state

The head of one of Hollywood’s largest talent agencies warned state leaders that a new budget bill threatens job gains from California’s film and TV credit program.

Legislators earlier this year passed a provision in the state budget that extends limitations on corporate tax credits, including a $5-million state tax credit cap each year.

But film industry advocates say the corporate tax credit cap will hurt film producers and undercut the effectiveness of the state’s expanded film and TV tax credits.

Lawmakers more than doubled annual funding for the program last year to $750 million in an effort to boost jobs and stem the exodus of film work from California.

CAA Chief Executive Bryan Lourd called for state leaders to create an exemption for tax credits earned under the expanded film and TV program.

“Without this fix, we risk destabilizing a program that is critical to keeping film and television production in California and the thousands of jobs it supports,” Lourd wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, California State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara).

“California must make itself competitive with the rest of the country and the world if it hopes to have a thriving entertainment ecosystem,” Lourd wrote. “Honoring commitments that have already been made to the entertainment industry is an essential step in achieving that goal.”

Film industry advocates expected producers would be exempted from the tax credit cap.

“It’s a reversal of California economic policy as it relates to the entertainment industry in an unhelpful and uncompetitive direction,” said Hilary Krane, CAA’s chief legal officer, in an interview. . “It undermines people’s ability to plan for the economics of the program because they all counted on a certain amount coming in under the previous rules that they were entitled to and had, but now can’t use.”

Last month, more than three dozen California lawmakers signed a letter calling attention to the issue. Hollywood unions also have raised alarm.

“The result of the changes is that production companies will lose the full value of credits already earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs and other economic benefits to the State,” the Entertainment Union Coalition said last month.

Nick Miller, Rivas’ spokesperson, said the state Assembly is taking a hard look at the issue.

“Our lawmakers strengthened California’s film and TV jobs program last year and will keep fighting for creative industry workers,” Miller said in an email.

Newsom’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

Time is running out for a fix to happen this session, which ends in less than two weeks.

State Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) said state leaders are working on introducing legislation soon to address the issue.

Already, tens of thousands of jobs have come back to Southern California due to the modernization of the film and TV tax credit program, he said.

“We just saw the beginning of that resurgence and we don’t want to nip that in the bud,” Zbur said in an interview.

WASHINGTON — As the year’s midterm primaries draw to a close, Tuesday’s results in Florida, Wyoming and Alaska continued to underscore an unpredictable election season marked by unreliable polls, intra-party divides and surprise showings by political outsiders.

In one high-profile surprise, democratic socialist state Rep. Angie Nixon’s easily defeated former Army intelligence officer Alexander Vindman in Florida’s U.S. Senate primary, despite Vindman having raised 16 times as much money as the new Democratic nominee, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign finance.

According to Florida Politics, a digital media outlet, a now-deleted Change Research poll showed Vindman leading Nixon by 10 points. At that time, 41% of Democrats polled were still undecided.

In the race for a Senate seat Democrats hope to flip, former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola outpolled incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, with another Republican Dan Sullivan — this one a retired teacher — also making the cut for the four-person, ranked-choice general election in November.

The results from Tuesday night also show that President Trump’s influence on his party’s base may be dwindling. Three of his endorsed candidates in Wyoming and Florida, both safe red states, were defeated.

Here are four takeaways from Tuesday’s results:

Democratic socialist overcame a huge cash disadvantage

Nixon, who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America and the Working Families Party, won in a massive upset against Vindman, a moderate selected to run by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Nixon will face Republican incumbent Sen. Ashley Moody in November in a special election to serve the final two years of former Sen. Marco Rubio’s term. Moody was appointed to the seat by Gov. Ron DeSantis when Rubio became secretary of State.

Through a highly coordinated grassroots campaign, Nixon overcame a $15-million fundraising deficit against Vindman in a state where affordability, high property insurance costs and public infrastructure strain were top concerns for many voters.

Although Vindman had the support of the Democratic establishment his lack of profile in Florida — where he has lived for just three years — was a clear detriment, said Susan MacManus, a political analyst at the University of South Florida.

“Angie Nixon was extremely well known in Democratic circles,” MacManus said. “There’s a battle here in Florida: Do you want a Democratic candidate who’s a fighter, or do you want someone more in line with the establishment? … Nixon had no money, but she had a presence.”

But Nixon still faces a steep battle against Moody, MacManus said. According to state data, Florida has 1.5 million more Republicans than Democrats, meaning that Nixon will have to win over most of the independents — and perhaps convert a few Republicans — to have a shot in the general election.

Florida redistricting had a big effect on House races

In May, DeSantis’ office rearranged districts for the second time this decade to secure more safe-Republican seats in the House of Representatives, shortly after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act.

In Florida’s 25th District, a newly drawn coastal area north of Miami, incumbent Rep. Jared Moskowitz defeated democratic socialist and activist Oliver Larkin.

The redistricting increased the number of Jewish voters in the district, which likely hurt Larkin’s candidacy because of his openly anti-Israel stance, said Jonathan Cervas, an assistant professor at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology.

Moskowitz will face the former mayor of Boca Raton, Scott Singer, in the general election.

In Florida’s Black-majority 20th District, which was redrawn this year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz finished ahead of four Black rivals in a crowded field, and will face Brent Andersen, an insurance broker, in November. Black leaders criticized Wasserman Schultz, a white 11-term congresswoman, for running in the district.

“She won against a crowded field, but she didn’t win with 50% of the vote,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center’s Washington office. “The open question remains: Is she the preferred candidate of African Americans? We’ll see in the general.”

Although these two districts lean slightly blue, data suggest that Republicans will be more competitive in these areas than they were in the 2024 congressional races, Cervas said. He added that this shows Florida’s redistricting efforts were mostly a success, likely adding at least one or two seats in the general election.

Alaska was more competitive than Democrats thought

Some Democratic Party leaders had initially ranked Alaska behind other states with the potential to flip a Senate seat. But they likely will make the Alaska race a higher priority after a strong showing Tuesday by former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, who topped the field in the primary against incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. It has been 11 years since Alaska last had a Democratic senator.

According to the New York Times, the Alaska Survey Research poll shows Peltola with a two-point lead heading to the general election.

Peltola has run as a centrist Democrat, attacking the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce and lack of resource development in Alaska, which is likely to have wide appeal in a state that Trump won in 2016, 2020 and 2024, but that has suffered in recent months from rising costs and job losses.

Three Trump endorsements fell short

Trump-endorsed incumbent Rep. Cory Mills — the subject of a House Committee Ethics probe stemming from accusations of assault by two women — lost his primary race in Florida’s 7th District to former television reporter Ryan Elijah, making him the 10th Trump-backed candidate to lose in a primary this year.

After the results were known, the president wrote in a Truth Social post: “I told Congressman Cory Mills of Florida, a friend of mine, to get out of the Race, but he wouldn’t listen. He thought he could win, so who can blame him?”

Trump had picked Catalina Lauf to replace Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, only to see her lose to Jim Schwartzel, a businessman-turned-politician. Donalds is the Republican nominee for governor, where he will face Democrat David Jolly, a former Republican House member.

Trump’s pick for Wyoming governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, was defeated handily by Republican state Sen. Eric Barlow.

Democrat Xavier Becerra pledged on Tuesday to participate in more than one debate against Steve Hilton, his GOP rival in the California governor’s race.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

Xavier Becerra, center, who is running for governor of California, talks with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles in Little Tokyo on Tuesday.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Hilton has been needling Becerra for not being as publicly visible on the campaign trail since the two men advanced in the June primary. The British-born conservative strategist and political commentator raises chickens at his Silicon Valley home and has said he named one of them “Xavier.”

“Xavier Becerra wants to be governor while dodging questions from the press and a debate with me,” Hilton posted on the social media platform X earlier this month.”What else do you expect from a lazy, arrogant, entitled ‘empty suit’ 36-year machine politician.”

Becerra held a 55% to 37% lead over Hilton in a UC Berkeley/L.A. Times poll released Thursday. The margin is unsurprising given the edge that Democrats have in voter registration over Republicans in a state that last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006.

Becerra, asked Tuesday about Hilton’s criticism that he was “coasting” to election in the November general election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, rejected the notion.

“Well, if I were trying to coast, I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all and making a nice visit to Little Tokyo,” he said outside of an Asian-fusion gastropub on an oppressively hot, muggy afternoon. “Listen, this is all about making sure voters have a choice. We’ll get out there and make sure we’re front and center with them … even if it’s a little hot.”

Becerra spoke with reporters after visiting Little Tokyo businesses and chatting with locals and visitors.

When a group of young women pledged to vote for him in the gubernatorial race, Becerra urged them to vote against Proposition 39, a ballot measure that would require Californians to provide government-issued identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens.

“Please vote against that. That would deter people from voting,” Becerra said, making a thumbs-down gesture. “I’m not joking.”

Becerra later told reporters that the proposition, which likely California voters oppose, according to polls, is a direct attack on the state’s elections by President Trump.

“The president has insisted on trying to disrupt elections. When he can’t do it in Washington, D.C., he’s trying to do it in our state directly,” Becerra said. “Prop. 39 is President Trump’s effort to try to interfere in our election. We have to resist it. We have to oppose it. And I hope people know that Prop. 39 is just a prop for Donald Trump. And anyone who believes that we have to see more people vote, we have to see robust elections, should be voting against Prop. 39.”

Becerra also enjoyed a little shopping.

At Japangeles, he purchased a ball cap with “L.A.” superimposed over Japanese characters for “Nihon,” what the Japanese call their own country; at Cafe Dulce, he picked up a fruit tart; and at a 123-year-old Japanese confectionery, he bought sweet mango mochi wrapped in a thin, fluffy pancake.

His visit Tuesday came during the community’s annual Nisei Week festival, which celebrates Japanese American culture and history. Becerra represented the area during his time in Congress. He ran into several people he had known over his long political career, including former Los Angeles City Councilmember Jan Perry, and Brian Kito, the third-generation owner of the Fugetsu-Do Bakery.

Kito showed Becerra a picture of the then-congressman swearing him in as a neighborhood council president more than a decade ago.

“It was a nice reunion,” Kito said. “He’s a true gentleman. … I’m hoping nothing but success for him.”

Kaia Gerber says she had an exorcism after her parents believed she was “possessed” as a child.

While promoting her new FX series “The Shards” on the podcast “The Mitch Churi Chat Show,” the 24-year-old actor and model recalled her experience working with Ryan Murphy on “American Horror Stories” (co-created by Brad Falchuk).

Gerber played a teenage ghost in the 2021 “Horror Stories” spinoff trapped inside the historic Rosenheim Mansion, also known as the Murder House from the first “American Horror Story” season. Concerned about the spooky Los Angeles estate — which served a convent for nuns for half a century — Gerber said her mother, supermodel Cindy Crawford, gave her holy water to take on set.

“She was like, ‘I don’t want you to get possessed,’” Gerber said. “I was told I was possessed as a child.”

Gerber — who during the interview sat next to her co-star Homer Gere — shared that she was “haunted” her whole life.

“I do feel as though I attract beings from the other dimension, in a very casual and chill way,” said Gerber, who was also a cast member in “American Horror Story: Double Feature” (the 10th season of the FX anthology series) in 2021, where her character was involved in an alien abduction.

When questioned by host Mitch Churi if the actor-model had undergone an exorcism, she revealed that she “actually” did.

“They played a didgeridoo all over me. That’s how they did the exorcism,” Gerber said. “That actually did happen. I’ve never talked about it, but it actually did happen.”

The sacred wind instrument — which is created from a eucalyptus tree trunk or branch naturally hollowed out by termites — was developed a thousand years ago by the Aboriginal community in northern Australia and is often used in cultural ceremonies.

Some didgeridoo instrumentalists believe its low-frequency sound waves can foster a state of health and harmony for those in the Aboriginal community. An online search showed no info on it being used in an exorcism.

Regardless, the “Bottoms” actor revealed to the Australian podcast host she was “all healed” now that she was promoting the ’80s slasher TV series, which is based on the autofictional novel by Bret Easton Ellis centering on privileged high school seniors who are stalked by a killer known as the Trawler.

In response to her spiritual update, Churi said, “that’s the devil speaking, I don’t know who to trust.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pitching a plan to help shield local police officers who make immigration arrests from possible financial consequences if they are accused of on-duty misconduct.

The agency is proposing to subsidize liability insurance for state and local officers who are trained and deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, according to a planning document published Friday.

ICE’s partnerships with local departments have soared since President Trump returned to the White House last year and may get an additional boost with liability insurance by removing a hurdle that has made some local police departments reluctant to join. The Associated Press is the first to report on this insurance proposal.

Under the plan, officers would purchase insurance covering up to $500,000 in personal liability, which typically funds legal fees, settlements and judgments. Officers would be reimbursed up to $250 annually — roughly what the insurance is expected to cost.

One prominent critic of ICE’s immigration crackdown said the program would be yet another way for officers to avoid personal accountability for misconduct.

“The concern here is that ICE is going above and beyond to guarantee law enforcement does not have even the slightest risk of liability for violating Americans’ rights while helping ICE arrest people,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, who has called on Congress to make it easier to sue ICE agents for wrongdoing.

ICE outlined the plan in a document informing industry officials that it is considering hiring a contractor to help provide outreach, training and communications support for its so-called 287(g) partnerships with local departments, which are named for a section of a 1996 immigration law. The contractor would hire the insurance vendor and process the reimbursements, among other tasks.

ICE has asked for industry feedback by Thursday. The proposed timeline for launching the program and its estimated cost are unclear.

ICE had no immediate comment on the plan.

Arrests by ICE’s local partners have spiked since last year

During Trump’s second term, ICE has offered generous financial incentives to participating local agencies, increasing the number who have partnered with the federal government, as well as the number of arrests.

Nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states now have agreements to participate in ICE’s task force model, in which trained local officers can interrogate, arrest and charge people suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE data.

Departments qualify for funding to help cover expenses like their officers’ pay, equipment and vehicles. With encouragement from state and local Republican officials, agencies in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia have been among the leaders.

Arrests made through such programs jumped to an average of 3,000 per month in the first two months of 2026, according to the most recent ICE data provided to the University of California Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project. That compares to a monthly average of 250 in 2024 under President Biden.

Local departments, officers worried about liability for ICE work

As local officers increasingly carry out federal immigration work, they and their departments have expressed concerns about the civil liability that could result from claims alleging excessive use of force, wrongful arrest and illegal search and seizure, among other things.

That’s because insurance policies that cover their local work may not apply. Pennsylvania’s risk pool, for instance, recently made clear that it would exclude “proactive immigration enforcement activities” from coverage, forcing several participating counties to search for other insurance options.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe said he found insurance to cover his 13 deputies participating in the program at a cost of $20,000 in annual premiums.

“I want to make sure the guys are additionally covered, so we had to spend the money,” he said, adding that federal funding would cover the cost.

Federal officers usually enjoy legal immunities and a government-funded defense when they face lawsuits. But those protections may not always apply to local officers, which has heightened their concerns over liability and the need for insurance.

Although civil lawsuits are the main concern, professional liability insurance typically helps cover legal fees for officers facing criminal investigations as well.

Sheriffs’ group says ICE’s insurance idea sounds promising

Justin Smith, a former Colorado sheriff who is executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Assn., said ICE’s plan sounds promising and that he was eager to speak with ICE about how the plan would work.

Smith said he has shared concerns with ICE that some sheriffs are reluctant to join the partnerships because of the potential liability at a time when immigration enforcement faces intense public protests and media scrutiny. Smith said others who are partnering with ICE have already started facing legal claims tied to their immigration work, which can be costly whether or not deputies are ultimately found to have done anything wrong.

“Right now, any time you are working on immigration there is going to be a much higher potential for there being problems and having suits and issues,” he said. “They’re recognizing that it is a different environment. And I think trying to be good partners with us as best they can.”

Under their agreements, ICE warns local departments that they are responsible for the costs of incidents that give rise to liability. But it seeks to reduce the risk by saying local officers performing ICE-authorized functions are “acting under color of federal authority,” which would bar lawsuits against individual officers.

The agreements also state that local officers who face civil lawsuits can ask the U.S. Department of Justice to represent them, and that ICE will generally support their requests. But the final decision on whether to do so rests with the department.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — A state lawmaker from San Diego has proposed fast-tracking the construction of an arena and housing project, drawing criticism from opponents who argue the site is not suitable for large-scale development because of flooding.

State Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) wrote a letter last week to a powerful Assembly chair that outlines proposed amendments to Senate Bill 344 to help Midway Rising, a project backed by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke, avoid potential lawsuits related to its environmental review.

“As amended, SB 344 would deem the Midway Rising Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to be in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA,” Weber Pierson wrote to the Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, chair of Assembly Rules Committee.

“In order to promote the swift and deliberate development of affordable housing in the City of San Diego, an urgency clause is needed for this measure.”

Developers are seeking to replace the decades-old Pechanga Arena, and build a new 16,000-seat facility, 4,254 homes, including up to 2,000 affordable units, and commercial and outdoor space. The site is south of Mission Bay.

Parts of the development could rise to a maximum height of 25 stories, according to project’s environmental impact report.

Sports teams, including minor league hockey team the San Diego Gulls, play at the Pechanga Arena. The arena is surrounded by parking lots, which are used for weekend swap meets.

The Assembly Rules Committee on Monday approved an urgency clause to Senate Bill 344, which mean it needs a 2/3 vote of both houses to pass and would go into effect immediately upon the governor’s signature.

Weber Pierson told the Times Monday that the amendments intended to help Midway Rising “haven’t crossed” the desk, meaning that the language hasn’t been inserted into Senate Bill 344. If the amendments go into the bill, “then at that point, I think we can have a conversation,” she said.

Brad Termini, the chief executive of Zephyr, one of Midway Rising’s development partners, said the proposed legislation “will help prevent frivolous lawsuits from causing unnecessary delays and keep the project on track to break ground next year, accelerating the delivery of much-needed housing in San Diego.”

The Kroenke Group didn’t immediately provide comment. Kroenke, the owner of the Rams, was announced as the major investor in Midway Rising in 2023.

Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, a longtime critic of the proposal, called the proposed amendments “reckless and rushed.”

“It removes the opportunity for the public and organizations to weigh in,” said Saldaña.

State lawmakers routinely carve out environmental exemptions for proposed sports stadiums, sometime in the closing days of the legislative session. The legislature has until the end of August to pass or reject scores of bills.

Former Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) led his colleagues in passing a bill in 2013 that helped the Sacramento Kings arena by limiting environmental lawsuits. The new arena for the Golden State Warriors basketball team in San Francisco also benefited from CEQA reforms passed by state lawmakers in 2011.

The landmark 1970 legislation is credited with helping to protect the state’s environment, but it is also criticized for blocking development.

Since it passed, the CEQA has been a consideration in how most major projects get approved in California. The law requires the disclosure of any effects a development might have on the environment, an evaluation of alternatives and, in many cases, proposed changes that would reduce those environmental effects to a level of insignificance.

Weber Pierson also previously authored Senate Bill 958, another bill that will help the arena, that is awaiting a vote in the Assembly.

That bill states that the environmental impacts of a project that are associated with increased building height, including noise, shadows, or the potential to attract wildlife, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

The bill only applies to specific developments, including those that are proposed on an graded infill site and those that pay construction workers a prevailing wage.

Weber Pierson said that SB 958 “is not special-interest legislation” during a Aug. 9 public forum about the project, describing it a broad-based housing tool, according to the Peninsula Beacon.

The publication reported that the forum “got testy at several points, with some audience members openly booing” the speakers.

Eric Law, chairman of the Penisula Community Planning Board, criticized the state senator’s proposed amendments in an interview Monday.

“The continued efforts to push legislation specific to Midway is misguided and unneeded,” said Law, whose group provides input to the city on planning issues.

Law said his group isn’t opposed to development, but wants the city to stick to the current three-story limit for the area.

“We absolutely endorse the idea of redevelopment — that place is kind of an armpit,” Law said of Pechanga Arena. “They need affordable housing and better housing — you just don’t need to do it over 30 feet.”

The San Diego City Council still needs to approve the project.

Saldaña said the developers are ignoring the growing sea-level rise that is causing nearby street flooding.

Saldaña said she was out Tuesday night in the area with volunteers from community planning groups, including Law, and witnessed groundwater “literally coming up and flooding the streets.”

“Not a drop of rain had fallen,” she said. “It’s just the higher sea level pushing the groundwater to the surface.”

Weber Pierson told the Times that Saldaña should bring her concerns about flooding to the developer and city officials.

Most people, when asked what terrorism is, will say that it is the use of violence and terror to create fear among people. This is broadly the dictionary definition. The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing at an Ariana Grande concert, in which 22 people, including many children, were killed, is a clear example.

Yet the legal definition of terrorism in Britain is far broader than this common understanding. Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows even “damage to property” to constitute terrorism when it is carried out for a political, religious, racial or ideological purpose and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public. Where firearms or explosives are involved, the latter requirement does not apply.

Including politically motivated damage to property within the definition was controversial from the start. When Parliament debated the bill in 1999, animal liberation activists were among the groups MPs had in mind.

Labour MP Alan Simpson warned during the debate that by defining attacks on property as terrorism, “we transform the relationship between civil protest movements and elected Parliaments and the judicial system.”

The criticism did not end with Parliament. The Supreme Court later described Section 1’s definition of terrorism as “very far-reaching”, while David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, called it “remarkably broad – absurdly so in some cases”.

In his 2012 report, Anderson observed:

“The current law allows members of any nationalist or separatist group to be turned into terrorists by virtue of their participation in a lawful armed conflict… however odious the regime which they have attacked.”

In his 2014 Terrorism Report, he warned:

“To render people subject to the terrorism laws whom no sensible person would think of as terrorists risks destroying the trust upon which these special powers depend for their acceptance by the public.”

Yet defining what can count as terrorism is only part of the story. Not every organisation whose conduct falls within that definition is proscribed. That decision rests with the government.

Proscription therefore adds a political choice: Which organisations should be banned, making membership and inviting support for them criminal offences.

For example, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an armed Kurdish group that has fought the Turkish state for decades, is proscribed in Britain. Its Syrian offshoot, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), is not, because PYD-led forces became Western allies in the fight against ISIS (ISIL).

Britain proscribed Hamas’s military wing in 2001. In 2021, Home Secretary Priti Patel extended that proscription to Hamas in its entirety, including its political wing, declaring the previous distinction between the two “artificial”. Many civilian members of Hamas who had never picked up a gun were now deemed terrorists alongside its fighters.

By collapsing the distinction between Hamas’s military and political wings, Britain legitimised Israel’s portrayal of Hamas’s civilian administration as part of a terrorist apparatus and, with it, the targeting of hospitals and schools as terrorist infrastructure.

The asymmetry is stark. Britain’s terrorism laws can criminalise non-state organisations and those who support them, while state terrorism, including Israel’s, remains outside their reach.

The proscription of Palestine Action brought a different consequence of these laws into focus: Their use against protest in Britain. Palestine Action is a British direct-action group that has targeted arms companies supplying Israel. In July 2025, the government proscribed it under the Terrorism Act 2000.

United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Turk warned that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action “raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist”.

The ban has been fiercely contested in the courts. In February 2026, the Divisional Court ruled the proscription unlawful. On June 15, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and upheld the ban. The court also described Elbit as carrying out a “lawful business”, ignoring its role in supplying the Israeli military during the genocide.

In upholding the ban, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr drew a contrast with the Suffragettes, saying Palestine Action was not “a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the Suffragettes operating transparently in the open” but “a covert group operating in cells”.

Carr’s characterisation rests on an extraordinarily sanitised version of suffragette history.

In November 1909, a suffragette attacked Winston Churchill with a horse whip. In the same month, suffragettes, armed with a catapult and missiles, attacked Prime Minister H. H. Asquith’s car in Liverpool.

In 1912, Suffragettes attempted to set fire to the Theatre Royal in Dublin during a matinee attended by Asquith. They left a canister of gunpowder close to the stage. Earlier in the day, Mary Leigh had hurled a hatchet towards Asquith.

In 1913, four postmen in Dundee were severely injured by phosphorus chemicals left in post boxes. The following year, Mary Richardson slashed the Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery, while bombs were discovered in St Paul’s and churches were burned down.

This history sits uneasily with Carr’s distinction. The Suffragettes themselves engaged in politically motivated attacks on property and people of precisely the kind that Britain’s modern definition of terrorism is broad enough to capture.

The Filton case shows what this can mean in practice. When the Filton 25 attacked an Elbit factory in Bristol, they were remanded in custody for up to 18 months. When six of them went on trial in November 2025, the jury acquitted them of aggravated burglary, the most serious charge, and failed to reach verdicts on criminal damage. No defendant was convicted at that first trial. At a retrial, four were convicted of criminal damage; only one was eventually convicted of grievous bodily harm, without intent.

The jury was not told that guilty verdicts could later lead to the offences being treated as having a “terrorist connection” for sentencing. Justice Jeremy Johnson subsequently made precisely that finding. Johnson had also ruled out defences based on necessity and the need to prevent the greater crime of genocide. In doing so, he usurped the role of the jury.

The consequences of the ban were not confined to those accused of taking direct action against Elbit. Once Palestine Action was proscribed, inviting or expressing support for the group became a terrorism offence.

When the government proscribed Palestine Action, people defied the ban. Nearly 4,000 people have been arrested for holding placards supporting Palestine Action.

The Home Office reported that in the year ending March 2026, there were 3,061 terrorism-related arrests, 2,819 of them linked to suspected support for Palestine Action. The average age of those arrested in connection with Palestine Action was 59, compared with 31 for all other terrorism-related arrests. A majority of the Palestine Action arrests were women.

The profile of Britain’s average “terrorist” changed from a man aged 31 to a woman aged 59.

This is where Britain’s extraordinarily broad definition of terrorism, combined with the government’s power to proscribe organisations, has led. Conduct once understood as protest and political expression can now be prosecuted under terrorism legislation.

As Orwell wrote, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” When the meaning of “terrorism” is stretched far enough, the extraordinary powers attached to that word stretch with it.

Today, my own trial begins. I am accused of inviting support for Hamas. My prosecution is not separate from the story told here. It is where that story leads.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

SACRAMENTO — A billionaire-funded political group gave a $5-million donation to the campaign opposing California’s proposed wealth tax, the first of many expected in the expensive fight over a ballot question dividing the state.

If approved by voters, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who were residing in the state at the start of this year to pay primarily for healthcare.

The ballot measure has splintered California Democrats and their allies, who are at odds over which public services would receive a portion of the revenue and Proposition 40’s long-term impact on the state budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and groups including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn. oppose the tax, arguing it could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and in effect destabilize the state’s finances.

On Monday, nine Democratic state lawmakers announced their opposition to Proposition 40, writing in an open letter to voters that “while well-intentioned, this measure will blow a massive hole in our state budget in the years ahead and undermine our ability to sustain investments in the very priorities Prop 40 claims to support.” Its signers included Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and John Harabedian (D-Pasadena).

The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and progressive officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) support the tax, which is intended to raise roughly $100 billion over five years to backfill federal cuts to healthcare and other social safety net programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress.

To this point, Building a Better California — a group funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other members of the Silicon Valley elite — has focused on qualifying two ballot measures meant to defang the billionaire tax while maintaining a neutral position on Proposition 40 itself.

That changed over the weekend when the group of billionaires officially came out against the measure and reported the $5-million donation to the anti-Proposition 40 campaign backed by teachers and firefighters unions.

A handful of billionaires have pumped more than $156 million into Building a Better California, mostly from Brin, who has given more than $100 million to the group. It has also received more than $17 million from venture capitalist L. John Doerr, $12 million from Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen and $3 million from philanthropist and former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

In addition to opposing the wealth tax, Building a Better California announced support for Proposition 3, which would permanently extend an existing tax on certain high earners, along with two housing bonds.

The group has already spent more than $127 million on two competing ballot measures written to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax: Proposition 41 would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new taxes from being excluded from the state spending limit. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on assets such as as personal property, intellectual property and retirement accounts.

If Proposition 40 passes but either Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receive more votes, the billionaire tax would be voided.

“A few controversial billionaires like Sergey Brin would rather spend millions to fund shady opposition campaigns than simply pay their fair share in taxes so millions of their fellow Californians don’t lose their healthcare. That’s shameful,” said Debru Carthan, executive vice president of Service Employees International United-Healthcare Workers West, the union that collected the signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for Building a Better California, said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes.

“California’s future rests on both maintaining our economic competitiveness and making smart, accountable public investments that improve affordability and quality of life for all,” Lunardini wrote in a statement. “It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy.”

The $5-million donation is the largest reported by the Proposition 40 opposition campaign, which wrote in a statement that it “welcomes support from everyone — teachers, doctors, hospitals, community clinics, firefighters, housing advocates, blue-collar unions, entrepreneurs, small businesses, Democrats, and Republicans.”

The donation indicates that members of the opposition coalition — and not billionaires — will play a more visible role in campaign ads.

“Two groups in California that have the most credibility with voters are the teachers and the firefighters,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who has worked on past ballot measure campaigns. Making them visible messengers against Proposition 40 “is a very important credibility aspect for the No campaign.”

“Nobody likes political consultants or lawyers. They like firefighters and nurses and teachers,” Republican strategist Matt Rexroad agreed.

LINCOLN, Calif. — One thing Anne Smull, a retired feedstore owner, was looking forward to on election day was voting for the man who currently represents her in Congress, conservative Rep. Kevin Kiley. Now she can’t.

That’s because California Democrats sliced Kiley’s district six ways as payback for Republican redistricting in Texas and elsewhere. The chunk of the district that Smull, who identifies as a conservative, lives in is now grafted onto an overwhelmingly Democratic seat based in the state’s wine country.

During a recent lunch at a cafe in Lincoln, a onetime agricultural town that has morphed into a bedroom community on the edge of Sacramento’s exurban sprawl, Smull was heartbroken to hear she can no longer vote for Kiley.

“He believes in the same things I do,” Smull said. “It feels sneaky and underhanded.”

Republicans started the redistricting competition. Democrats might finish it

Democratic voters in several other states know how Smull feels.

President Trump last year told GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps before this year’s midterm elections to increase the number of winnable seats for Republicans in order to help the party hold on to the U.S. House. The effort was turbocharged by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the spring of this year that neutralized a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for Republicans to redraw more seats across the South that had elected Black Democrats.

Democratic-leaning and heavily minority communities from Texas to Tennessee have been split into multiple congressional districts that dilute the Democratic vote by stretching deep into conservative areas.

In the future, it is likely that more Republican voters in other states will go through what Smull and other conservatives in Northern California are facing. Democrats in Maryland, New York, Illinois and other strongholds have pledged to retaliate in time for the 2028 elections and split Republican-leaning districts the way their California counterparts did Kiley’s.

Democrats have been hindered nationally by stricter rules against partisan line-drawing in their states, but California showed a way around that. California Democrats won voter approval last year to redraw the state’s congressional map, originally made by an independent commission, and formed five new Democratic-leaning seats.

‘We have zero voice,’ says voter angry at the Democratic drive for a new political map

Kiley’s is one of them. The reworked political lines led the two-term congressman to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent in the slightly Democratic-leaning district that now includes his home.

He spoke out against partisan gerrymandering, even unsuccessfully trying to force the Republican-led House to allow a vote on a bill to ban mid-decade redistricting.

“We’ve seen partisan divisions really spin out of control in really harmful ways, and I think Exhibit No. 1 is the redistricting wars,” Kiley recently told a group of voters in the suburb of Citrus Heights.

Democrats contend Kiley’s party switch is purely a political trick to survive in a more liberal district. They note that he still caucuses with House Republicans and has voted for many of the GOP’s priorities, including Trump’s sweeping budget and tax cut bill last year, and that political organizations run by House Republicans are spending money to back his reelection.

Even some of Kiley’s supporters think the election was a factor in the congressman’s decision to become an independent.

“My original thinking was he did it because of redistricting — maybe it’d help him get reelected,” said John Coburn, a 68-year-old retired business owner, at the Citrus Heights event.

Coburn is furious at the Democrats’ redistricting and hopes Kiley wins. Coburn does not care that they did it in retaliation for Texas, where Republicans at Trump’s directive revised that state’s map to carve out up to five new winnable conservative seats.

“I don’t care about Texas, I live in California,” Coburn said, adding that “40% of the state is Republican, and we have zero voice. Zero. It’s not how our Founding Fathers intended.”

For Democrats in the district, a rare political opportunity

In an interview, Kiley said his switch to independent was no political gambit. If he wanted to stay in the House, he argued, he could have had an easier time staying in the GOP, moving to a more conservative district that included parts of his old one and running in a Republican primary there.

“I could have gone there and run and played the same game these other politicians are playing,” he said.

Kiley said that he is caucusing with Republicans to avoid losing his seats on committees and that in the next Congress he will try to change rules so independent members do not lose committee seats because they do not caucus with one of the two major parties.

Among his backers, he noted, is onetime Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, a former technology entrepreneur who co-founded a centrist party for independents.

The Democrat running against Kiley, former state Sen. Richard Pan, scoffs at his rival’s newfound independent status.

“He was a MAGA champion when he first ran for Congress, and now he’s trying to say ‘I’m not,’” Pan told a crowd at a senior community in Roseville, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

Earlier that day, Pan swung by the Placer County Democratic Party office, tucked away on the second story of a brick shopping arcade in Lincoln’s compact downtown.

Placer is a Republican county that stretches from the Sacramento suburbs to the northwestern shores of Lake Tahoe. The entire county is in Kiley’s current district, but it will be divided among three districts in the new map.

Kathleen Crawford, chair of the county Democratic Party, was enthusiastic about the county getting carved up.

“It’s worth it, because we have an opportunity to get Democratic representation, which has been missing from our county,” Crawford said. “I’ve been here 15 years, and this is my first real opportunity to elect a Democrat.”

A never-ending cycle that cuts out ‘the little people’

Lincoln’s downtown is flanked by fruit, vegetable and flower farms, as well as new subdivisions. The community and its neighboring suburbs have become a destination for people fleeing the San Francisco Bay Area’s housing prices. That has helped change the once solidly conservative area into a political battleground where skilled mapmakers can draw winnable seats for Democrats.

Ed Church, a 61-year-old risk manager, was eating lunch at Simple Pleasures cafe in Lincoln when he contemplated Kiley’s shift. A Democrat, Church has not been a Kiley fan and he was bemused by the congressman’s move.

“If that’s how he’d been initially and not so MAGA, I probably could have supported him,” Church said of Kiley’s independent status. Now Church, as a Lincoln resident, is in a purely Democratic district and will not have a say in Kiley’s fate in November. His main criteria in the election will be “who’s going to stand up to Trump?”

Across the street at a gun store, Wesley Johnson, 43, who considers himself a conservative independent, said he was dispirited by the state’s redistricting.

“I feel Northern California is not represented fairly,” Johnson said. “San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles control everything.”

He acknowledged Republicans were doing the same thing in states they controlled and said he did not know how it could stop.

“You’re just cutting out the little people,” Johnson said.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance has asked a judge to force California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other states to prepare to set aside as much as $1.9 billion as the Warner Bros. Discovery merger challenge heads into overtime.

In Monday’s court filing, Paramount requested the plaintiff states, including New York, Colorado, Oregon and Nevada, as well as the Writers Guild of America, post a bond that would cover the “ticking fees” Paramount promised to pay Warner shareholders should the deal stretch beyond its anticipated September close.

Ellison was confident his proposed Warner takeover would sail through its regulatory clearances. President Trump’s Justice Department approved the merger in June, as have dozens of other countries.

The states would not be required to pay the full $1.9 billion upfront. Instead, they would have to come up with a portion of that amount by Sept. 30. Should the Democrat state attorneys general and WGA lose their lawsuits, they would ultimately have to pay the full amount.

Monday’s court filing highlights Ellison’s frustrations and the financial pressures that deal delays will bring the media company. The filing also continues Paramount’s full-court political pressure campaign to get Bonta and the other states to abandon their antitrust lawsuit.

Paramount did not expect such a spirited challenge from Bonta and the 11 other Democratic state attorneys general who banded together with the WGA to try to block the $111-billion merger of two historic Hollywood studios.

Paramount’s 23-page filing, signed by former high profiile federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, was intended to rattle the states.

Paramount is trying to create divisions among the plaintiff states by prompting them to question their resolve in fighting a protracted and potentially expensive legal battle, according to a person familiar with Paramount’s strategy who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because WGA has separately sued to unravel the deal, Paramount has asked the judge to have the union post a bond to cover some of the costs, too.

In its motion, Paramount cited the Clayton Antitrust Act, which is the foundation for Bonta’s lawsuit. The law carries a provision to require plaintiffs to post a bond to cover the potential financial harms of halting a transaction.

The bond gives a defendant, in this case Paramount, a way to recover lost funds should they ultimately prevail in court.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will be asked to rule on the request during a Wednesday court hearing.

“We have satisfied all closing conditions under our merger agreement, having received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions,” Paramount said in a statement. “These two lawsuits are the only barrier to closing this transaction.”

Paramount is incurring considerable legal fees and deal-related costs.

The company cited a potential eight-month merger delay because Martínez-Olguín scheduled the trial for March 2. If the case goes to trial, it might not be decided until next May.

At issue are the “ticking fees” that Paramount in February agreed pay to Warner investors should the merger be delayed . Paramount agreed to pay $.25 a share for every quarter until the acquisition finalizes.

The fees add up to $7 million a day, or $650 million per quarter.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to close the deal. That’s when Warner Bros. Discovery can demand a $7-billion break-up fee.

Paramount wants to get the deal done as soon as possible, and with the approval of Mexican regulators last week, only Bonta and the states’ lawsuit stands in their way.

Paramount also is cognizant of shifting winds in Washington should Democrats regain control of Congress in November, which could bring fresh scrutiny to the merger .

Ticking fees weren’t the only costs of the extended timeline.

“There will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production, and creative talent by the combined company,” Paramount said . “Employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.”

Last week, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — waded into the clash over the merger, which continues to carve deep divisions throughout the industry.

“We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court,” Paramount said. “We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.”

NEW YORK — Ohio State and Oregon were 1-2 in The Associated Press Top 25 released Monday, giving the Big Ten Conference the top two teams in the preseason rankings for the first time in 65 years and just the second time ever.

The Buckeyes received 40 first-place votes and Oregon received 14 in voting by 69 media members who cover college football.

Ohio State will go into a season No. 1 for the ninth time, and first since 2015. The Buckeyes are now tied with Alabama for second-most preseason No. 1 rankings behind Oklahoma’s 10.

Oregon has its highest preseason ranking in program history after having opened No. 3 four times.

Georgia, Notre Dame and Texas round out the top five. Defending national champion Indiana starts at No. 6 and is followed by Miami, Texas A&M, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

Notre Dame received six first-place votes, Indiana got eight and Miami one.

This is the first year a conference has held down the top two spots in the preseason poll since Oklahoma and Nebraska of the Big Eight were 1-2 in 1987.

The last time the Big Ten had the Nos. 1 and 2 teams in the preseason was 1961, when Iowa and Ohio State topped the poll. The Hawkeyes lost four of their last five games after a 4-0 start and finished that season unranked. The Buckeyes went 8-0-1 and ended the season No. 2 behind unbeaten Alabama.

The Big Ten has won three straight College Football Playoff championships (Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana) and will be going for an unprecedented fourth straight national title. This is the fourth consecutive year the Big Ten has had two of the top three teams in the preseason rankings.

The Southeastern Conference leads all conferences with nine teams in the preseason Top 25, marking the third straight year it has had at least that many. Five of the top 10 teams are from the SEC for the first time since 2013.

Four Big 12 teams are ranked, with conference champion Texas Tech the highest at No. 12. The Atlantic Coast Conference has three ranked teams, with the Hurricanes joined by No. 19 SMU and No. 24 Louisville. There are no Group of Six schools in the Top 25.

Top-ranked Buckeyes

The offense is loaded. Heisman Trophy finalist Julian Sayin was the most accurate passer in the nation by a wide margin last season, Jeremiah Smith leads the nation in receiving yards and receiving touchdowns over the last two years and Bo Jackson is coming off a 1,000-yard rushing season as a freshman.

There is little concern about the defense even though eight starters must be replaced for a second straight year. At least six transfers are projected to start or play major roles.

Ohio State will get tested early and often. The Buckeyes visit Texas on Sept. 12 and five of their nine conference games are against preseason ranked teams, including at Indiana and against Oregon at home.

The Buckeyes have ended a season No. 1 in the AP poll six times (1942, 1954, 1968, 2002, 2014, 2024).

Bulldogs best of the SEC

The beat goes on for Kirby Smart’s Georgia Bulldogs. They’re in the preseason top five for the ninth straight year. The two-time defending SEC champion Bulldogs are favored to play in a sixth straight conference title game and appear in the CFP for the sixth time in 10 years.

Texas, the preseason No. 1 last year, opens in the top five for the third straight year. No. 8 Texas A&M is in the preseason top 10 for the first time since it was No. 6 in 2022, the year that marked the beginning of the end for coach Jimbo Fisher.

Pete Golding’s first full season as Mississippi head coach starts with the No. 9 Rebels in the preseason top 10 for the second time in three years and third time since 1970. No. 10 Oklahoma is in the preseason top 10 for the first time since 2022, when it was in the Big 12.

What about the Hoosiers?

Indiana is the seventh returning national champion in 40 years, and second in three years, to be ranked outside the top five in the preseason (Michigan went into the 2024 season ranked No. 9 after winning the national title).

The Hoosiers became the first team in the modern era to go 16-0, and they return lots of talent and signed a top-10 transfer class. The move from Heisman Trophy winner and No. 1 NFL draft pick Fernando Mendoza to TCU transfer Josh Hoover at quarterback apparently put doubts in the minds of voters.

Poll nuggets

—USC, which landed the nation’s top recruiting class during the offseason, is ranked No. 15 in the preason poll.

— Ohio State will try to become the 12th team to start and finish No. 1 since the AP preseason poll debuted in 1950. The last team to do it was Alabama in 2017.

— Notre Dame has its highest preseason ranking since it was No. 2 in 2006. The Fighting Irish, who have a Heisman candidate in quarterback CJ Carr, bring a 10-game winning streak into the season and are still smarting from being left out of the playoff.

— Lane Kiffin’s first LSU team is No. 11 after finishing 7-6 and unranked under Brian Kelly and Frank Wilson.

— Ten of the 12 CFP teams last season are ranked. The two that aren’t are James Madison and Tulane from the Group of Six.

— No. 23 Houston has its first preseason ranking in four years and third since 1991.

Full AP preseason top 25 poll

1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. Georgia
4. Notre Dame
5. Texas
6. Indiana
7. Miami
8. Texas A&M
9. Mississippi
10. Oklahoma
11. LSU
12. Texas Tech
13. Alabama
14. BYU
15. USC
16. Michigan
17. Washington
18. Penn State
19. SMU
20. Tennessee
21. Utah
22. Iowa
23. Houston
24. Louisville
25. Missouri

Olson writes for the Associated Press.

Tired of budget stalemates, deficits and continuous acrimony in the state Capitol, California voters in 2010 started taking action to temper political gridlock and loosen the grip of entrenched special interests.

They approved statewide ballot measures to create an independent congressional redistricting commission, taking that power away from self-interested Sacramento lawmakers, as well as a new “top-two” primary system intended to stifle the power of the major political parties and provide more representative, less hyperpartisan candidates with a greater chance of victory.

Now, in an era of even more bitter divisions in the state and nation, those reforms face severe threats.

Last month, supporters of a proposal to repeal the state’s current primary system, in which the two candidates in state and congressional elections who receive the most votes move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation, received permission to gather voter signatures to place the measure on the 2028 ballot.

In November, Californians voted to temporarily scrap the congressional districts that were crafted by a voter-approved independent commission and instead replace them by ones approved by Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento. The move, aimed at giving Democrats an edge in the November midterm election, was in response to President Trump urging GOP state leaders, notably in Texas, to alter their districts to boost Republican numbers in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 election.

“In the olden times, California liked to see itself as the epicenter of good-government reform,” said Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

But the sense of optimism when voters approved these reforms has faded, she said, because of the divisiveness cultivated by Trump but also because of polarization that predates him.

“There’s no world in which you can look at California or any other state in 2026 and say it looks like 2010,” Levinson said. “We, the public, speak to each other in different ways. Politicians talk to each other in different ways. … It feels to me like we talk a lot more about triage than we do about building a shining city on a hill. It’s a different universe.”

But others question the effectiveness of the California’s good-government reforms and merits of the self-glorification that followed.

“It’s not clear that any of these reforms helped elect more moderates or limit polarization,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “Reformers may have over-promised in the early 2010s what election reform could actually do to improve the lives of Californians. And Californians did not fully appreciate the unintended consequences of reforms enacted with even the best of intentions.”

The efforts to claw back the 2010 reforms occurs at a time of declining trust in institutions and during a fragile moment in the nation’s democracy. Trump continues to push debunked claims that the 2020 election was rigged, as well as other voting misconduct conspiracies that often focus on California.

In a prime-time speech last month, the president again raised concerns about the length of time it took California elections officials to count ballots in the June 2 primary.

“It took a month to count the votes,” he said. “I wonder what they were doing.”

Lauded by civic groups, the good-government reforms were championed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and funded by major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr.

Both of the state’s major political parties as well as prominent politicians and several labor unions opposed the efforts when they were placed on the 2010 ballot.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former state GOP chairwoman, is among those who believe the temporary pause in independent redistricting that voters approved in November will not be temporary. And she said the top-two primary is a failed experiment.

“Speaking as a Republican, I just don’t feel that it has served us well at all,” she said. “Not only has it locked us out of many general election ballots, but it has also not moderated Sacramento at all.”

California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks, who supported the suspension of independent redistricting, agreed with Millan Patterson about the top-two primary.

“The current top-two system has failed to deliver on what its supporters promised,” he said. “It’s well past time to review, revise and maybe even repeal it.”

Hicks expressed fears earlier this year that the top-two primary would result in two Republican gubernatorial candidates advancing to the November ballot in a strongly Democratic state because of a sprawling and splintered Democratic field.

Hicks’ rare public move urging low-polling Democratic candidates, which included every minority candidate of color in the race, to consider their viability sparked widespread controversy during the primary.

The tension was heightened by a controversial USC debate selection process that would have resulted in no candidates of color taking the stage. (The debate was canceled less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place.)

Ultimately, the June primary resulted in the same outcome Californians have seen since the top-two primary was approved — a gubernatorial general election contest between a Democrat and a Republican. Xavier Becerra, a former Biden Cabinet member, and Steve Hilton, a GOP strategist and television commentator, will face off in November.

Still, a bipartisan coalition is striving to rescind the top-two primary system, which has created many noteworthy intraparty races, such as U.S. Senate contests between Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange in 2016, and incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state Sen. Kevin de León of Los Angeles in 2018, all Democrats.

In Congress, independent redistricting and the top-two primary created a brutal 2012 contest between veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman in the San Fernando Valley. Four years later, veteran Bay Area Rep. Mike Honda was toppled by fellow Democrat Ro Khanna, now viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate.

This year, a combination of the redrawing of the state’s congressional districts and the top-two primary means Republican Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona is battling with Republican Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim Hills.

On July 14, Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced that the proposal by veteran Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio — also backed by Republicans such as former state GOP Chair Ron Nehring — has 180 days to gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters to qualify the effort for the November 2028 ballot. If approved by voters, the top-two primary would be repealed and the system would revert to its prior version, insuring every qualified political party could have a candidate advance in the primary to the general election.

Maviglio argued that the top-two primary has failed to deliver on its promises to reduce partisanship and budget deficits in Sacramento.

“It’s gotten worse, not better,” he said. “I find it’s hard to make that argument if you look at what’s coming out of the Legislature the last 10 years.”

Supporters of the top-two primary repudiated these arguments and vowed to challenge the title of the proposed 2028 ballot measure about the state’s primary, arguing it would disenfranchise 5.4 million Californians who are not registered with either major political party.

“Voters passed Proposition 14 [which created the top-two primary] to take control away from party insiders and put it in the hands of the people,” said Cara McCormick, campaign manager of More Choice California, a group opposing the top-two primary being rescinded. “This initiative does the opposite. It takes away the rights of millions of California voters and gives them back to political parties. The least voters deserve is a ballot title that says so.”

Abel Maldonado, who served as lieutenant governor under Schwarzenegger and backed both 2010 reforms, staunchly supported the top-two primary as a response to a historic state government shutdown because of the failure of lawmakers to approve a balanced budget.

“Some of us thought that a complete open primary top two would create a system [that elects] people who were open-minded, pragmatic and had common sense,” he said. “It has happened in some races, but in other areas it has not.”

Maldonado said that he disagrees with returning to the prior system, in which political parties could opt to allow only voters affiliated with them to cast ballots in their primaries. But he said the current system ought to be tweaked, allowing voters to cast ballots for a candidate of any political party in a primary, with a candidate from each party moving onto the general election.

Schwarzenegger did not respond to a request for comment. But his prior comments, as well his efforts to end gerrymandering across the nation since leaving office, have made clear that his views have not changed.

“Of course the politicians want to undo reform that is good for the people and not for the politicians,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement earlier this year after the “Undo the Top Two” ballot measure was proposed. “They will always choose to move the goal posts instead of performing better.”

After California Democrats sought to redraw the state’s congressional districts last year, Schwarzenegger posted a picture of himself on X working out wearing a T-shirt that said “Terminate Gerrymandering,” a reference to one of his hit films.

Munger said he hoped groups he worked with to pass these reforms such as Common Cause and the California League of Women Voters would stay “true to their principles” and defend them when they “are under assault.”

“It was disappointing they stayed on the sidelines during last year’s fight over independent redistricting, and they should not do so going forward,” said Munger, who spent more than $30 million opposing the November ballot measure to suspend independent redistricting. “In order for the citizens to trust their government, they must have confidence that our elections are fair and free.”

Maldonado, who lauded the work of California’s independent redistricting commission, said he believes California Democrats will make the temporary pause of independent drawing of district boundaries permanent.

“We as Republicans have zero say in redistricting, and as much as I like to say this is what I like to have, the Democrats control supermajorities in both houses, and they get to choose whatever the hell they want,” he said. “The only way they’ll return it is by an initiative process with the will of the voters.”

He said he supports a national effort to create independent redistricting in every state, but believes it has no chance of passage.

“That would be great. It would be a step in the right direction. I think voters would have more confidence in politicians,” Maldonado said. “But, I mean, in this polarized era, this notion — think about it. The fox is building the henhouse for the chickens.”

Aug. 16 (UPI) — Police arrested a 19-year-old found hiding in a closet on the Virginia State University campus hours after he allegedly shot five people, local officials said.

Camron Harris was in custody at Chesterfield County Jail on suspicion of four counts of malicious wounding and four counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, WTVR-TV in Richmond, Va., reported. He was being held without bond.

Police said more charges may be filed.

The shooting took place on the VSU campus around 1:30 a.m. Saturday.

The victims ranged in age from 17 to 23 years old. A 21-year-old man sustained critical injuries, while the other four, including a 19-year-old woman, had non-life-threatening injuries, WRIC-TV in Richmond reported. The only student of the school was a 20-year-old man who was released from the hospital.

Officers discovered Harris around 4 p.m. Saturday hiding in a closet in Seward Hall on campus. He didn’t attend the school.

The campus had not started fall classes at the time of the shooting, but officials put the school on lockdown until about 8:30 a.m. Saturday. Classes were expected to begin Monday.

VSU is a historically Black university with about 5,100 undergraduate students.

Indiana’s state governor says that US government has promised assistance after a week of heavy rainfall.

Authorities in the Midwestern United States have reported at least five deaths in Indiana after the state was struck with fierce storms and flooding.

Rescue workers continue to seek out those stranded by the storms, which drenched Indiana over the past week.

Governor Mike Braun had called for a presidential emergency declaration on Friday, in order to access greater resources for the state.

On Saturday, he issued a public statement announcing that the federal government had pledged assistance.

“I spoke with President [Donald] Trump today about the severe storms and historic flooding impacting Indiana, and he informed me that he intends to approve our request for a Presidential Emergency Declaration,” Braun, a Republican, wrote in a social media post.

“I’m grateful to President Trump for his commitment to getting Hoosiers the federal assistance we need as we continue responding and recovering.”

Emergency workers have used boats to rescue people from homes inundated by rising waters.

The White River in Indianapolis, Indiana, was among the waterways that overflowed its banks over the last week, causing dangerous flooding.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett said that the area is experiencing its worst flooding in more than 30 years. The National Weather Service has reported that more than 280mm (11 inches) of rain fell over two days in some areas.

Sheriff deputies in Delaware County said on Friday that they had found the body of a deceased 58-year-old woman, whom they believe died trying to drive her vehicle through floodwaters.

Authorities caution against attempting to cross flooded areas in a car, warning that vehicles can become stranded.

A four-year-old child also died after a tree fell on a home in Jennings County this week, and law enforcement found the body of a teen who was reported missing on Wednesday after jumping into a river.

“My heart is with the families and loved ones of the five Hoosiers we have lost and every family whose life has been changed by these storms,” Braun said on Saturday. “Please continue to take flooding seriously and stay away from floodwaters.”

AUSTIN, Texas — Democrats seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2028 will need to prove themselves early on in states where Black and Latino voters and union members are key supporters, under an election year calendar approved Saturday.

The primary lineup pushes Iowa from the traditional top spot and makes South Carolina the leadoff state, voting on Jan. 22, 2028, followed by Nevada on Feb. 1. New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia round out the early states, throughout February, according to the plan endorsed by the Democratic National Committee at its meeting in Texas.

DNC Chairman Ken Martin said that to win the general election, “you have to be battle-tested in a way that you already have campaigned in front of and for the support of various communities throughout the country.” That is why the calendar designed by the party matters, he said in an interview.

Some potential candidates in what is expected to be a large field have visited early-voting states such as South Carolina. Party leaders have said the order gives candidates the best shot at winning back the White House after President Trump’s final term.

“They have to show that they can go to the South and talk to Black voters and rural voters, as well as out west, talking ranching and mining issues, to a border state, to union members,” said party strategist Karen Finney, who has worked on multiple presidential campaigns. “Whoever survives will be battle-tested.”

Former presidential candidate Howard Dean, a onetime Vermont governor, recalled his tenure as national party chairman, when Democrats solidified Nevada and South Carolina as early states behind Iowa and New Hampshire. The latest change is even better, he said.

“These states look more like the country” as a whole, he said, “whereas Iowa and New Hampshire don’t.”

Rita Hart, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, said bypassing her state in the early going would sideline important voter voices and give a political edge to Republicans, who are expected to keep Iowa atop their calendar.

Nonwhite voters claim top billing

As the first-in-the-South primary, South Carolina was more decisive than Iowa and New Hampshire for nominees Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. All three dominated among South Carolina’s large Black population, which can yield more than half the state’s Democratic primary electorate.

With Nevada and New Mexico following, that will require candidates to court more Latino voters early in the process.

Shifting from Iowa and New Hampshire does not mean little-known candidates cannot catch fire, as Pete Buttigieg did in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2020, when he was a 37-year-old former mayor. They just will not be able to do it with an almost entirely white audience.

“If you can’t go to every part of this country and make your case, you should not be running for president,” Finney said.

Progressive vs. establishment dynamics

There is disagreement over how Democrats’ split between progressives and mainstream liberals may or may not surface in the nominating calendar.

“I think our primary voters up north are probably a little different than primary voters in South Carolina,” said Boyd Brown, a former DNC member from South Carolina. “It’s not the woke ideologies that we just can’t get away from” in other places, Brown said.

Nina Smith, a former Buttigieg advisor who works closely with progressive causes, disagreed. Smith said Black South Carolinians, especially, have gravitated to more moderate candidates — twice rejecting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in favor of Clinton and Biden.

But, she said, “Southern Black voters are more progressive than they’re given credit for” on policy but also “realists” about what is possible.

“Living through Jim Crow and other oppressive structures will force you to take that approach,” she said.

Smith said that with South Carolina leading off and many Southern states following on Super Tuesday soon after the early lineup concludes, progressives will have to take the time to listen and then tailor their messages.

“A lot of Black voters don’t necessarily see themselves in the ideas and arguments that progressives put forward,” she said.

Unions in the spotlight

Nevada has the service industry unions because of Las Vegas; Michigan has the auto industry and associated manufacturing support industries; Virginia is home to more federal workers than any other state.

“Labor is still so important,” Dean said.

Beyond seeking the backing of organized labor, the campaigns and the party will look to unions for help in spreading Democrats’ message to voters and getting people to the polls.

Scheduling efficiency

Campaigns struggle to balance many demands such as meeting voters in person, raising money and the logistics of travel. As a result, places such as Nevada have gotten short shrift in the past because candidates, most from the eastern part of the country, have concluded the investment of time is not worth it.

An expanded calendar offers more clustering opportunities.

A swing to the West could hit two early states — Nevada and New Mexico — and include a fundraising stop in California, full of Democratic donors. A South Carolina trip could mean fundraisers and public appearances in Atlanta along with Charlotte and Raleigh, both in North Carolina. Virginia offers proximity to donors and national TV studios in Washington; the same options are available by adding a New York City stop on the way to New Hampshire.

Bre Maxwell is a DNC member from South Carolina who said the state’s smaller size and lower media costs are a financial equalizer, allowing not only the best-funded candidates to have an impact.

“They can campaign from the top to the bottom in a day,” Maxwell said.

Keeping a focus on November

Of the six early states, all but South Carolina have been competitive in general elections.

That means that even before Super Tuesday, the Democratic candidates will have spent significant time and resources in states worth a combined 43 electoral college votes. That is not insignificant on the way to the 270 needed to win.

Television ads and news coverage can spill over, as well. Markets targeting parts of South Carolina also reach portions of North Carolina and Georgia.

After all, Brown said, the point is to put a Democrat in the White House.

“This is not a social or a debate club. It is a political party,” he said.

Catalini and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. AP writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are showing up for this year’s primaries in numbers not seen in decades, a pattern emerging across several states that has the party optimistic about its prospects in November when control of Congress will be at stake.

In Tuesday’s primary, Wisconsin Democrats cast nearly 800,000 ballots, their highest total for a midterm in more than 20 years. That followed 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan the week before, a midterm record for the state.

The enthusiasm extends beyond the Midwest. Democratic primary turnout also surged this year in Texas and Georgia, states that will have competitive Senate races in the fall.

It is giving Democrats a string of strong showings heading into the midterms, when the president’s party is normally at a disadvantage. That is compounded this year by President Trump’s weak approval ratings, persistent inflation and an unpopular war with Iran.

“The big news is that Democrats are getting huge turnouts,” said David Axelrod, who was a top advisor to President Obama. “That’s been a steady story throughout this period.”

Competitive Democratic primaries have helped drive the surge, giving the party’s voters more reason to participate. Republican primary turnout remained closer to historic norms in Michigan, even with a competitive statewide contest.

Voter turnout in primary elections is an imperfect predictor of general election results, especially when one party has the more compelling early contests. Republicans say they are responding with a major effort to turn out their voters in the fall.

GOP leaders say they can energize voters by tapping into a major fundraising advantage over Democrats and sending Trump back out campaigning, including during a midterm convention in Texas next month.

“Primary turnout doesn’t win general elections,” said Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Republicans are entering November with the money, momentum, stronger candidates and a battle-tested operation built to turn out voters when it actually counts.”

A pattern in many states, many contests

The scale of the Democratic turnout advantage varied across states, but the pattern extended across much of this year’s competitive landscape for House, Senate or governor’s races.

In Wisconsin, more than 790,000 people voted in the Democratic primary for governor, putting turnout at about 22% of registered voters. More than 1.5 million people voted in Michigan’s recent Democratic Senate primary, which accounted for a little more than 18% of registered voters. It was the state’s highest midterm turnout rate in a Democratic primary since at least 2002 — the same as in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of Associated Press election data.

In Minnesota, Democratic primary turnout was on par with the 2018 midterm election, with both years marking the state’s highest Democratic primary turnout in a midterm year so far this century.

For Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan, turnout in last week’s primary was in line with previous GOP midterm primaries in each state. In Michigan, turnout for the Republican governor’s race was about 11%. In Wisconsin’s Republican primary for governor, it is expected to be about 14%.

“Republicans in Michigan will close the enthusiasm gap by highlighting the massive differences between our nominees and the extreme, out-of-touch politicians the Democrats have nominated,” said Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for the Michigan GOP. “It’s one thing to lead in enthusiasm before we know who is running. Now, the differences are clear.”

Other states that held elections this year also saw significant Democratic primary turnout. In Georgia and Texas, the midterm turnout in the Democratic primaries was higher than it’s been since at least 2002. In Georgia, just over 1 million people voted in May in the Democratic governor’s race, a little more than 13% of registered voters. In Texas, about 2.3 million people voted in March in the Democratic Senate primary, a little more than 12%.

‘Good sign,’ but ‘not a very solid predictor’

The robust primary turnout has been a “good sign for Democrats,” said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University. But he cautioned that it is “not a very solid predictor” of how voters will break in November.

Smidt pointed to several factors behind the numbers, including high turnout in recent elections, which has created a larger pool of regular voters.

“Voting is a lot of habit-forming,” he said.

He also noted that many of the states with high turnout had what he described as “media spotlight candidacies.”

Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all held races in August that the news media framed as marquee progressive-versus-moderate contests that probably helped drive Democratic participation.

In Michigan, spending in the Democratic Senate primary topped $80 million, making it one of the most expensive races of the year so far, according to AdImpact. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a campaign that drew national attention and energized younger voters and university communities.

Stevens carried Wayne County, the state’s largest source of Democratic votes, and some of the congresswoman’s supporters said before the primary that they would not back El-Sayed if he became the nominee.

In Wisconsin, the governor’s primary was repeatedly reshaped as moderate Democrats left and reentered the race while democratic socialist Francesca Hong consolidated progressive support. Hong lost narrowly to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more traditional Democrat.

The races highlight how competitive primaries helped drive attention and also how the winning candidates have work to do to bring their party together for November. Both Wisconsin and Michigan Democrats held unity breakfasts in the days after the primaries.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who backed El-Sayed and Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan but did not endorse Hong, said in an interview this week that he expects Democratic voters to bridge their differences for the general election.

“At the end of the day, when it comes to taking on Trump and creating a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, there is going to be unity, because I think everybody knows how important that is,” he said.

A favorable environment, but a difficult map

Democrats have reason to believe the primary enthusiasm could last. The president’s party has historically lost ground in midterm elections, and Trump enters the fall deeply unpopular amid economic unease and an unpopular war.

Some 33% of American adults approve of his job performance, according to the most recent polling by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.

But a favorable national environment may not be enough for Democrats. They will need unusually strong turnout to overcome a congressional map that has become more favorable to Republicans.

The number of competitive House races has shrunk considerably this year after Republican-controlled states redrew congressional districts in their favor at Trump’s urging. Some Democratic-controlled states responded, most notably California, but the new lines are expected to produce a net benefit for Republicans, who hold a slim House majority.

Republicans control the Senate 53 to 47, with Democrats needing to pick up four seats to win the majority. Democrats will have to generate energy similar to that of Republicans two years ago, Smidt said.

“If we have a national tide like we had in 2024, suddenly that opens the map a little more,” he said.

Cappelletti, Askarinam and Boak write for the Associated Press. Pamela Jo Martin and Samuel Jens of the Associated Press Election Services team contributed to this report from Washington.

Aug. 15 (UPI) — Five people were injured by multiple shooters at Virginia State University in Ettrick, Va., early Saturday morning.

Police responded to the area outside of residence halls around 1:30 a.m. and found five people with gunshot wounds. They were taken to the hospital, and one is in critical-condition. The others had injuries that weren’t life-threatening.

The campus, which had not started fall-semester classes yet, was put on lockdown until about 8:30 Saturday morning. But police have not said if anyone has been arrested. Residence halls opened a week ago, and classes are set to begin Monday.

The Chesterfield County Police Department is investigating the incident with the help of VSU police, the Hanover County Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Virginia State is a historically Black university about 24 miles south of Richmond. It has about 5,100 students enrolled in undergraduate programs.

Health officials in California are defending the traditional childhood vaccination schedule against efforts by the Trump administration to weaken it.

The longstanding childhood vaccine schedule is safe, California’s top health official said, and continues to be recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics — the nation’s leading group for pediatricians — as well as the other states in the West Coast Health Alliance: Hawaii, Oregon and Washington.

“They’re safe. They’re important for kids to be thriving and healthy in schools,” Dr. Erica Pan, director of the California Department of Public Health and the state public health officer, said of vaccines. And she credited California’s robust vaccine requirements as a condition of enrollment for schoolchildren as a reason why the state so far has kept a lid on the huge outbreaks of measles seen in other parts of the nation.

Her full-throated defense comes after President Trump issued an executive order Monday recommending that the singular measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine should be separated into three and that all childhood immunizations should be given at separate visits “to the maximum extent feasible.”

“We want it in three separate vaccinations, given at separate times,” he said during the signing ceremony. “Together, there could be a possibility they’re quite lethal. And separately it looks like they are not at all lethal, but just very effective.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics blasted the order as “unscientific and dangerous,” and criticized comments made by administration officials suggesting a link between autism and vaccines — a claim that has been discredited by many studies.

“Dozens of studies involving millions of people show there is no link between vaccines and autism, and yet federal leaders continue to promote this outdated, disproven idea to scare families,” said the academy’s president, Dr. Andrew Racine.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has been equally unequivocal.

“The MMR vaccine does not cause autism,” the group says on an online fact page, adding that the measles vaccine prevents thousands of deaths a year worldwide.

Pan said Trump’s executive order does not change vaccine requirements for schoolchildren in California. And insurance companies continue to cover vaccinations for schoolchildren.

When Trump was asked whether there was any evidence for his claims regarding the MMR vaccine, he answered: “No. What I’ve heard is that there are some people that say it is that way, and I say, ‘Well, let’s say there’s a 5% chance of it. Let’s split it up.’ ”

There is no evidence to back up those assertions, medical organizations and mainstream experts say. The first version of the combination MMR shot was approved in 1971, and versions of it have been given to hundreds of millions of children safely over several generations, with more than 90% of children receiving the shot nationally, experts say.

Combining protection against the three diseases has been considered a miracle of modern medicine. Before the vaccine era, hundreds of children a year in the U.S. were either killed by measles or suffered swelling of the brain as a result of the disease. Tens of thousands were also hospitalized each year.

Mumps can cause deafness and inflame the brain, pancreas, testicles, ovaries and breast tissue. And rubella risks causing severe birth defects in pregnant women.

“There is no data supporting doing this in separate shots,” Pan said. “And, in fact, it will take more visits and more pokes in the arm, literally, for children to do this.”

With vaccination rates declining in many parts of the country, measles has resurged in the U.S. in the past two years, resulting in the first child deaths from the disease in 22 years, as well as hundreds of pediatric hospitalizations.

So far this year, there have been 2,566 cases of measles nationwide, which is already more than the 2,289 reported in all of 2025, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most recent case count is also higher than any calendar year since 1991 — the final year of the nation’s last measles epidemic.

Beyond scheduling difficulties for parents, clinics and doctors’ offices, no company even makes separate immunizations for measles, mumps and rubella, Pan said. “There’s no scientific basis for it. There’s no current availability to do that.”

Trump’s executive order further recommends that children should get vaccinated against 11 diseases, a reduction from the 18 currently recommended by the CDC. The order also suggested that his administration would challenge certain states’ laws that require vaccination as a condition of entry into schools.

California in 2015 enacted a law that strengthened vaccine requirements for schoolchildren. The law ended the ability of parents to cite personal beliefs in seeking to exempt their children from certain vaccinations.

Children can still be exempted and attend school in California if they have a medical reason. And California law does allow parents to skip immunizations for children who are enrolled in independent study programs and do not receive classroom-based instruction.

California’s law was passed following a large measles outbreak centered at Disneyland that resulted in 131 cases in California alone, and spread to six other states, as well as Canada and Mexico. At least 12 of those infected in California were infants too young to be vaccinated.

After the law passed, California saw its measles vaccination rates improve. In 2013, the vaccination rate among California kindergartners hit a low of 92.3%, below the 95% threshold doctors say is needed to keep a lid on outbreaks. Since the law took effect, that rate has ranged between 95.1% and 97.3%.

The most recent figure was 96.1% for the 2024-25 school year.

States that have suffered large measles outbreaks have poorer vaccination rates. South Carolina, for instance, has been home to an outbreak linked to about 1,000 cases — considered one of the largest in the U.S. in more than 30 years. That state’s most recent kindergarten measles vaccination rate was 91.2%, well below the optimal 95% threshold.

There are five immunizations required as a condition of entry into kindergarten in California: polio; DTaP, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis; hepatitis B; MMR; and varicella, or chickenpox.

California’s most severe measles epidemic in recent memory occurred between 1988 and 1990 — an era before health officials recommended children receive a second dose of the measles vaccine. That epidemic led to 75 deaths in California and more than 3,000 hospital admissions. A major problem officials identified at that time was that poor parents could not afford vaccinations for their children. One of the nation’s largest outbreaks in 1989 involved mostly preschool-aged children in Los Angeles.

There was also a national measles epidemic between 1989 and 1991, which, according to a study published by the CDC, led to 166 suspected measles deaths and more than 11,000 hospitalizations.

Recommendations to give children a second dose of the vaccine, and the introduction of the federal Vaccines for Children program in the 1990s to help parents pay for immunizations, were credited with driving measles circulation down to historic lows.

Doctors say that it has been striking to see the U.S. go from a place where ongoing domestic measles transmission was effectively eliminated in 2000 to being on the precipice of the disease regaining a foothold.

“We’re seeing in this country cases, hospitalizations and deaths higher than we’ve seen in over 30 years,” Pan said. “We did such a great job — we eliminated measles by the year 2000, and now we’re going backward.”

Profile

RON UNZ

* Born: Sept. 20, 1961, Los Angeles

* Residence: Palo Alto

* Current position: Full-time candidate for governor, on leave from managing his small software company.

* Education: Bachelor’s degrees in physics and history, Harvard University. Phi Beta Kappa. Recipient of a Churchill Science Fellowship to Cambridge University in England, where he studied quantum gravitation under Stephen Hawking.

* Career highlights: In the late 1980s, Unz took a leave of absence from Stanford University, where he was enrolled in a Ph.D. program in theoretical physics. He worked as an associate at a New York City mortgage finance company. In 1988, he founded Wall Street Analytics Inc., a financial services software company.

* Family: Unmarried

The Record

Ron Unz has no public record and brings an unusual, if not unique, background to his quest for California’s top public office. He has a strong record of academic and intellectual achievement. His IQ has been estimated at 214–what one expert calls “one in a million”–and as a teen-ager he won first place in the national Westinghouse talent search competition for a paper on black holes. He is a physicist as well as an expert on the Spartan naval empire.

After working for a New York City mortgage finance company, Unz founded his own small firm that sells specialized computer programs to Wall Street firms. The firm has become highly successful during the last six years and has made Unz a wealthy man.

Although he has no political experience, he says he has long had an interest in politics and has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative think tanks and causes.

Unz says his years in the business world have prepared him well to govern California. “In terms of the sectors of the American economy that create wealth, I have more experience than the other four candidates together, times a factor of a few,” he said.

The Speech: In His Own Words

I believe that the Republican Party stands for clear principles and firm ideas–smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and traditional values–and that Pete Wilson stands for nothing except his political ambition.

Over the past three years, Pete Wilson and the Democrats have enacted the largest state tax increase in American history, deepening our recession and destroying jobs. Pete Wilson and the Democrats have led our Golden State to the brink of ruin. A choice between Pete Wilson and the Democrats means no choice at all for the people of California.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I have not abandoned the mainstream of the Republican Party . . . and its basic principles. . . . Under Ronald Reagan, these were the ideas which swept the nation and the world. I am the Republican candidate for governor.

Unlike Pete Wilson, my affiliation with the Republican Party is not hereditary: I come from a family of Democrats. But when that former Democrat Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican Party into the party of the ordinary working people of America, it became my party.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I didn’t attend an elite prep school, but received my education in the public schools of Los Angeles, back when they still provided an outstanding education for all of our children, rich and poor alike. It was this education which provided me with the tools of opportunity I needed to achieve economic success. But today, I am disgusted by the decay of our school system.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I don’t believe we should raise taxes again and again, until our entrepreneurs and small businesses are faced with some of the highest tax rates in America, driving our jobs and prosperity to other states. . . .

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has been on government and political payrolls for almost 30 years as a lifelong career politician, I come from the private business sector, the part of our economy which actually creates the wealth, provides the jobs and pays the taxes. I understand the value of money and the long hours required to earn it. I reject the waste that is routinely accepted by the special interest politicians who don’t understand what it’s like to earn a living in the real world.

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has little or no comprehension of the industries of tomorrow, I come from a scientific and technological background. I know that California’s future prosperity cannot be based merely upon jobs to build and maintain Pete Wilson’s endless array of future prisons.

I know that the high-technology industries of tomorrow such as computers, telecommunications, biotechnology and the entertainment industry can be the foundation of California’s prosperity. I see that the widespread adoption of telecommuting could make our freeway traffic jams a thing of the past. . . .

My grandparents came to California in the 1920s and 1930s as poor European immigrants, willing to work hard to provide a better life for their children.

I am a native-born Californian who remembers the hope and optimism and endless sense of possibility which the California Dream once meant to us. Our state has the finest climate, enormous natural beauty, and tremendous scientific and technological resources unequaled any place in the world.

The primary obstacle on our road to recovery is the deep failure of our own overgrown state government. Join with me in overcoming this one obstacle, and together we can restore the Golden State which we all remember.

It will take someone better versed in finance, corporate law, family psychology and, perhaps, the impact of great wealth on brain chemistry than I to analyze the recent actions of Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison.

To a cultural journalist, however, it seems like he continues to make himself the best argument yet for opposing his company’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Mere days after taking to the media to insist that he is a misunderstood film buff who just wants to save Hollywood, he threatened to help destroy it.

If California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state attorneys general from 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, refuse to negotiate a settlement of their antitrust lawsuit, Ellison said he will yank Paramount Studios, and potentially Warner Bros., out of California.

Um, OK, Ultron.

So that’s how Ellison wants to prove that he will be a steward of the flailing entertainment industry — by threatening to rip out a big part of its still-beating heart and implant it in Texas or Tennessee?

Will he be taking the Hollywood sign as well, to stick atop the Grand Ole Opry or, better yet, the Alamo?

Not only does this grant Bonta VIP access to the moral highground, it all but negates Ellison’s recent New York Times guest essay. Especially the part in which he wrote: “The states claim this deal will give one company too much influence over theatrical releases and cable operators, while the W.G.A. argues that our combined market power will hurt writers.”

If one man can decide, in a fit of pique, to scoop up a huge portion of the entertainment industry and float it thousands of miles away, I’d say that’s a decent argument for “too much influence.”

Also, good luck with the landing. Texas and Tennessee are both fine states with vibrant cities, undeniable corporate incentives and lower costs of living, but their draconian abortion laws and restrictive LGBTQ+ legislation may give many in the entertainment industry pause.

Still, according to Ellison, it’s Bonta and his gang who are trying to make things political, not him; in his essay, Ellison claimed that the suit is mostly about preventing his ownership of CNN, despite his insistence that (the hiring of Bari Weiss to oversee CBS News to the contrary) the news network would remain autonomous.

As a journalist, I would love to believe that Bonta and the other attorneys general are simply going to bat for the Fourth Estate; with President Trump openly longing for the day when Ellison controls CNN, it is no doubt a concern. But as Ellison seems intent on personally underscoring, the bigger issue is how to prevent a dwindling number of individuals from controlling enormous portions of an industry that not only employs millions, but also plays a vital role in shaping the nature of art and culture in this country and the world.

(Never mind the queasy fact that Ellison is being bankrolled by his billionaire father Larry, who is putting many, if not all, of his eggs in the AI basket, to the detriment of his employees.)

Shaping art and culture is, of course, precisely why Ellison wants to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, almost literally at all costs. When he first lost the bid for Warner Bros. to Netflix, he (and his dad) responded by offering enough money (including a $7-billion payout should the deal not clear antitrust regulation) to make Ted Sarandos blink. Money has always been a ladder to power and influence in this country, and the widening wealth gap, not to mention the current administration, has turned the ladder into a rocket ship. (See please Elon Musk.)

Ellison has continually stressed his love of cinematic storytelling. Under the proposed Paramount Warner, he promises to produce 30 theatrical films and 170 television series a year and create more work for everyone.

That would be lovely (if fiscally difficult) to believe. If only he hadn’t just tried to hold the state that gave birth to cinematic storytelling hostage by threatening to kidnap one of its kids.

As negotiating tactics go, it certainly undermines whatever public approval he hoped to gain with his “I’m just a guy, standing in front of the movie biz asking it to love me” bit.

Change is coming for Paramount Studios — the lot on Melrose Avenue — either way. If Paramount Skydance acquires Warner Bros., production will likely shift to the Warner Bros. lot, with Paramount leased or sold.

Now, it seems, Ellison is willing to have a fire sale — he’ll certainly need to raise a bunch of cash if he’s going to quickly flee to redder pastures. As for the thousands of local workers who depend on Paramount production to make a living, well, Ellison and his executives may be able to afford to relocate or (more probably) commute out of state, but most of the people who actually make movies and television cannot.

Business, of course, is business and it has become financially and politically fashionable to desert California to avoid whatever local law, regulation or tax you now find unfair. Tech mavens, including Musk, have ditched California for the Lone Star State. Ellison’s father recently took Oracle out of Redwood City, first to Austin, Texas, then to Nashville, workers be damned.

But Ellison taking Paramount and potentially Warner Bros. out of Los Angeles isn’t about business. It’s pure politics, of the savage, oligarchical variety.

Given the stakes, it’s difficult to imagine that some sort of deal won’t be struck that allows the sale to go through. But Ellison isn’t saving the entertainment industry, he’s leveraging it.

And if he has to spit in Hollywood’s face to save his own, well, apparently that’s fine too.

SACRAMENTO — As the campaign for California governor heads into the general election, Democrat Xavier Becerra maintains a strong lead over Republican Steve Hilton, according to a new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

Buoyed by the state’s liberal voting base, Becerra had support from 55% of likely voters surveyed — compared with Hilton’s 37%. The remaining 7% were undecided.

Like in a previous IGS poll conducted in late May, support for each candidate falls overwhelmingly along partisan lines: 88% of Democrats prefer Becerra and 91% of Republicans plan to back Hilton. No-party-preference voters also lean heavily toward Becerra, a former Biden administration Cabinet member, 58% to Hilton’s 30%.

The two will face off in the Nov. 3 general election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred from running again and considering a 2028 bid for president. Becerra, whose resume includes stints as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and state attorney general, is heavily favored to win the seat over Hilton, a former Fox News host who advised a prime minister in his native Britain.

“After the unsettled and chaotic primary, this is shaping up to be a fairly standard California general election, where Democrats enjoy a comfortable edge statewide,” said Eric Schickler, a political science professor and IGS co-director. “Hilton would need to make major inroads among traditionally Democratic-leaning groups to make this a highly competitive race.”

According to the poll, majorities of voters across age, gender and racial categories prefer Becerra — with particularly strong support among women, younger voters and Black Californians.

Becerra emerged from the primary ahead of more progressive opponents, including billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and quickly earned the backing of their onetime supporters, said IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

“These are people who say, ‘I identify as a progressive.’ ‘I identify as a democratic socialist.’ They’re overwhelmingly for Becerra, and it’s mainly because they really don’t think very much of the Republicans as a party. It’s not so much about Hilton himself,” DiCamillo said.

Regionally, the poll found voters in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, along with the Bay Area and Central Coast, prefer Becerra. Hilton leads in the state’s more sparsely populated and conservative-leaning areas, including the Central Valley and North Coast/Sierra region.

Politically purple Orange County and the economically stressed Inland Empire are more closely divided but lean toward Hilton.

When asked why they support each candidate, voters largely cited conventional partisan issues.

More than half of Hilton backers, 55%, pointed to his support for traditionally Republican policies such as cutting taxes and reducing government regulation. It was followed by 28% who said they prefer Hilton because he is not part of California’s political establishment.

Hilton’s platform includes making Californians’ first $150,000 in annual earnings tax-free, slashing government regulations and ramping up oil production in hopes of achieving $3-per-gallon gas prices.

“Those are the benefits, but the underlying mission that I’ve set [for] myself as the next governor is to transform our business climate to make California competitive again, so that we do get the investment and the job creation and start to turn things around. I think it’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction,” Hilton said Tuesday during a political conference in Sacramento.

Becerra supporters were evenly divided over their top reasons for supporting him; 38% cited his support for Democratic policies such as expanding healthcare and protecting LGBTQ+ rights, while another 38% expect him to aggressively fight the Trump administration.

The poll suggests that, in California, President Trump factors more heavily into Democratic voters’ political decisions than Republicans’.

“One of the reasons Becerra is doing so well is because of his opposition to Trump,” DiCamillo said. “For Hilton supporters, not so much. His endorsement by the president is only cited by 4% as a reason why they’re supporting Hilton.”

The former Health secretary has an extensive plan to lower healthcare costs and frequently touts the more than 120 lawsuits he filed as California attorney general against the first Trump administration. At the Tuesday political event hosted by Politico, Becerra said, “California will become the backstop for healthcare” after Trump signed a tax bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

To prevent an estimated 2 million people from losing their health insurance because of the cuts and rising premiums, Becerra pitched a deal directly to insurance companies: “I will ensure people stay covered. You ensure that you help me reduce the cost. I ensure that you get paid.”

Thirteen percent said they’re supporting Becerra because he is a Democrat and 7% said the same about Hilton’s Republican affiliation.

Just 4% of Latino respondents and 1% of the total sample of likely voters said they would vote for Becerra because he is a Latino candidate and a child of immigrants.

Each candidate saw a small bump in support since the May poll, which asked registered voters just before the primary election to pick between them in a then-hypothetical matchup. In that survey, 52% chose Becerra and 31% supported Hilton.

Just under half of voters, 49%, have a favorable opinion of Becerra while 43% have an unfavorable view. Hilton’s favorability rating is underwater, with 39% of likely voters viewing him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

The numbers present a challenge for Hilton, who is trying to overcome the state’s pronounced Democratic tilt by appealing to independent voters frustrated with issues such as homelessness and California’s high cost of living.

“That might, for him, be the swing block,” DiCamillo said. “But among no-party-preference voters, his image rating is negative, 59% to 31%, whereas Becerra’s image rating is pretty much the same as it is statewide, which is positive.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Aug. 3 to 9. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 2,310 respondents considered likely voters in the November election, out of a larger group of 4,207 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

SACRAMENTO — Two state lawmakers from Los Angeles want tougher penalties for disasters caused by industrial companies after a massive fire in Boyle Heights left neighbors struggling with smoky air and the smell of rotting meat.

Assemblymember Mark González and state Sen. María Elena Durazo, both Democrats, are seeking a new law that would require any new cold storage facility to create a contingency fund for emergencies.

The fund would be used to help neighbors mitigate the fallout from a disaster.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is running for reelection, will appear with González and Durazo at an event Wednesday to discuss the proposed laws.

Lineage’s 500,000-square-foot food warehouse in Boyle Heights caught fire on June 17. The company blames a power company, which was working on the warehouse’s roof, for the blaze.

The company, Altus Power, has denied responsibility, stating that the cause is undetermined. The company accused Lineage of finger-pointing instead of focusing on community relief.

Noxious smoke and an influx of rats and flies attracted to rotting meat stored at the facility have tormented neighbors. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has cited Lineage for unsanitary and nuisance conditions related to rodent and pest control violations.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has issued at least 20 violation notices to Lineage for public nuisance.

Lineage recently applied for building permits to replace the site, which Bass called “a slap in the face” to Boyle Heights families.

A press release ahead of Wednesday’s news conference said the proposal by lawmakers “will ensure that Lineage can’t rebuild without being accountable to the community.”

González and Durazo plan to insert proposed legislation related to the Lineage fire into existing bills, a process known as “gut and amend.”

The politicians also want to allow for stiffer fines against companies following a disaster.

Their proposed legislation also would ensure that anyone who sues over the fire doesn’t have to pay state taxes on any settlement, and that local jurisdictions are responsible for pest extermination efforts.

Greg Lehmkuhl, president and chief executive of Lineage, said in a quarterly earnings call last week that the company has committed $3.3 million to the community in the aftermath of the fire.

“Safety remains our top priority, and I’m incredibly proud of our team and how they’re handling this very challenging situation,” Lehmkuhl said on the call.