The fresh American series has been branded “more toxic” than the Australian original, though audiences won’t soon forget the explosive Aussie season packed with bitter rows and numerous departures.
Now, Bec Zacharia finds herself caught up in fresh controversy after a social media incident which she claims has taken a serious toll on her wellbeing, leaving her subjected to “abuse”.
Bec’s time on the programme attracted widespread criticism for her on-screen conduct during what proved to be a chaotic series, reports OK!.
The bride was left heartbroken at Final Vows, admitting she felt blindsided by her on-screen husband Danny, having previously declared her love for him.
Since leaving MAFS behind, Bec has been piecing her life back together, dealing with the fallout from her behaviour and enduring online backlash. However, she’s now become entangled in further controversy, even after the show’s conclusion.
According to the Tab, the recent drama erupted when Bec revealed she’d splashed out nearly $20k on MAFS, explaining she did not rent outfits.
Shortly after the podcast went live, her remarks sparked backlash from the owner of bridal gown hire firm RESRVD, who alleged Bec had utilised their services for a Final Vows outfit in return for publicity.
Rather than the promised repeated promotion, Bec allegedly tagged the brand only on her burner account. RESRVD’s owner Savannah vented online: “There’s small businesses behind these television shows and the brides that are wearing them and it is incredibly disappointing when a small business is not given the recognition that they are promised.”
Following the allegations circulating online, Bec revealed she’s been inundated with abuse, telling Daily Mail Australia her business Instagram account has been removed. She explained: “This is my only form of income, and that has now been taken away from me.
“I am a small business now. All of the deals that I’ve got going on rely on me having my Instagram, and the hate that I’m getting every five minutes, I’m getting abuse.”
She subsequently confessed: “I wish there had been communication where she could have told me her grievances… I would have done everything to fix that for her.
“I’m not an influencer. I’m just a normal girl. I thought what I had done was satisfactory.”
Bec revealed Final Vows and the gown were “triggering” for her, considering the heartache she endured after being dumped by Danny.
Chatting to news.com.au, Bec described it as an “honest mistake”, saying: “My life is crumbled, and I can’t get away from abuse.”
Married At First Sight can be streamed on Channel 4 online.
Married at First Sight Australia star Alissa opened up about the ‘mean girl treatment’ she faced from fellow brides during Season 13
Alissa revealed she could barely get out of bed because of her co-stars’ treatment(Image: Channel 4)
A Married At First Sight Australia bride has revealed she “couldn’t get out of bed” after enduring “mean girl treatment” from fellow cast members.
The thirteenth series of the popular social experiment has finally wrapped up, but not without the couples facing one last interrogation from the relationship experts.
During Thursday’s (May 14) finale, Alissa was given the opportunity to speak out about the text message controversy involving co-stars Gia and Bec.
Fans will recall that the pair were exposed sharing vicious messages about Alissa and her husband David in a private group chat. One message suggested the couple’s relationship was fake, while another branded Alissa a “rat b****”.
In a final bid to defend herself, Alissa confronted Bec and Gia, the only two members from the group chat who attended the reunion, reports OK!.
“What did I do to you? What did I actually do to you? Mean girls, just mean girls,” she said.
When questioned about how their remarks impacted her, Alissa emotionally confessed: “I couldn’t get out of bed. If it wasn’t for him [David]. He was with me, he stood by me.”
She continued: “And he was like ‘You’re strong, you got this.’ I remember that second dinner party, I sat there and I was shaking under the table.
“My arms were shaking and that was one of the hardest days of my life. And I didn’t shed one tear, and I sat there and I called out a bully.”
The heartfelt admission left the entire cast visibly moved, with even Bec appearing distressed. Despite clashing throughout the E4 experiment, the two female contestants have since buried the hatchet.
Both Gia and Bec offered sincere apologies during the reunion episode.
Bec was first to speak up, saying: “The way I treated you was disgusting. And I vow to you and promise you that I will never, ever, ever, ever treat you or another woman without speaking to them about it [first],” before adding: “That was just unfair and I’m sincerely sorry.”
Gia then responded: “Obviously we’re leaving the experiment so you’ve no way to judge if my behaviour’s going to change, but all I can say is I’m really truly sorry for anything I’ve ever said.”
Married at First Sight Australia is streaming now on Channel 4 online
Published reports say Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro negotiated a multimillion-dollar sponsorship deal to finance a film about his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, with a banker now jailed on suspicion of leading a criminal organization involved in financial fraud. Photo by Andre Borges/EPA
May 14 (UPI) — Just five months before Brazil’s October elections, the presidential campaign of right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro has become entangled in what authorities describe as the country’s largest recent banking fraud case.
According to reports published by Intercept Brasil, Bolsonaro negotiated a multimillion-dollar sponsorship deal to finance a film about his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, with a banker now jailed on suspicion of leading a criminal organization involved in financial fraud.
The Brazilian news outlet released audio recordings and messages allegedly tied to negotiations between the senator and Daniel Vorcaro, owner of the collapsed Banco Master. Vorcaro is being held in pretrial detention as part of a financial and political scandal that has expanded to include Brazilian politicians and judges.
The scandal erupted after Brazil’s Federal Police intercepted Vorcaro’s phone messages, which reportedly reveal a close relationship between the two men — with Flávio Bolsonaro referring to the banker as “brother.”
In the conversations, Bolsonaro allegedly pressured Vorcaro to release payment for a sponsorship worth 134 million reais, or about $26 million, according to Brazilian outlet G1 Globo. The funds were intended for the Hollywood production of The Dark Horse, a biographical film aimed at improving Jair Bolsonaro’s public image.
In one audio recording, Flávio Bolsonaro discussed the urgency of the payments and the importance of the film project, according to Agência Brasil.
“Even though you gave us the freedom to hold you accountable, I feel uncomfortable having to ask,” the senator said in the recording. “We are at a crucial point in the movie’s production, and because many payments are still pending, everyone is tense, and I worry this could have the opposite effect from what we expected for the film.”
Authorities say the controversy extends beyond the size of the sponsorship and centers on the source of the money. Brazil’s Central Bank liquidated Banco Master after discovering an accounting shortfall estimated at between $7.6 billion and $10 billion.
Investigators allege the bank operated a scheme involving fraudulent securities sales and the theft of pension savings belonging to public-sector workers. Brazilian media reported that while retirees lost savings, members of the banker’s family purchased luxury homes in Miami and private aircraft.
Hours before the audio recordings became public, Flávio Bolsonaro denied having a business relationship with Vorcaro and dismissed the allegations as false during television interviews.
After the recordings surfaced and his voice allegedly could be heard in the conversations, the senator acknowledged contact with the banker, but argued the deal involved legitimate private sponsorship.
Bolsonaro later wrote on X that he was the victim of political persecution and said the leaked chats only showed a lawful business negotiation.
“It was a son seeking private sponsorship for a private film about his father. Zero public money,” the senator wrote, insisting he did not know the banker’s funds allegedly originated from purported fraud.
The market reaction was immediate. After publication of the recordings, the São Paulo stock exchange fell nearly 2% and the Brazilian real weakened against the U.S. dollar, reflecting investor concerns over political instability.
Recent polls show Flávio Bolsonaro statistically tied with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a potential runoff election.
Government allies have launched an offensive to capitalize on the scandal, demanding Bolsonaro’s removal from office through ethics proceedings in the Senate. According to Gazeta do Povo, lawmakers are seeking to suspend his political rights for eight years.
Those aligned with Lula also are pushing to create a congressional investigative committee into Banco Master. The proposed inquiry would seek access to Bolsonaro’s banking and tax records to trace the millions of reais allegedly negotiated in the sponsorship deal.
Left-wing parties argue the movie financing arrangement served as a front for money laundering and illicit enrichment, linking the failed bank’s expansion to political protection networks allegedly built during Jair Bolsonaro’s administration.
South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has refused to resign over a “cash-in-sofa scandal” that continues to haunt his presidency.
Ramaphosa, who addressed the nation on Monday to declare his intention to remain in his post, is set to face a multi-party impeachment committee, which will investigate allegations that he covered up a 2020 break-in at his private ranch and the theft of more than $500,000, concealing the incident from police and tax authorities.
The committee’s findings could spell his impeachment; however, parliament has not provided a timeframe for the investigation, which has yet to commence.
Analysts say the scandal, which has been dubbed “Farmgate”, has been particularly damaging for a president who rode to power in 2018 on an anticorruption mandate, after the much-criticised presidency of Jacob Zuma. Now, eight years later, the case of the cash found stuffed in a sofa at his game ranch could be what takes Ramaphosa down.
Can the South African president survive? Here is what we know.
Supporters of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) carry placards outside South Africa’s Constitutional Court, after the court ruled on whether the parliament failed to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa to account over the ‘Farmgate’ scandal, involving allegations that foreign currency was hidden at his Phala Phala game farm, in Johannesburg, South Africa, on May 8, 2026 [Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters]
What’s the scandal all about?
In February 2020, burglars allegedly broke into Ramaphosa’s luxury private ranch, Phala Phala, in Limpopo province, South Africa, and stole $580,000. The cash was said to have been hidden inside furniture at the farm – hence the “Farmgate” label.
Ramaphosa has been accused of covering up the theft and keeping private efforts to trace the burglars a secret to avoid an investigation into where the money had come from – and why it was hidden in a sofa.
Corruption allegations surfaced when a former head of South Africa’s state security agency walked into a police station in 2022 and accused the president of money laundering in relation to the stolen cash.
Later that year, an independent parliamentary committee found that Ramaphosa “may have committed” serious violations and misconduct. In particular, the panel found he had failed to properly report a theft to police as required under anticorruption laws and “acted in a manner inconsistent with his office”.
At the time, the African National Congress (ANC) had a strong majority in parliament – with 230 seats out of 400. It was therefore able to reject the report and refused to open impeachment proceedings.
But the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) challenged this at the Constitutional Court in Cape Town, which, last week, overturned the government’s rejection of the 2022 parliamentary report and referred it to a multi-party impeachment committee for a full investigation.
South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the nation, after a court last week revived proceedings against him over a scandal in which thieves stole bundles of foreign cash from a sofa on his ranch, in Johannesburg, South Africa, May 11, 2026 [Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters]
What has Ramaphosa said?
Ramaphosa has always denied allegations of corruption and maintains that the stolen cash came from selling buffalo.
Since the constitutional court’s ruling last week, Ramaphosa has been facing renewed calls for his resignation, mostly from opposition leaders. In a televised address on Monday, the president refused to step down.
“While there have been calls in some circles that I should resign, nothing in the Constitutional Court judgement compels me to resign my office,” he said.
“Since a criminal complaint was laid against me in June 2022, I have consistently maintained that I have not stolen public money, committed any crime, nor violated my oath of office,” Ramaphosa said in his address, adding that he has cooperated in all investigations.
The president rejected the 2022 report from the independent panel again, saying: “The complaints against me are based on hearsay allegations. No evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, has been presented to prove that I committed any violation, let alone a serious violation of the Constitution or law, or serious misconduct as set out in the Constitution.”
If the committee does find enough evidence against him, it could direct him to be impeached.
It is unclear how long this will take, however. Ramaphosa has pledged to seek a judicial review of the report’s contents, which, in turn, could delay the investigation of the impeachment committee.
Judges take their seats at South Africa’s Constitutional Court before the ruling on whether the parliament failed to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa to account over the ‘Farmgate’ scandal, involving allegations that foreign currency was hidden at his Phala Phala game farm, in Johannesburg, South Africa, May 8, 2026 [Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters]
What is the process for impeachment?
If a president is found to have violated the constitution or the law, or is unable to perform the duties of office, South Africa’s National Assembly has the constitutional authority to remove him or her.
Beyond the parliamentary investigation that will now begin into the Farmgate scandal, and which can trigger a vote on impeachment, as well, any member of parliament may introduce a motion seeking the president’s removal. The speaker of the National Assembly would then refer the motion to an independent panel of legal experts to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed.
If this panel decides there is a case against the president, lawmakers must vote on whether to begin impeachment proceedings. After this, a specially constituted impeachment committee is established to carry out a detailed investigation into the allegations. This is separate from the investigation beginning now and could take several months.
Once that committee recommends the removal of the president, parliament holds a final vote to impeach the president. Under Section 89 of the constitution, a two-thirds majority is required – meaning at least 267 lawmakers must vote in favour of removal in the 400-seat National Assembly.
Supporters of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) carry placards outside South Africa’s Constitutional Court, on the day the court ruled that parliament failed to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa to account over the ‘Farmgate’ scandal, in Johannesburg, South Africa, May 8, 2026 [Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters]
Are there other ways to remove Ramaphosa?
Yes, the South African president can be removed from his job via a no-confidence vote in parliament.
Any member of the assembly can propose the no-confidence motion, and it only requires a simple majority of more than 50 percent.
Ramaphosa would need support from coalition partners to survive a no-confidence vote, however. This has already been proposed by at least two opposition parties in parliament.
Another way could be if his ANC party turns against him, as it did with the last president, Zuma, who came in for years of corruption allegations and was finally forced to resign in 2018.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa raises his hand as he is sworn in as a member of parliament before an expected vote by lawmakers to decide if he is re-elected as leader of the country, in Cape Town, South Africa, June 14, 2024 [Jerome Delay/AP]
How strong is Ramaphosa’s position?
Ramaphosa is not only the president of South Africa, but also the leader of its most popular party, the ANC. Nelson Mandela was the ANC’s first Black president after apartheid ended in 1994.
In 2024, the ANC stunningly lost its majority in parliament for the first time following more than three decades in power. Today, the ANC holds 159 of 400 seats in the national assembly, or about 40 percent of seats – and Ramaphosa is governing in a coalition with the Democratic Alliance, which has 87 seats, along with other smaller parties.
But Chris Ogunmodede, an independent analyst of African politics, security, and international affairs, based in Lagos, Nigeria, said Ramaphosa would likely survive any impeachment attempts, “simply because of the arithmetic”.
“His numbers in the parliament virtually guarantee that impeachment will not happen,” Ogunmodede told Al Jazeera.
“It hasn’t been easy, but there is a government that seems to be functional and is showing some signs of reinvigoration,” Ogunmodede added. “There’s a lot of uncertainty on the part of the other coalition parties that suggests that they would much rather be on the side of caution and go with the devil they know, and preserve the government by keeping Ramaphosa in power.”
Despite this, the cash-in-sofa scandal has been damaging, he said.
And, under Ramaphosa, the ANC’s popularity has continued to slide. The party’s national vote share fell from 57.5 percent in the 2019 election to 40.2 percent in the 2024 election, marking its worst performance since the end of apartheid.
The South African economy has shown some signs of improvement, however, and given the Ramaphosa government “something to show for the time that it’s been in power”, said Ogunmodede.
Yet the South African government still faces long-term structural concerns about the economy, the country’s institutions, corruption, crime and other issues, the analyst added.
On the back of underlying anti-incumbency, Ogunmodede said the top court’s ruling on the cash-in-sofa scandal “has resurrected many concerns that South Africans have had about the president and his party, and the political institutions of the country more broadly”.
SACRAMENTO — Xavier Becerra seems like the type of steady, trustworthy fellow you’d like your daughter to marry. But she’s attracted to a charming party animal.
Then the flashy dude does something really stupid and repulsive. Daughter is jarred into her senses and decides to size up the unexciting but reliable guy.
That’s how I’m seeing the suddenly captivating contest to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.
OK, it’s not a perfect analogy. Becerra is 68, been happily married for 37 years and the couple have three grown children. But the principle’s the same: He’s the safe choice. The hot other character merely fooled lots of people for a while.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
“People are looking for something stable,” Becerra answered when I asked. “Everybody likes pizzazz and glitter. Then all of a sudden their hero falls from grace. And they look for who they can trust.”
Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine, says: “Democrats had a near-death experience with Swalwell. They don’t seem to be in the mood to take more risks.”
Schnur calls Becerra “this year’s version of Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.” He’s the safe choice. “Sometimes being ‘none of the above’ is good enough.”
Since Swalwell’s collapse, the once-floundering Becerra has had a meteoric rise in the polls.
A survey conducted for the state Democratic Party showed Becerra rising by 10 points from single digits to tying Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund founder turned climate warrior. Close behind was former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter.
Steyer and Porter are both liberals in their ideology and personalities. Neither are flamethrowers, but they‘re fiery. In contrast, Becerra also is an ideological liberal, but with a low-key demeanor that might cause one to mistake him for a political moderate.
San José Mayor Matt Mahan is clearly a Democratic centrist. But in this era of intense polarization, moderation may be a hard sale. At least, it has been so far for Mahan.
Among those six Democratic and Republican candidates, Becerra boasts by far the most outstanding political resume.
He was U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden. Before that as state attorney general, California’s mild-mannered “top cop” showed his aggressiveness by suing the first Trump administration 123 times and winning the vast majority of cases. He also served 12 terms in Congress from Los Angeles and became part of the Democratic leadership. And he served one term in the state Assembly.
“He talked in very vague generalities,” the former political operative says, but adds: “In the middle of the other candidates’ drama and emotional outbursts, he seemed very calm and safe.”
Some pundits and pols have been calling on Becerra to show more fire. But that’s not him. He’s guarded and understated. It’s how he’s wired. If he attempted a personality change, it probably wouldn’t work. There’s a risk of it seeming contrived and phony.
But Becerra should be more specific on issues. Exactly how would he make life better for Californians?
His basic answer when asked how he’d solve a given problem pestering California is essentially: Trust me. I’ll meet with all sides and figure it out.
That’s not just a cop-out. It’s his pragmatic modus operandi.
That reserved style prompted this shot during the debate from Porter, who tends toward specificity:
“Mr. Becerra, you have all these lovely plans. But there are never any numbers, any revenue plan, any details. … The how, the why and how much, it’s all missing.”
Becerra responded with some rare emotion: “That’s very rich to hear from someone who’s never had to actually run a government.” The former Cabinet secretary said he’d balanced four federal HHS budgets that were larger than the California state budget.
I asked Becerra about some issues last week. Here’s partly what he said:
Housing costs: Expedite building by streamlining more regulations. “We’ll continue to have rules, but let’s make them smart rules.”
Gas prices: Keep more refineries from closing. “Let them know they can operate and produce and not lose money. That’s an easy one.”
High-speed rail: ”We’re going to build the bullet train, but not this bullet train. It’s too expensive. Sit everybody down and come out with a position.”
Banning new gas cars by 2035: Is Newsom’s goal realistic? “Seeing what I see, no. We can’t make it by ‘35, but we can make it.”
But let’s be honest. Elections usually turn more on likability than policy positions.
“Decency may be a quality that goes a long way” in the governor’s race, says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “In part that’s because of the Swalwell revelations and also because of Trump, who’s not decent. Decency may be what people are looking for.”
But Democrats are riled up by Trump and they’re also demanding backbone and fight.
Many are eyeing Becerra as someone perhaps worth partnering up with. A bit more passion from him could help sustain their interest.
Several private equity firms and Hollywood power players, including United Talent Agency and longtime agent Patrick Whitesell, have expressed interest in buying parts of Casey Wasserman’s music and sports management firm after it abruptly went up for sale.
Providence Equity Partners holds the majority stake. The private equity firm has discussed selling the entire company or carving off Wasserman’s minority interest. Providence also has considered selling the bulk of the firm and staying on as a minority investor, one of the sources said. Another scenario could involve separating, then selling the individual business units that make up the Team.
Wasserman and Providence’s company boasts an enviable roster of music artists, including Kendrick Lamar, Coldplay and Ed Sheeran. Its sports marketing practice is viewed as particularly lucrative and has potential to grow in value as big dollars flow into sports that draw large crowds.
Wasserman, who declined to comment, has a veto right over any sale of the company that he has spent a quarter of a century building.
UTA, which also declined to comment, is among the most aggressive suitors, the sources said. The Team’s sports marketing and music representation divisions would dramatically boost the Beverly Hills agency’s profile and client roster.
The sales process is expected to stretch into summer, the knowledgeable people said. The auction could become complicated particularly if Providence decides to unwind the business.
For example, UTA could not buy the entire company because of the Brillstein television unit. The agency is bound by an agreement with the Writers Guild of America that prevents it from owning television production.
Investment bank Moelis & Company is managing the sale. A representative of the firm declined comment.
Wasserman also is the chairman of LA28, the nonprofit group that will be staging the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in two years.
Following revelations of Wasserman’s 2003 emails with Maxwell, several musicians and athletes — led by pop artist Chappell Roan and soccer star Abby Wambach — said that, to stay true to their values, they would leave the agency then known as Wasserman.
Wasserman apologized to his staff for “past personal mistakes” and said he would sell the agency.
Wasserman, a prolific Clinton fundraiser whose legendary grandfather, Hollywood titan Lew Wasserman, helped the Democrat win the 1992 presidential election, was joined on Epstein’s jet by his then-wife, Laura, actor Kevin Spacey, Epstein, Maxwell — who was convicted of sexual abuse in 2021 — and others, including security agents.
Just think of the Democratic debacle that could have occurred.
What if the accusations of sexual misconduct, including alleged rape, had come to light after the gubernatorial candidate had triumphed in the June 2 primary and qualified for the November ballot?
Under California law, it would have been impossible to remove him from the ballot and insert a Democratic replacement.
“It would have been pretty devastating,” notes Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee.
“It has given us a lot to think about.”
There’s a glaring flaw in California’s election system that should be fixed for the future. But exactly how is trickier than it might seem.
A survey conducted by the independent Public Policy Institute of California just before Swalwell’s accusers went public showed him leading all candidates — Democrats and Republicans — with 18% support among likely voters.
He was closely trailed by Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, with 17%. Another Republican and a Democrat — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer respectively — were tied for third at 14% each. Democratic former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter followed at 10%.
You can now toss all those numbers in the trash. But the point is that Swalwell was headed for victory in the primary. His next stop was the governor’s mansion because no Republican has won a statewide race in California in two decades.
The Democratic front-runner was raking in endorsements from interest groups and democratic politicians. He was considered the safest bet in a generally unimpressive field, a regular middle-class guy — and a white male, the only ethnicity and gender that has ever been elected governor in California.
Former state Controller Betty Yee, a Democratic darkhorse candidate for governor, was pretty much on target when she observed after Swalwell’s campaign collapsed:
“The obsession with who looks the part [of governor] almost got us an alleged sexual predator in Sacramento — ignoring the reality we need to actually fix our fraught state.”
But what if the victims of Swalwell’s alleged sexual improprieties — five women at last count — had waited a few more months to go public? And that’s conceivable. After all, they had remained silent for years. Apparently the nightmare of their alleged assailant becoming governor inspired them to talk now.
Although Swalwell quickly dropped out of the race, there’s no way to erase his name from the primary ballot. But at least voters can choose among seven other “major” Democratic contenders.
Presumably no sane person, no matter how partisan, would vote to elect an alleged rapist as governor. But the only other choice would have been a Republican lackey of President Trump. He’d undoubtedly win by default in a landslide.
“If Democrats had been stupid enough to nominate Swalwell, they’d have been stuck with him,” says Tony Quinn, a Republican elections analyst.
“Even dying doesn’t get you off the ballot. You don’t want to be the party nominee? So what, you are.”
No write-in candidacies are allowed in California’s general elections, although they are in the primary. That’s an inexplicable flaw.
“I’ve thought for years there should be a write-in option to deal with such a problem,” says UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, an expert on elections law.
Also, he points out, California’s top-two primary system — which advances only the top two vote-getters regardless of party — “cuts out minor parties from being relevant. You ought to be able to write in a minor party candidate.”
One reason a candidate can’t be removed from the ballot, election officials claim, is that tens of millions ballots have to be printed early enough to mail to every registered voter one month before election day.
Nonsense. In this era of rapidly expanding technology, you’d think that dilemma could be resolved even within snail-paced government bureaucracies. If nothing else, mail out a supplemental ballot just for the governor’s race.
But a bigger question is exactly who would choose the replacement for a departed candidate.
In a presidential election, the party hierarchy — a convention or national committee — would choose another nominee.
But there are no party nominees in California’s top-two open primary system. Parties don’t choose candidates for the November election. Voters regardless of their party do. So, in Swalwell’s case, the Democratic Party alone wouldn’t be entitled to select his substitute — unless the law were changed.
Or, perhaps the No. 3 vote-getter in the primary could automatically be elevated to the general election. We then could wind up with two candidates from the same party. But at least there’d be a better choice than an alleged sexual predator.
“I kind of miss those days” when parties nominated, says Pellerin, who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about — whether this is the best primary system.”
As I recently wrote, my vote would be to junk the top-two system and return to pre-”reform” party-nominating primaries.
Advocates of the top two primary — including myself — thought it would produce more centrist officeholders. It really hasn’t. It has just caused additional problems — like occasionally sending two candidates of the same party to the November runoff.
Meanwhile, all California voters should be grateful that Swalwell’s accusers courageously went public in April, not August.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Keir Starmer is facing renewed calls for resignation after fresh revelations surrounding the appointment and vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson. The controversy has reignited scrutiny over governance standards inside the Labour government, coming at a politically sensitive time just months after Labour’s landslide election victory in 2024.
The Vetting Controversy: The core of the scandal centres on reports that Mandelson did not properly pass security vetting before being appointed as ambassador. Despite this, official communications suggested that clearance had been confirmed. Downing Street has since dismissed a senior Foreign Office official, intensifying questions about how the appointment was handled and who within government was aware of the vetting status.
Political Fallout Inside Government: The issue has exposed tensions within the Labour Party, with some lawmakers expressing concern over administrative failures while others defend the Prime Minister. Senior minister Darren Jones said Starmer was “furious” about not being informed of the vetting issues, while acknowledging serious breakdowns in communication between departments.
Opposition Pressure and Leadership Questions: Opposition figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, have accused Starmer of misleading Parliament and questioned his credibility. The central allegation is whether the Prime Minister knowingly misrepresented the status of Mandelson’s clearance when defending the appointment. These accusations have intensified calls for resignation from political rivals.
Wider Political Context: The controversy comes at a politically sensitive moment for Starmer, as Labour prepares for key local elections across England, Scotland, and Wales. The government is also managing broader foreign policy challenges, including Britain’s positioning in global conflicts involving the United States and Middle East tensions, adding further pressure on leadership stability.
Institutional and Governance Concerns: Beyond individual accountability, the scandal has raised broader concerns about administrative competence within the Foreign Office and Downing Street. The dismissal of senior officials has highlighted breakdowns in communication and vetting procedures, raising questions about how high-level diplomatic appointments are approved and overseen.
Analysis: The Mandelson vetting scandal has evolved from a procedural controversy into a wider test of political authority and administrative control for Starmer. While there is no clear evidence yet that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament, the perception of mismanagement and lack of oversight has created significant political vulnerability.
At its core, the issue reflects a deeper challenge of governance: maintaining institutional trust while managing complex bureaucratic systems. Even if the government survives immediate calls for resignation, the damage is likely to linger, particularly if further inconsistencies emerge. With elections approaching and internal party tensions rising, Starmer’s ability to project control and competence will be central to whether this episode becomes a temporary setback or a longer-term political liability.
