by the Associated Press shows that several of his nominees to the federal courts have revealed antiabortion views, been associated with antiabortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.

Several have helped defend their state’s abortion restrictions in court, and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication abortion.

The nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White House.

Trump’s shifting positions

Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague answers.

In the years before the 2024 campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe vs. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That’s been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of antiabortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to abortion.

Nominees’ views

One Trump nominee called abortion a “barbaric practice,” while another referred to himself as a “zealot” for the antiabortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because “this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.”

One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it “starves the baby to death in the womb” in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Legal experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access nationwide.

Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments “are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.”

“It’s a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,” she said.

White House’s position

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said that “every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.”

“The Democrats’ extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump’s commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,” Fields said in a statement to the AP.

Trump focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for voters.

Views across the abortion divide

Antiabortion advocates say it’s premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives, but they’re hopeful based on the names put forth so far.

“We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,” said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national antiabortion organization SBA Pro-Life America.

Abortion-rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time.

“This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he’s going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing antiabortion extremists at all levels of government,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly known as NARAL Pro-Choice America,

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.

Last month, New York City’s mayoral race drew national attention when Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani secured a stunning victory over former governor and political veteran Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary, thanks to the relatively new system of ranked-choice voting. Less noticed were the 28 contested New York City Council races on the same ballot, 10 of which also had no candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote.

In most places, including in most of California, such messy results would trigger a costly runoff between the top two finishers in each race. But not in New York City, where voters rank every candidate in order of preference on their ballots. If no one receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, whichever candidate received the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters whose ballots had that person in the top position are then counted as supporters of their second choice. This process of elimination and consolidation continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

Perhaps Mamdani would have won the primary in a runoff against Cuomo, but he didn’t have to. This voting system reflected the will of the people without dragging out campaign season or asking voters to head to the polls an extra time.

Advocates say ranked-choice voting ensures your vote isn’t wasted if your top choice is eliminated. Proponents also contend that the system discourages negative campaigning (instead fostering cross-endorsements), improves representation for women and people of color, promotes more viable competition, reduces election costs and eliminates the “spoiler effect” from vote siphoning.

Ranked-choice voting is gaining traction, particularly in U.S. cities. Currently, 63 jurisdictions nationwide use some form of ranked-choice voting, including seven in California: Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Francisco and San Leandro.

Polling shows strong support for ranked-choice voting among residents of California cities that have it, and most of those cities increased the diversity of their governing bodies after implementation. These systems have already saved money for California taxpayers by eliminating costly runoff elections.

What would change if California implemented ranked-choice voting for state offices, or if general elections in the city of Los Angeles were decided this way? It would play out differently than in New York.

Unlike New York, which holds party primaries, most California jurisdictions hold nonpartisan primary elections in which all parties run on the same ticket — known as a top-two or jungle primary. This means when a candidate loses in a state or local primary, they can’t just switch parties or run as an independent to get on the general election ballot, as Cuomo now could.

California’s nonpartisan elections also mean that a candidate’s party affiliation plays a competitive role in primaries, unlike in New York City. Because of this, candidates will sometimes strategically register with the dominant party before they run in California, as Rick Caruso did in 2022. This wouldn’t necessarily change under ranked-choice voting, but some candidates might feel less inclined to employ this tactic if they think they have a chance at getting a voter’s second- or third-choice votes while running as a candidate of their preferred party.

There are two other crucial differences between California elections and New York races, one at the local level and one at the state level.

Locally, most jurisdictions, including the city of Los Angeles, hold a general election only if no candidate wins more than 50% of the primary vote. Thus ranked-choice voting would eliminate the need for primary elections altogether in most California races. This would save jurisdictions money and probably increase voter turnout, given that more people traditionally vote in general elections than in primaries.

In contrast, California uses a top-two primary system for most state and federal races, which advances the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation or margin of victory, to the general election. While this avoids costly runoffs, it often results in one-party general elections, especially in heavily partisan districts. Ranked-choice voting wouldn’t prevent that scenario, but it might give underrepresented parties a better shot at advancing in competitive races.

Less known is whether ranked-choice voting would alter the political makeup of representation if broadly implemented in California. Strategic crossover voting — in which Republicans and Democrats rank moderate candidates from the other party — could lead to more centrist outcomes. Likewise, in areas where one party dominates, consistent second-choice support for moderate candidates from other parties could move the controlling party toward the center. Conversely, in areas with many hard-left or hard-right voters, ranked-choice voting could push moderates to adopt more extreme positions to gain second- or third-choice support.

The combination of ranked-choice voting with California’s nonpartisan system would likely produce unique strategic incentives and political realignments unimaginable in cities with partisan primaries.

Campaign styles could also change. Candidates may tone down attacks and even form alliances with like-minded rivals, as progressives did in New York, to earn second-choice votes.

Those unknowns may make some state and local leaders hesitant to change the way we vote. After all, those who’ve won office through the current system are often the least eager to change it. But hesitation shouldn’t overshadow the potential benefits: lower costs, broader engagement, more representative outcomes and less divisive politics.

If California is serious about reforming its increasingly expensive and polarized electoral system, ranked-choice voting is worth a closer look.

Sean McMorris is the California Common Cause program manager for transparency, ethics and accountability.

As President Trump parades through the Middle East this week, he will encounter a very different region than the one he experienced during his first term. True, the Israeli-Palestinian problem remains unresolved, as do the challenges emanating from Iran’s much-advanced nuclear program and the instability and dysfunction in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

But this old wine is now packaged in new bottles. Beyond the garish headlines of Trump’s plan to accept a Boeing 747 as a gift from Qatar, new trends are emerging that will redefine the region, posing additional challenges for U.S. policy.

Of all the changes in the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, perhaps the most striking is Israel’s emergence as a regional powerhouse. Aided by the administrations of Presidents Biden and Trump, and enabled by Arab regimes that do little to support Palestinians, Israel devastated Hamas and Hezbollah as military organizations, killing much of their senior leadership. With the support of the United States, Europe and friendly Arab states, it effectively countered two direct Iranian missile attacks on its territory.

Israel then delivered its own strike, reportedly destroying much of Iran’s ballistic missile production and air defenses. In short, Israel has achieved escalation dominance: the capacity to escalate (or not) as it sees fit, and to deter its adversaries from doing so. Israel has also redefined its concept of border security in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and Syria by acting unilaterally to preempt and prevent threats to its territory.

Converting Israel’s military power into political arrangements, even peace accords, would seem like a reasonable next step. But the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems uninterested in such options and is unlikely to be induced to change its outlook. Moreover, securing new, lasting agreements also depends on whether there are leaders among the Palestinians and key Arab states ready to take up the challenge, with all the political risks it entails.

But the Arab world remains in serious disarray. At least five Arab states are dealing with profound internal challenges, leaving them in various degrees of dysfunction and state failure. Amid this power vacuum, two alternative power centers have emerged. The first are the states of the Persian Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Relatively unscathed by the Arab Spring and blessed with sovereign wealth funds, oil and natural gas, these stable authoritarian powers, particularly Saudi Arabia, have begun to play an outsize role in the region.

The second category comprises non-Arab states. Israel, Turkey and Iran are the only states in the region with the capacity to project significant military power beyond their borders. While each has suffered periods of internal unrest, they currently enjoy domestic stability. Each also boasts tremendous economic potential and significant security, military and intelligence capabilities, including the capability to manufacture weapons domestically.

One (Israel) is America’s closest regional ally, another (Turkey) is a member of NATO and a newfound power broker in Syria, and the third (Iran) retains considerable influence despite Israel’s mauling of its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s nuclear program keeps it relevant, even central, to both Israeli and American policymaking.

All three non-Arab states engender a good deal of suspicion and mistrust among Arab regimes but are nonetheless seen as key players whom no one wants to offend. All three are at odds — with each frustrating the others’ regional objectives — and all three are here to stay. Their influence will most likely only grow in the years to come, given the fractiousness of the Arab world.

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, it seemed that the Palestinian issue was once again front and center, not just in the Arab world, but internationally. Those who claimed it had lost its resonance could point to the outpouring of sympathy and support for Gazan civilians as Israel’s war against Hamas led to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Moreover, the United Nations passed resolutions calling for an end to the war, many around the world condemned the war and Israel, the International Court of Justice took up the question of whether Israel is committing genocide, and the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu (as well as for Hamas’ military commander, later found to have been killed).

Nonetheless, it has become stunningly clear that, far from pushing the Palestinian issue to the top of the international agenda, the Oct. 7 attack has actually diminished its salience and left Palestinians isolated and without good options. Continued U.S. support for Israel’s war against Hamas, despite the exponential rise of Palestinian deaths, has protected Israel from negative consequences; key Arab regimes have done next to nothing to impose costs and consequences on Israel and the U.S. as Palestinian civilian deaths mount. The international community appears too fragmented, distracted and self-interested to act in any concerted way in defense of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian national movement remains divided and dysfunctional, giving Palestinians an unpalatable choice between Hamas and the aging president of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The prospects for anything resembling a two-state solution have never looked bleaker.

How the Trump administration will process these developments remains to be seen. Clearly, it has adopted a pro-Israel view, with Trump musing about turning Gaza into a Riviera-style resort. He has deployed his special envoy to the Middle East to secure the return of hostages taken by Hamas but has yet to invest in any postwar plan for the beleaguered enclave. Indeed, he has left the strategy for Gaza to Israel, which in turn has resumed its military campaign there. Trump has also acquiesced to Israel’s pursuit of aggressive border defenses against both Lebanon and Syria, while enabling Israel’s annexationist policies in the West Bank.

Yet Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. In April, he announced new U.S. negotiations with Iran in the presence of Netanyahu, who himself has tried to persuade the president that the only solution to Iran’s nuclear program is military action. But if U.S.-Iranian negotiations do advance, or if Trump’s interest in Israeli-Saudi normalization intensifies, he may find himself drawn into the Middle East negotiating bazaar, dealing with the intricacies of day-after planning in Gaza and a political horizon for Palestinians.

These paths are already fomenting tension between Trump, who will not be visiting Israel on his Middle East trip, and a recalcitrant Netanyahu. But given Trump’s absolute control over his party, Netanyahu will have few options to appeal to Republicans if the White House proposes policies that he opposes. As most U.S. allies have already learned, if Trump wants something, he’s not averse to using pressure to get it.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a former State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations and the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Lauren Morganbesser is a junior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Recently elected Pope Leo XIV is the first pontiff from the United States, just as the country’s president is shaking up the global order. With both the US and the Catholic Church deeply divided, what does Pope Leo’s selection mean for Catholics in the US and worldwide?