state

WASHINGTON — Democratic upsets in this year’s midterms, which stretched from the suburbs of Atlanta to rural Kansas, could reshape the electoral map that governs presidential politics — and, with it, the calculus for each party in the fight for the nation’s top office in 2028.

Democrats were already cautioning against overconfidence, discussing how to translate their midterm success into more lasting power and to draw back Tuesday’s voters in 2028.

For Republicans, the defeat set off something close to an existential crisis, with would-be contenders for the party’s presidential nomination openly debating what had gone wrong and how the party should regroup after voters rebuked President Trump’s agenda.

And members of both parties were taking stock of the deep reach Democrats demonstrated Tuesday, with Senate, House and state legislative seats flipped in red strongholds that have not been up for grabs in a presidential race in years.

The midterm results have “enlarged the competitive map” for 2028, said Alex Keyssar, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, who has written books about voting rights and the electoral college. States such as Texas and Georgia may no longer be considered long-safe GOP territory, he said, leaving Republicans with fewer states they can count on and more ground they will have to spend money to defend.

“The number of states that the Republicans can feel secure that they have has diminished,” he said. “And the flip side of that is that there are more states that the Democrats can compete in. And that’s a shift.”

Presidential hopefuls typically begin putting together exploratory committees soon after the midterms, announce their candidacies after the new year and begin fundraising by midyear. Potential candidates began putting down markers swiftly this week.

On Thursday, allies of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) launched a fundraising committee for his potential candidacy. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run, commuted the death sentences of all California’s death row prisoners. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker this week released a road map with recommendations for the new Congress.

And party leaders in Washington were nodding to 2028 as they outlined broad plans for their House and Senate majorities.

“As we look to 2028 and beyond, we need to start identifying now, in 2027, to solidify our position in the states we won and build our party infrastructure in those areas,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told an audience Wednesday at the think tank Center for American Progress, “and continue to expand the map into new states.”

Meanwhile, Republican leaders moved swiftly to assert authority within their party with analyses and prescriptions after Tuesday’s battering. Vice President JD Vance, long seen as a potential Trump heir, on Wednesday rushed to blame the sweeping losses on the president’s war in Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, whose state of Texas saw a historic blue wave, faulted his party for ignoring the economic pain many voters face. And Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, one of the few states where Republicans held the line, called the midterms an “extinction level event for Republicans” that will last beyond 2028.

“Once you have the [midterm] election results, that’s when like the real literal politicking begins, and you have to move quick,” said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist who worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the presidential campaigns of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.

For the GOP, Tuesday’s results will mean spending more money in places such as Texas that the party has traditionally counted on to get their candidates to 270 electoral votes, Keyssar said.

“When the map shifts, the strategies have to shift, and that includes the allocation of money,” he said.

For Democrats, the midterms demonstrated that the party should be “investing heavily in the coastal South,” said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist. The party needs to “recognize the moment and meet it,” she said, pointing to the unexpectedly close Senate races in Florida and Mississippi.

“If you’re the Democratic Party at the national level, you now have to ask yourself different questions about the calculus,” Grant said.

It is generally difficult to predict the next presidential election outcome based on the results of the preceding midterms, said Justin Grimmer, a political scientist at Stanford University.

“Right now there’s this incentive or dream of Democrats to think, like, ‘Well, what if this were 2028? Then it’s a landslide.’ And then Republicans are fearful that if this map were to carry forward, that they would get ransacked in ‘28,” Grimmer said.

But “it’s hard to know what the major issues are gonna be in 2028, who the candidates are, and what sort of world we’ll be in.”

‘No silver lining’

President Trump has so far declined to endorse a successor, saying it is “too early” to make the call, though he has praised both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said Wednesday. “You can have maybe a lot of people running, maybe nobody is going to run. … I don’t know who is going to run.”

Trump cast doubt on whether Vance would eventually run. But Vance appeared to be signaling 2028 aspiration with a post that pinned the GOP defeats on the Iran conflict launched by Trump this year.

The scale of the midterm losses may be the most useful thing for Republicans moving toward 2028, Gorman argued.

“The silver lining is that there’s no silver lining,” Gorman said.

That’s because there is nothing to cling to. “It’s a bottoming-out,” he said, which frees the party to begin “rebuilding conversations.”

The larger danger for whoever leads the party next is assuming that Trump’s voters come with the nomination, he argued, saying the 2028 nominee will have to create their own voter coalition. The same applies to Democrats, Gorman said, pointing to Latino voters who swung toward Trump in 2024 and back toward Democrats this year.

Such groups of swing voters, said California Republican consultant Mike Madrid, care about economic and quality-of-life-issues, not culture-war and partisan issues.

Madrid said that if he were advising a 2028 presidential contender, he would tell them, “Quit talking about these differences, or at least set these differences in the construct of a class-based, top down model — not a right left model.”

Time to ‘deliver’

With Democrats set for a wide-open presidential primary with a large array of candidates, the sweeping success on Tuesday of the party’s populist platform could influence how 2028 contenders run their campaigns.

Democratic leaders in Congress have said they intend to make affordability a centerpiece of their legislative agenda as soon as they take control of both chambers next year. But any measure will still need Trump’s signature, setting up an early test of whether Democrats can hand voters tangible results before 2028 — or end up with a stack of vetoes to campaign on instead.

“We have won immense amounts of political power, and now it’s the most important time in which to deliver,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) told reporters Wednesday, “so we can keep that political power.”

Now that voters expect Democrats to clean up the nation’s problems in the next session, the party has to ensure that is “backed up by real results” — something anyone who is preparing a 2028 run will need to have in mind, strategist Rob Flaherty said at the Center for American Progress event Thursday.

“That is a huge thing that whoever we nominate has to be thinking about: quick delivery, quick change that people can substantively feel in their lives,” Flaherty said.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who has not ruled out a presidential run, told reporters Thursday that some states may now be more “swing-ish” and that the Democrats will need to “take in” and analyze Tuesday’s data.

But, he said, voters’ top issues will remain the same.

“The candidates … that can answer those things authentically and well for the voter,” he said, are “going to be the more successful” ones.

The Times is tracking race results across California, Congress and Los Angeles County from the moment polls close until the secretary of state certifies results in early December.

Twenty-three million registered voters in the state received a ballot by mail this fall. The vote count starts once the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. However, winners may not be known on election night because of the state’s mail-in and conditional ballot process.

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

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

NEW YORK — New York appeals judges grilled President Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors Thursday about his bid to erase his historic hush money conviction, but the court didn’t signal how or when it would rule.

The judges delved into legal theory, presidential immunity and some evidence in Trump’s 2024 trial. Convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, Trump denies any wrongdoing. He has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.

Trump, who denounced the case on social media as recently as September, didn’t attend Thursday’s court session.

Much of the back-and-forth focused on prosecutors’ theory that the hush money was meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate before the 2016 vote, and that it amounted to an illegal campaign contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the judges that Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s office has no place tying a case to a federal election law.

“We think it’s the most obvious ground for reversal,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that they weren’t prosecuting an alleged federal campaign finance offense, but rather presenting it as a factor underlying what they claim was a Trump-orchestrated conspiracy.

“So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records [charge]?” Justice Troy Webber asked.

“Only partially,” replied Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, adding that it was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy.”

Judges drill down on question about White House conversations

The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House workflow and conversations — some with then-Communications Director Hope Hicks — and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.

“Ms. Hicks was serving as a White House official,” talking with the president about how to respond to press inquiries that implicitly concerned his fitness for office, Giuffra told the appeals judges.

Wu countered later: “In this conversation, they were not speaking about a press response. … The president was talking to her about his private opinion.”

The appeals judges pressed both sides about the matter and the specifics of Hicks’ testimony. She told jurors that she asked Trump how he wanted to respond, but as for what he said, she testified only that he expressed relief that the Daniels story hadn’t emerged during the campaign.

Bragg’s office contends that all the White House-related evidence was fair game. The conversations were “unofficial conduct,” some of the other evidence was public record, and some was a general description of office practices, prosecutors say. They maintain that even if some of the evidence should have been excluded, its admission was a “harmless error” that doesn’t warrant overturning a conviction that rested on “a mountain” of other proof against Trump.

Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke wondered aloud about that.

“If you take all of those things cumulatively, right, and there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence, at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” she asked.

“It would have to be a lot more than there was in this case,” Wu responded.

Trump’s lawyers also have argued the case was political

While the appeal turns on complex legal disputes, political overtones aren’t hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team’s court filings contended that the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president’s own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.

The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. Though historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.

The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump’s then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.

Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump’s behalf wasn’t hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.

The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn’t a felony unless it’s done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.

While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments set for Nov. 16.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

Courage in politics is rare.

It’s especially difficult and fraught for a politician such as Gavin Newsom, who has Oval Office ambitions and everything to lose from a misstep. Playing it safe is playing it smart.

On Thursday, Newsom took what can only be described as a courageous stand, a risky stand — commuting the death sentences of the 548 men and women condemned to die in California, and instead seeking to change their sentences to life without parole.

Many people will stop reading right now because honestly, do you care what happens to those on death row? They’ve raped, murdered, robbed, tortured — you name the heinous crime, one of them has done it. They are not the most sympathetic lot, and in truth many of us have ambivalent feelings on the death penalty.

It’s that ambivalence, that uncertainty, that makes Newsom’s move so interesting. We are in the most unlikely of moments — witnessing a self-inflicted test of political endurance from a savvy politician who didn’t need to go there. What happens in these strange days when a presidential hopeful takes an unnecessary risk simply because he believes it’s the right thing to do?

Newsom will be roasted by those claiming to be tough-on-crime types. They predictably will cry that he is circumventing the will of the people and disrespecting crime victims and juries. Some will say he cares more about criminals than victims. Fox News is going to have a field day.

Newsom has publicly pondered this decision for some time, calling it a “rocking chair” choice, one he’s likely to look back on someday to judge whether he lived up to his own ideals. He has said he is morally opposed to the state killing to prove killing is bad. As he terms out of office, he had only a couple of months left to take action on that belief before the power to end the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere slips out of his hands.

“Faithfulness to our values is measured by how we act when it’s most difficult to uphold them,” Newsom wrote in a letter to Californians announcing his decision. This, he said, was one of those moments for him.

“Americans are looking for leadership that is more principled,” civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson told me, arguing Newsom’s move is actually in sync with the electorate. Stevenson is one of the people Newsom has talked to about the death penalty, and the founder of the Legacy Museum in Alabama, which traces the line from slavery to mass incarceration.

The shocking blue-wave midterms showed that Americans aren’t just tired of cruelty for cruelty’s sake, he said. They are tired of injustice, tired of selfish, self-serving leaders, tired of fearing that their own government might crush them simply because it can.

Across the country, voters elected political leaders who stood for something — who bucked the trends to run on their values and vision of a better America, even if it wasn’t mainstream or safe.

So whether Americans agree with Newsom’s decision to commute these sentences to life without parole or not, voters are at a moment when I suspect, as Stevenson does, that they may embrace his courage to stand for something, even if they don’t agree with what that something is.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of that power of government to crush. Support for it has been mixed for years, even among liberals — though young people are less likely to back it. It has been banned in nearly every Western democracy including almost all of Europe, Canada and New Zealand.

Twenty-seven U.S. states either have abolished it or have gubernatorial moratoriums on it (Newsom enacted one in California a few years ago). And President Biden commuted the death sentences of most federal inmates in his final days of office, as have several other governors over the years.

There also has been a growing understanding in the U.S. that race bias is baked into how we use the death penalty. Black and brown people make up the majority of those on death row, and crimes in which the victim is white are more likely to draw the death sentence — even when we get it wrong.

More than 200 people on death row have been exonerated across the United States since the 1970s — including eight in California — meaning that for every eight people we have put to death, there has been one other who was going to be killed by the state until we figured out they were innocent.

So while there’s a moral argument to be made against the state killing people to prove killing people is wrong, there’s also a practical one: It turns out we’re really bad at imposing a lethal sentence fairly, or even correctly.

Vicente Benavides Figueroa is proof of that. After 25 years on death row, the justice system finally realized it had made a terrible error in his conviction. Figueroa wasn’t just railroaded into a lethal sentence — for the murder, rape and sodomy of a toddler — the crime itself likely never actually happened.

Figueroa was a seasonal farmworker, a Mexican immigrant with less than a high school education, who was watching his girlfriend’s kids in the Central Valley in 1991 when he lost track of the youngest, Consuelo, for 15 minutes. When he found her, she was in the front yard, unresponsive and vomiting.

One thing led to another — a “reckless” investigation, as his civil attorney Salomon Zavala, describes it; faulty translators; a mostly white jury who werefar from his peers; and erroneous medical testimony — and Figueroa was convicted. The machine of justice was so grinding that Figueroa did not understand he had been sentenced to death until he got to San Quentin.

Decades later, the doctors who claimed Consuelo was raped and sodomized would realize the injuries were likely because of trauma from medical workers attempting to insert an adult-sized catheter. They recanted. New experts, hired by the defense, theorized the child had been hit by a car, causing the extensive internal injuries that killed her. The witnesses now agreed the child never had been raped or sodomized.

Figueroa’s conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2018, citing false evidence in the original trial.

“No matter what your moral position is on the death penalty, I think we have to look at it from a standpoint of institutional responsibility,” Zavala, the lawyer, told me. “We have to really think about whether we, as a society, are comfortable with executing someone that could potentially be innocent.”

I’m of the mind that erroneously killing one person in the name of justice is one too many — that the death penalty is an unacceptable risk.

I take nothing away from, nor mean to diminish, the importance or pain of any victim, their story or their point of view. Their pain is real and enduring, and surely there will be some who feel Newsom’s decision robs them of some sort of final resolution.

But pain cannot define justice.

It’s easy to forget that Newsom is married to a survivor of violent crime, and knows as well as anyone how complicated and difficult and personal the journey to recovery is, and how that suffering affects not just victims, but also families and communities.

But whether or not the state should be in the business of killing has to be a bigger decision that we consider collectively in moments when we are not in distress.

Newsom’s decision does that, seeking to go beyond “these performative sentences that just represent a lot of fear and anger,” Stevenson said, and move our justice system toward one that lives up to the ideal of promoting safety and fairness over vengeance. And even then, the state Supreme Court will have a say in the majority of these clemencies, since Newsom needs their approval in cases where there are repeat felonies.

But it’s a can of worms he didn’t have to open — the clearest statement we’ll ever get of who Newsom is as a leader.

And it’s a welcome reminder that sometimes, occasionally, values still have a place in politics.

Technology companies Google, Meta and Tik Tok sued the state of California on Wednesday to block a new law that restricts companies from targeting children younger than 16 with “addictive” social media content that can keep them scrolling for hours.

Assembly Bill 1709, introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), bars social media sites from providing features such as autoplay and recommended content displays to teenagers and young children.

The social media companies, which filed separate lawsuits in federal court, cited their 1st Amendment right to free speech and the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by third parties. Meta Platforms, as well as Google and YouTube, filed lawsuits in the Northern District of California. TikTok filed in the Central District.

California’s attempt to “appoint the State as the editor, curator and controller of online speech” and “override Meta’s editorial judgment about how to curate and display these billions of posts of third-party speech,” violates the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Meta wrote in its lawsuit. The technology company owns Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

A representative for Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office was reviewing the litigation.

The legal action follows successful lawsuits brought against the tech giants by California and others that have resulted in massive civil settlements. At the same time, the tech industry continues to file legal challenges to block state efforts to rein in social media companies.

Lowenthal said earlier this year he was inspired to seek more safeguards for social media users, citing the anxiety and depression among children who grew up with access to cellphones, tablets and computer screens.

The addictive nature of autoplay and other features is “harmful, full stop, and that they’re not appropriate for the developing brain,” Lowenthal said.

Tech industry groups opposed Lowentha’s bill, arguing it would hamper users’ ability to connect with family and friends.

Meta and others sued last year over Senate Bill 976, a similar bill known as “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” that bars addictive feeds and certain features to minors without parental consent. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals likely will hear arguments in the case next spring, Courthouse News Services reported last month.

Both Senate Bill 976 and Assembly Bill 1709 go into effect on Jan. 1.

TikTok, in its lawsuit filed Wednesday, argues that AB 1709 essentially overrides SB 976, preventing a social media site from providing “addictive features,” even if parents consent to a minor’s use of the features. The company also argued it has restrictions in place to protect teens.

“The consequence is that a parent who has reviewed TikTok’s platform, linked her account to her fifteen-year-old’s account through Family Pairing, set a 30-minute daily screen-limit, enabled Restricted Mode, and concluded that a personalized For You feed introducing her daughter to new musicians and science educators is appropriate for her family has no ability under California law to make that choice,” Tik Tok’s attorneys wrote. “Nor does the fifteen-year-old daughter have any say in her online expression.”

California is home to some of the biggest social media companies, who increasingly are facing lawsuits over their products. California was among dozens of states that sued Meta in 2023, alleging it designed harmful and addictive features to hook children while misleading the public about the dangers. Some of the harms included depression, anxiety, addiction and body image issues as young people compare themselves to others on social media.

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and make changes to its Facebook and Instagram platforms, including hiding likes and reactions and blocking teens from using extreme makeup filters. The company also said it would enact a default two-hour daily time limit that teens can turn off only with parental permission, mute notifications during school hours and implement a night access mode that blocks its apps from midnight to 6 a.m.

In another landmark case, a Los Angeles jury in March found that Instagram and YouTube were responsible for the suffering of a Chico, Calif., woman who charged the platforms were addictive by design. The 20-year-old, who was awarded $6 million damages, said she became hooked on YouTube and Instagram in grade school.

Richard Barrera will be the next state superintendent of public instruction, with opponent Sonja Shaw conceding the race on Wednesday.

Barrera, the school board president of San Diego Unified, was ahead by double digits in ongoing tallies and already had declared victory. He was the heavy favorite as the Democrat in the race, even though the office is listed as nonpartisan.

Barrera, 59, described his campaign message as “a positive vision for our public schools. We’ve got so many examples of great work happening in our public schools that deserve to be elevated.”

He also campaigned on increasing school funding and “a message that our public schools need to be healthy, safe communities for all of our students. I think that was a clear contrast to a message that our public schools are failing.”

Barrera benefited from more than $9 million in independent campaign spending in support of his election by the California Teachers Assn., or CTA, which he said was instrumental in helping him get his message out.

In a social media post conceding the race Wednesday night, Shaw said she ran “because I believe California’s children deserve better.”

“The problem is that for decades, the same people have had their hands on our education system, while our children have continued to fall behind,” she said in the post. “I believed we had an opportunity to change that. I still believe in the movement we created. They want us to give up, we are not going to!”

The superintendent’s office has an uncertain future. In June, the Legislature signed off on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to reshape the position, transferring oversight of schools and management of the state Education Department to an appointee of the governor. By nearly all accounts, the state superintendent’s power has been dramatically reduced. Many of the new duties of the elected office have yet to be worked out.

Barrera hopes to move quickly as an education advocate, laying out specific budget proposals and policy priorities in setting an agenda for Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra to respond to.

Although Barrera prevailed by a comfortable margin, Shaw outperformed other statewide Republican candidates in Tuesday’s blue wave election for Democrats.

Overall, Barrera and Shaw fit squarely within their ideological camps.

A centerpiece of Shaw’s campaign was her opposition to allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports — a position that had strong support in recent polling.

Barrera supports California law on this matter, which allows transgender participation. He has noted that the number of transgender athletes is exceedingly small.

Shaw, 44, broadly characterized the public education system as failing because of liberal Democratic policies, although she praised the quality of the public schools where she lives, Chino, which is in San Bernardino County.

On the November ballot, Barrera supported tax measures that benefit education. He also has consistently opposed Trump administration policies. He has sought to offer support for families affected by immigration enforcement as a senior official in the state’s second-largest school system.

Shaw’s views correspond closely with those of the Trump administration’s Education Department, although during the campaign, she repeatedly separated her policy positions from those of Trump, asserting, for example, in a campaign forum, that she “never even met with the dude.”

As a school board president, Shaw led efforts to ban unsanctioned flags on campuses and in classrooms. Some conservative activists have promulgated such bans with the aim of targeting gay pride flags. Shaw’s board majority also approved mandatory parent notification of their child’s gender-identity expression at school and a policy that allowed parents to challenge school library books with content they deemed sexually explicit. The parent notification policy is tied up in litigation, and advocates have filed a challenge to the library book policy with the state Education Department.

CTA’s campaigning for Barrera was embedded in the union’s hard push for Proposition 3, an initiative that would establish as permanent the current higher tax rates on state residents with the highest taxable income — about the top 2%.

Shaw opposed Proposition 3, which was well ahead Thursday morning.

Leading up to this race, CTA had backed the last eight winners for the state schools office, going back 32 years.

With a crowded field of Democrats in the June primary, Shaw had an opening as a Republican and finished first with 22.6% of the vote, compared with Barrera’s 20.3%.

Analysts, however, expected Barrera to consolidate the votes of Democrats and predicted that the support of CTA, and other unions to a lesser extent, would make a difference for him.

Leaving the office is two-term incumbent Tony Thurmond, who was barred by term limits from serving again and ran unsuccessfully for governor.

Gov. Gavin Newsom told the California Supreme Court Thursday that he will commute the death sentences of all 548 state prisoners awaiting execution, reducing their punishments to life in prison without parole.

Newsom can commute about 40% of the death sentences with the stroke of a pen, but the rest will require the high court’s approval in order to be finalized.

The mass commutation would apply to inmates convicted of some of the most heinous acts in the state’s history. Newsom and other opponents of capital punishment have long argued that the process is costly, cruel and discriminatory, with death sentences disproportionately handed down to defendants of color.

“I take this action because I firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values, undermines the foundation of our legal system, and diminishes each of us,” Newsom wrote in a letter to Californians explaining his decision. “I know we cannot execute people in our imperfect legal system and remain true to our core values, first among them justice and human decency.”

The move comes in Newsom’s final months as governor and as he considers a run for president. Reducing the death sentences could help him in a primary with a Democratic base of like-minded liberal voters, but potentially hurt him in a general election with a national electorate that supports capital punishment.

The decision to officially spare the condemned inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed a prisoner since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs every year. Only 13 inmates have been killed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978. The state’s electorate reaffirmed its support a decade ago, voting down a ballot initiative that would have abolished capital punishment. Polls show its popularity has waned in the years since.

Despite his outspoken opposition to state-sanctioned executions, the governor has declined to use his political influence with voters to pursue a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to align with his position and officially end the death penalty. Without changing state law, criminals can continue to be sentenced to death in California.

“California voters have voted to keep the death penalty on the books and I respect that,” Newsom wrote in the letter to Californians. “But the constitution also gave every governor clemency authority, and that power exists for moments when law as applied cannot be squared with justice. For me, this is that moment.”

Newsom made national headlines two months after his inauguration in 2019 when he issued a temporary moratorium on executions and vowed to dismantle the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison, now called San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.

Calling the death penalty system a “failure,” Newsom said the punishment is also often reserved for poor people who cannot afford expensive legal representation, fails to deter crime and wastes taxpayer money.

Careful to avoid elevating a death penalty debate in the midterm elections, Newsom intentionally waited until after the general election on Tuesday to go a step further and launch the process of commuting all California death penalty sentences.

The decision is another bold signature Newsom move that sits well with his base of support in California and wealthy, white and college-educated national voters who would be crucial to his success in a Democratic presidential primary, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant.

However, his liberal stance on government executions could also create a vulnerability for him if he advances in the 2028 presidential election as the party’s nominee.

“Gavin’s exactly right with that base Democratic voter on that position,” Madrid said. “One hundred percent. It makes him a champion.”

But more moderate blue-collar voters who helped the party flip Congress in the midterms, Madrid added, are “not in line with him on this.”

A poll conducted in August by the Pew Research Center found that about two-thirds of voters nationally favor the death penalty for people convicted or murder.

Those numbers could shift following the botched lethal injection of Christa Pike in Tennessee in September and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s now-scuttled plan to livestream the execution of Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan by firing squad.

“Those events have really ripped the veneer off the death penalty in this country,” said attorney Natasha Minsker of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition. “The death penalty is an act of violence. It’s taking another life. I think that’s become clear to the entire country.”

The state spends more than $200 million a year to adjudicate automatic death penalty appeals and habeas corpus petitions for inmates who, in all likelihood, will never be executed, according to a 2025 report by the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.

The case of Clarence Ray Allen, the last inmate killed by lethal injection in California 20 years ago, is emblematic of how the law has failed, death penalty opponents say.

Allen was 76, making him the second-oldest person ever executed in the United States. He had been on death row for 23 years and his appeals cost the state more than $750,000. Many current condemned inmates are even older — some in their 80s and 90s — and their appeals even more drawn out and expensive.

“It’s just a broken system,” said Michael Hersek, former executive director of Habeas Corpus Resource Center and an ex-state public defender.

Taxpayers foot the bill for both the defense and the prosecution in post-conviction capital cases, as well as the administrative judicial costs associated with years of complicated appeals in state and federal court.

The existing appeal requirements were instituted to counter long-standing racial bias in capital sentencing. Attempts to reform and expedite the appeals process over the years have further gummed up the system.

“There is no indication that the situation has improved, and … [there are] data indicating that it has worsened,” Justice Leondra R. Kruger wrote for the California Supreme Court in 2024.

It’s estimated that death penalty appeals alone constitute about a quarter of the work of the California Supreme Court.

“It’s ludicrous, the amount of time, resources and energy put into these cases,” Hersek said.

Some victims’ families agree.

“The death penalty is this promise to people who are angry and broken that you’re somehow going to make them feel better by executing this person,” said Bethany Webb, whose sister Laura was among eight people killed in a mass shooting in Seal Beach in 2011.

Their mother was also shot and badly injured in the attack.

“It is brutalizing to family members, the whole system,” Webb said.

Others say Newsom’s latest move is a betrayal of the justice they were promised.

“It’s total disrespect for the victims. It’s a slap in the face,” said Sandy Friend, whose 8-year-old son Michael Lyons was abducted, raped and murdered in 1996.

She and other relatives stressed the unique brutality of many capital crimes, saying Newsom did not consider victims’ suffering when commuting their killers’ sentences.

The commutations would go to inmates such as Charles Ng, who was convicted of killing six men, three women and two infant boys in Northern California in 1984 and 1985. Also in line to benefit is Richard Allen Davis, who abducted and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma in 1993, sparking a months-long search that gripped the nation. Another condemned inmate, Christopher Cheary, was convicted of murdering, raping and torturing his girlfriend’s 3-year-old daughter, Sophia Acosta, in Tulare County.

Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra also opposes the death penalty. If state leaders wanted to resume executions, experts say it would take the better part of a decade and millions of dollars in new spending for the state to design and approve a workable protocol for lethal injections, rebuild a death chamber and secure the gray-market drugs necessary to perform executions.

Legal experts believe the end of the death penalty is likely inevitable in California, with or without Newsom’s involvement.

In 2024, the Office of the State Public Defender sued California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, arguing “persistent and pervasive racial disparities infect California’s death penalty system.”

This spring, the California Supreme Court ordered Bonta’s California Department of Justice to show cause why it should not declare the death penalty unconstitutional — a move widely read as signaling the justices’ ultimate intent to end it.

“The statistical findings in the studies invoked by petitioners are extraordinarily disturbing,” Bonta wrote in his reply to the order in August. “Evidence of pervasive racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty could show that California’s capital punishment system gives rise to a constitutionally intolerable risk of arbitrariness.”

Around 60% of the inmates in line for commutations would require review and approval by the California Supreme Court before Newsom’s term ends in January. Those cases involve prisoners who had a felony conviction on their record prior to receiving a death sentence, or racked up additional crimes while awaiting execution.

The high court previously rejected 10 clemency cases without much clarification when Gov. Jerry Brown submitted them in 2018 months before he left office.

If approved by the California Supreme Court, the immediate effect could be relatively muted. The death chamber was taken down and all but a handful of the remaining condemned inmates were relocated from segregated housing in San Quentin to other facilities across the state after Newsom’s 2019 moratorium.

The decision to formally pause executions drew support from the late Pope Francis during Newsom’s 2024 trip to the Vatican, according to the governor’s retelling of a brief conversation between the two men.

In a subsequent interview, the governor said his Catholic background and the inequities in the criminal justice system influenced his refusal to sign off on executions. His father, the late William Newsom, also opposed the death penalty.

His father and grandfather were involved in the case of Pete Pianezzi, a friend who was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting and killing of a gambler and busboy in Los Angeles in 1937.

Pianezzi escaped the death penalty by a single vote and served 13 years in prison. He was later exonerated.

Even if it were possible to limit inequity and wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, Newsom has said he would still be against the death penalty.

“The decision is among the most difficult in my career, not because I doubt its necessity for our state but because I know its announcement may surface excruciating memories for victims’ families,” Newsom wrote in the letter to Californians. “Today I am acting on my long and deeply held conviction that individually and collectively we are stronger as a society when we reject state-sanctioned killing.”

I was so focused on looking ahead to make sure a mountain lion or bear wasn’t emerging from the fog that I didn’t notice the semitruck headed straight for me.

I simultaneously gasped and panicked.

Then my brain caught up with my body. I remembered I was hiking on a closed highway. And I was staring at, thankfully, stationary construction equipment. My heart rate slowed, and then I wondered aloud: “What’s this doing here?”

Construction equipment sits on a turnout on Highway 39 on a closed segment. Caltrans is, yet again, tending to emergency repairs the highway requires after serious storms last winter.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Last week, I hiked on a foggy, misty day along a 4.4-mile stretch of Highway 39 that’s been closed for almost 50 years, after massive landslides left the road impassable (and too expensive and dangerous to fix). It’s since been a popular hiking and biking route, offering a quiet escape and easy connection to the larger Angeles National Forest. But how long can this road survive the elements, especially with El Niño increasing the odds of substantial storms this winter?

In this week’s edition of The Wild, our weekly outdoors newsletter, I will try to answer that question, which per a recent Reddit discussion, is weighing on local hikers. I can say that, after reporting this out, I actually feel some hope about Highway 39’s future.

On Friday, I began my hike at the start of the highway’s current closure, which lengthens the journey from 4.4 miles to about 6 miles. I parked in a large lot just past the Crystal Lake turnoff.

The gate that leads to the 4.4-mile segment of Highway 39 that has been closed almost 50 years.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

The stretch of Highway 39 that runs from Crystal Lake to Islip Saddle was constructed by inmates from San Quentin and other prisons, opening to traffic on Nov. 6, 1961, according to Times archives. This was part of a long history of California using prison labor — or commonly referred to as “involuntary servitude” by civil rights groups — to construct its roadways. The state is said to have granted workers credits toward reducing their sentences based on the number of days they worked.

The road was quickly at odds with Mother Nature.

Rain during an El Niño winter caused a major landslide in January to February of 1969 near Snow Spring and then again, in February and March of 1978, according to a Caltrans analysis and Times archives.

The roadway has been closed since and remains one of the Caltrans L.A. office’s biggest headaches, as massive boulders frequently tumble down from the jagged mountain side, and landslides remain common. Caltrans, meanwhile, remains bound by state law to maintain the roadway to some degree.

Heaps of scree and dirt line much of the shoulder along the closed segment of Highway 39.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

After my mosey down the closed road, I can easily see why the road is such a headache to repair. A massive boulder blocked most of the right lane (the lane that drivers would take to travel from Azusa to Islip Saddle). Several hillsides had collapsed, sending heaps of scree onto the shoulder or roadway.

One of the biggest challenges, though, for Caltrans is 2.3 miles from the first gate where storms have almost washed out the entire road. The large hole, covered in a thick white material that appears to be plastic, has a steep drop-off into the valley below, resembling someone trying to build an infinity pool in the middle of the forest.

I was surprised to find an active construction project underway.

Highway 39 is often said by influencers and bloggers to be an “abandoned” highway, and although that’s inaccurate, Caltrans has actually tried to relinquish its responsibility of this troubled road. In 2012, the agency asked if either the U.S. Forest Service or Los Angeles County officials would take the reins. Both agencies essentially said, “No thanks!” with the U.S. Forest Service adding that its interpretation of the contract between the state and federal agencies was that Caltrans would actually have to remove the roadway and “return the area to the natural landscape,” according to Times archives.

A large hole where storms destroyed a segment of Highway 39.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

All that‘s to say: Caltrans remains stuck with this road for the foreseeable future and thus has to keep working on it.

Caltrans spokesman Marc Bischoff said in an email that multiple severe winter storms between December 2025 and January 2026 produced higher-than-normal rainfall “that resulted in concentrated runoff down a slope at post mile 40.8 that eroded the slope, berm, and shoulder, and undermined and collapsed the roadway.”

“This section of highway must be repaired as soon as possible to provide access to emergency service response and maintenance vehicles,” Bischoff said. “Work includes excavation and removal of failed roadway and unstable slope material; disposal of material; reconstruction of the embankment; reconstruction of the roadway and shoulder with hot mix asphalt; and placement of erosion control mesh, turf reinforcing mat, fiber rolls, and hydroseeding to stabilize the disturbed slopes and reduce future erosion.”

Tall rock piles line the roadway that’s been closed to vehicles for almost 50 years.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

But Caltrans has plans beyond emergency repairs.

For several years, Caltrans has studied how it should address the future of Highway 39. After weighing several options (including doing nothing) with other state and federal agencies, the agency will move forward with a plan (called Alternative 2) to reopen State Route 39 as an evacuation route for emergency service responders and maintenance crews only. Caltrans will continue to allow hikers and bikers “informal” access to the roadway, according to its January 2025 environmental impact report.

This project is in its design phase. Construction is expected to begin in winter 2032, Bischoff said.

Some of the challenges that Caltrans will face include that, “the highway ascends from an elevation of 5,560 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the southern end to 6,670 feet AMSL at the northern end where it intersects with SR-2. The project area is located in the San Gabriel Mountains, within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by a complex series of mountain ranges and valleys with dominant east–west trends. Most of the roadway alignment and immediate area is predominantly underlain by slightly to moderately weathered and moderately to intensely fractured igneous intrusive bedrock … Due to the geologic conditions, significant rockfall events have occurred at numerous locations throughout the project area,” according to its environmental impact report.

A view of an open stretch of Highway 39 that leads to Crystal Lake Recreation Area, which includes a large campground and cafe.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

During construction, Caltrans might restrict access, though, when it is unsafe for hikers and bikers to pass through. I didn’t see any construction workers or signage barring access when I went. Please follow posted signage, as it’s generally there for your safety.

This closed stretch is even more important to hikers after a massive storm pummeled Angeles Crest Highway, leading Caltrans to close the roadway just past Three Points. (If you’re wondering about what El Niño could potentially do to Highway 2, check out my recent article.)

Clouds dissipate in the late afternoon above an open stretch of Highway 39 north of Azusa.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

With the Angeles Crest Highway closure, hikers could take Highway 39 about six miles to Islip Saddle, rather than the 10-mile journey required by parking at the Angeles Crest Highway closure and walking that stretch of closed road.

Caltrans has tried for years to address Highway 39’s long-term future. The agency projects its current plan will cost an estimated $46 million.

Meanwhile, the agency remains bound by California Streets and Highway Code to maintain the highway. If El Niño brings storms that damage the road again, history suggests Caltrans will fix it, seemingly stuck in an endless loop of patchwork repairs for one of California’s most challenging mountain highways to maintain. That’s a strange silver lining to a bureaucratic nightmare.

3 things to do

A Cabrillo Marine Aquarium staffer teaches children about life in a tide pool.

(Cabrillo Marine Aquarium)

1. Search for cephalopods in San Pedro
Educators from the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium will host tide-pool walks on Saturday (12:30 to 2 p.m.) and Sunday (1:30 to 3 p.m.) at the Point Fermin tide pools in San Pedro. Guests can attend a brief orientation and then head on a naturalist-led hike to see the animals in their natural habitats. Outdoor clothing and closed-toed sneakers are recommended. Learn more about the Saturday and Sunday hikes at cma.recreation.parks.lacity.gov.

2. Assist the land’s recovery near Altadena
We Explore Earth, a community-building outdoors nonprofit, is organizing a volunteer group to repair habitat from 8 to 11:30 a.m. Friday at Eaton Canyon Nature Area. Volunteers should wear close-toed shoes, long pants, work gloves and other protective gear, along with their own water and snacks. Park staff will provide hand tools. Sign up at signupgenius.com.

3. Seek out snowy egrets in Santa Paula
The Ventura County Resource Conservation District will host a free 3-mile walk from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Saturday through the Santa Clara River Preserve (1368 Mission Rock Road in Santa Paula). A bilingual biologist will answer questions as guests meander the habitat, looking out for local bird species. Register at eventbrite.com.

The must-read

Times staff writer Deborah Vankin, left, participates in a 50-minute walking therapy session with therapist Ismary Colón Angueira on the Fern Dell Trail in Griffith Park.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

I often tell my wife as I return home that a hike felt “therapeutic,” but I mean it more in a holistic sense. I leave the trail often in an improved mood with more clarity — sometimes after talking through a problem with myself as the trees listen. But I hadn’t thought about meeting my therapist on the trail. Times staff writer Deborah Vankin recently explored the practice of walking therapy by taking a hike through Griffith Park with psychotherapist Ismary Colón Angueira, who specializes in the modality. “Bringing people back into relationship with nature,” Colón Angueira said, “is the bigger point of all this. In my ideal world, my clients continue walking after they stop seeing me. And they reconnect to this relationship with place. Being in nature is our birthright. It’s something that everybody has access to. And it’s healing.”

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

The Trans-Catalina Trail is a 38.5-mile journey across Santa Catalina Island, taking hikers through rugged landscape with incredible views of the island’s mountains, pristine coast and the Pacific Ocean. Planning a multi-day backpacking trip there is no easy feat, as visitors must pack for significant elevation gain and loss — more than 6,000 feet total, according to the Catalina Island Conservancy — on a route with minimal shade. Sports and outdoors store Sports Basement will host a free seminar about how to prepare for hiking the Trans Catalina Trail at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at its Long Beach location. Regardless of how long this trek has been on your adventure bucket list, this sounds like a great opportunity to learn more.

For more insider tips on Southern California’s beaches, trails and parks, check out past editions of The Wild. And to view this newsletter in your browser, click here.

For Democrats, one of the most delicious ironies of their historic victory in Tuesday’s midterms is that they won many of the congressional districts President Trump and his allies had recently redrawn to favor Republicans.

As the results rolled in on Tuesday evening, one after another of those gerrymandered Republican “safe” districts in Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Alabama got swamped by the overwhelming blue wave.

Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom led the charge to push back against Trump’s initiative and redraw as many districts as possible in favor of Democrats. On Wednesday, he bragged on X, “We fought fire with fire. And won.”

While it’s all laughter and high-fives for Democrats now, it’s worth remembering that in the summer of 2025 they were in utter despair.

The GOP’s redrawn maps spelled doom for Democrats

It seemed they had no hope of winning the Senate in 2026. Their razor-thin chances of retaking the House appeared to be dissolving as Republicans simply broke out their Sharpies and started doodling on maps.

Congressional districts are typically adjusted once a decade, after each census. The idea is to reflect where people actually live and distribute representation accordingly.

Redrawing the maps mid-decade was a norm-busting move by Trump and his allies who made little effort to hide that it was a naked bid to tighten the president’s grip on power. He seemed to revel in Democrats’ shock and dismay.

While others were wringing their hands and writing think pieces about the fate of democracy — as Democrats tend to do — Newsom made what felt to many like an indecent proposal.

Newsom’s ‘retaliatory’ proposal

What if California, the country’s most populous state with the most congressional districts, just as cynically redrew its maps to favor Democrats?

But there was a catch: Californians had voted for a ballot proposition in 2008 to take such gamesmanship out of politicians’ hands and entrust the drawing of the maps to a (hopefully) independent, nonpartisan citizens commission. Newsom would need to get voters to approve a new proposition to change the rules.

Local conservatives were outraged.

“Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political ambitions have reached a new low. In his efforts to look like a ‘fighter’ ahead of a potential run for the presidency in 2028, he’s willing to ignore democratic rules in pursuit of political aims,” wrote Lanhee J. Chen, a former Republican candidate for state controller, in the Los Angeles Times.

Even fellow Democrats had serious misgivings, calling Newsom’s plan obviously “retaliatory,” “misguided” and a “moral conflict.”

They were right, of course — it was all of those things. But voters approved the new maps, and it worked.

Tuesday’s blue wave

Californians elected Democrats in all five of the state’s redrawn districts, after Democrat Marni von Wilpert won in what had been the lone holdout, Republican Darrell Issa’s old haunt in San Diego and Riverside counties.

From the start, Newsom understood the moral murkiness of his maneuver and included a provision returning map-drawing to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

Will that actually happen? Time will tell.

But as his party’s victory became obvious on Tuesday night, he didn’t exactly take the high road and start talking about mending fences.

In response to a post on X about Republican losses in districts reworked by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Newsom replied simply: “RON CAN’T DRAW!”

Top stories

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman embraces her brother, Akash Raman, during her election night bash at the Greek Theatre plaza.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Raman’s lead against Bass

California’s billionaire tax

• California’s much-debated billionaire tax didn’t get the support many expected in one of the country’s most liberal states.
• Nearly 56% of California voters rejected the proposal while 44% voted for Proposition 40.
• However, with roughly 6 million votes still needed to be counted, the results are still too close to call.

A new era for Democrats

More news

Commentary and opinion

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

(Joao Fazenda / For The Times)

Today’s recipe

(Mariah Tauger/Los Angeles Times)

With Thanksgiving only weeks away, now is a good time to perfect your favorite recipes that feature sweet potatoes. This sweet potato bread recipe is a good place to start. You can use any leftover sweet potato you have on hand, whether roasted or steamed, or you can microwave until tender a whole one that’s been pricked with a fork, about five minutes on high. Canned sweet potato works, though the bread will be a touch less flavorful.

Question for you

Are you feeling hopeful or anxious now that the elections are over?
Email us at essentialcalifornia@latimes.com, and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

Photo of the day

Los Angeles resident Aline Argueta, 18, celebrates after casting her vote for the first time at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CIHRLA) Flex Voting Center in Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Games

Here’s today’s mini crossword, plus our other free, daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and jigsaw games.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

WASHINGTON — Corruption topped the list of concerns for voters who ousted Republicans and handed Democrats control of Congress in the midterm elections. Now, the newly empowered Democratic Party is putting the issue front and center as its leaders chart their course for investigations and policymaking.

Senior Democrats in both chambers of Congress have vowed to marshal the subpoena powers and larger investigative staffs that come with their soon-to-be majorities to probe what they say is the self-enrichment that President Donald Trump and people in his orbit have done at the public’s expense. The Republican president and his White House have long denied any wrongdoing.

House Democrats are preparing a vast oversight agenda to look at how Trump and his family have become wealthier since he returned to office — and Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who’s in line to become House speaker, has not ruled out trying to impeach Trump for a third time.

Months ago, Jeffries tasked the ranking Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary committees, Rep. Robert Garcia of California and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, with leading the effort, as Democrats work to link the costs of public corruption to the affordability concerns hitting Americans’ pocketbooks.

“Lawyer up,” Garcia posted on X as election results favoring Democrats began coming in on Tuesday night.

The Senate is expected to conduct similar investigations.

“Americans want us to clean up corruption in government,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is poised to return as Senate majority leader next year. “No American should have to make tradeoffs at the supermarket while Trump is making inside trades on the stock market.”

Investigation targets could include ICE raids, Epstein and DOGE

Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has outlined five priorities, including Trump family business dealings, the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said he wants to dig into Trump’s White House ballroom and other construction projects, as well as the Trump family’s role in mineral deals.

With the House majority comes an infusion of congressional committee staff and resources, and the effort is expected to be sprawling, involving House committees with authority to conduct oversight on Cabinet officials and the agencies they lead.

In the Senate, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who is expected to become the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said his panel will want to look into Trump’s real estate projects around the nation’s capital and his crypto dealings with special envoy Steve Witkoff. Witkoff is a longtime ally who partnered with Trump on the president’s family cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial.

“The tentacles of corruption reach deep in this administration, and they have added costs to everyday Americans,” Blumenthal said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. The senator added that he also wants hearings on ICE raids, the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency and Medicare plans he says are too restrictive and have cost some patients care.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who is in line to become Senate Finance Committee chairman, ticked off several investigative targets that he describes as part of an “accountability” agenda, including banks that he contends ignored red flags about the financial dealings of Epstein and pharmaceutical companies that have profited from their ties to the Trump administration.

“When I am chair, they will be forced to answer to the Senate Finance Committee for their role in hurting the American people and enabling Trump’s corruption,” Wyden said in a statement Wednesday.

The issue of corruption resonated for voters, The AP Voter Poll shows

Many U.S. voters in Tuesday’s elections expressed deep concerns about government corruption and the state of democracy, according to The AP Voter Poll, which surveyed more than 100,000 voters nationwide.

While roughly 4 in 10 voters said the economy was the top issue facing the country, about 3 in 10 said that “the state of democracy” was the top issue. About half of U.S. voters said government corruption was “crucial” to their vote for Congress, and most of those voters supported the Democratic candidate in their local U.S. House race, while about one-third said they voted for the Republican.

About 8 in 10 voters who said “the state of democracy” was the top issue facing the country supported the Democrat, while about 2 in 10 supported the Republican.

Older voters, those age 65 or older, were more likely than voters under 65 to say “the state of democracy” was the most important issue facing the country. About 4 in 10 older voters pointed to this as the nation’s top problem, compared with about 3 in 10 who said the economy. That view was reversed with younger voters, who were more likely to call the economy the top issue.

That explains why anti-corruption played such a central role in Democratic campaigns this cycle, with candidates accusing their Republican opponents of looking out for themselves or their donors rather than a broader constituency. They embraced stock trading bans and bans on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists and promised to be part of an effort to root out corruption.

Democrats’ challenge: Focusing on corruption without ignoring cost-of-living issues

In his public comments since his party lost the elections, Trump has taken a conciliatory tone toward Democrats, conceding that they “did a good job” in their campaigns as he’s tried to skirt personal blame for the GOP’s midterm thrashing. That could change as investigations ramp up.

“As the president has said, he’s willing to work with anyone to continue delivering victories for hardworking Americans,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said Wednesday. “If Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people.”

Schumer insisted that congressional Democrats will be able to balance legislating on key issues, such as affordability, while launching investigations to target “rampant corruption.”

In a letter to Democratic lawmakers announcing his candidacy for House speaker, Jeffries said the “days of the House functioning like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration are over.”

“The massive corruption the country has experienced from the Trump Cartel explains why very little is getting done to help everyday Americans,” Jeffries wrote as he promised to target price gouging and push for a stock trading ban for lawmakers. “That changes immediately.”

The challenge for Democrats will be to continue to tie corruption to the affordability issues that topped the list of concerns for voters.

The Congressional Integrity Project, an advocacy group initially created to combat Republican investigations into President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, is now shifting its focus to help Democratic lawmakers make that connection. In a memo, the group urged congressional Democrats to trace the Trump administration’s actions to people in and outside government, as well as corporations, who may be profiting from those moves.

“Corruption is not just corruption,” said the group’s senior adviser, Jack Miller. “It is costing taxpayers and costing Americans in their everyday lives.”

Some Democratic lawmakers are already stressing that congressional investigations have to be directly tied to affordability issues, while urging restraint.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said that Democrats need to earn voters’ trust, and while investigations are an important part of the Democratic agenda, “we can’t turn this into just a vengeance tour.”

“We have to be careful, cautious and judicious about that,” Welch said.

Kim and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro and polling writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

Despite a nationwide blue wave in the midterm election, California’s much-debated billionaire tax didn’t get the support many expected in one of the country’s most liberal states.

Since the Golden State’s powerful healthcare union proposed the new tax, supporters of Proposition 40 have faced a fierce, expensive battle against the world’s richest people.

In what has been described as a David-versus-Goliath fight, the underdog appears to have lost. The proposition, which would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California billionaires to mostly fund healthcare, seemed headed toward defeat as votes were tallied Wednesday.

“In a deep blue state like California, most voters are going to support additional funding for healthcare, especially to replace Trump funding cuts. But in retrospect, the sponsors may wish they’ve been a little bit less ambitious,” said Dan Schnur, a politics and communications professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

Nearly 56% of California voters rejected the proposal while 44% voted for Proposition 40. However, with roughly 6 million votes still needed to be counted, the results are still too close to call.

The battle over the billionaire tax has been one of the most expensive ballot-measure fights in California’s history, sparking a debate over wealth inequality and taxing the ultrawealthy. It also highlighted how billionaires have wielded more influence in politics.

Well-known politicians such as U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the California Democratic Party, healthcare workers and Hollywood celebrities including actor Mark Ruffalo, backed the wealth tax. But the idea drew opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the teachers union, Planned Parenthood, business groups and others who expressed fears that billionaires could flee the state.

The state’s next governor, Xavier Becerra, who just won, also opposed the tax.

Though California’s $4.25-trillion economy remains a global powerhouse, and a major draw for investments in AI and aerospace, thousands of businesses have moved to Texas and other states in recent years due to lower costs.

Opponents of the wealth tax heavily outspent Proposition 40 supporters, flooding televisions, radio, social media and smartphones with ads. Their message: the wealth tax is a reckless experiment and a tax on everyone, not just billionaires.

UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the wealth tax proposal, said it’s tough to “fix a broken system” and get the facts to people when they were up against the ultrawealthy. Billionaires also own media outlets and social media companies, megaphones that help spread political messaging.

“When billionaires have half a dozen different strategies for buying this election, it shows that they already have too much money and pay too little back,” he said.

Support for the billionaire-bashing proposition had already begun to wane in recent months.

A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and released last week, showed that voter support for Proposition 40 had fallen to 42% of voters surveyed last month from 48% in August.

The measure also may have lost fans because taxing assets rather than income can be a complicated and confusing process and sparks concerns among even non-billionaires on whether they want to allow the state to start demanding a slice of the value of the things that they own.

No matter the result, Proposition 40 also fueled a conversation about taxing billionaires that will continue, Galle said.

As of Wednesday afternoon, roughly $489 million has been raised to support and oppose Proposition 40 along with two ballot measures — Propositions 41 and 42 — that could block the wealth tax, data from the California secretary of state show.

The vast majority of that funding, more than $380 million, went toward killing the billionaire tax. Supporters of the wealth tax, including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, trailed far behind, contributing roughly $100 million, according to filings with the California secretary of state.

Billionaires such as Google co-founder Sergey Brin contributed millions to a group called Building a Better California that funded ads against the wealth tax and propositions that could block it.

Money doesn’t always win an election, but a big funding imbalance is tough to overcome, Schnur said.

“As important as the money was to beat Prop. 40, the coalition against it may have been just as important. You didn’t see Sergey. You didn’t see tech billionaires in the ads. You saw teachers and nurses and firefighters,” he said.

The four richest Californians — Brin, Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang; Google co-founder Larry Page and Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg — would owe 40% of the estimated taxes to be collected from the billionaire tax, according to an L.A. Times analysis.

Ahead of the election, billionaires made moves to prepare for the potential tax. Zuckerberg expressed concerns that if he had to sell his stock to pay the tax that could reduce his control over the company, but Meta’s board struck a deal to address that fear.

The billionaire tax proposal also faced other big hurdles. Proposition 42, which could have blocked the billionaire tax, was on track to pass. It would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” and bar retroactive taxes.

“They didn’t just reject a single bad tax idea — millions of Californians backed the strongest protections available to protect their hard earned life savings from double taxation. They joined firefighters, law enforcement officers, building trades workers, seniors, veterans and small businesses in doing so,” said Nathan Click, a spokesman for Proposition 42.

On the other hand, Proposition 41 — a proposal that would have required audits for new state special taxes, and also could have blocked the billionaire tax — was headed for defeat.

Supporters of Proposition 40 tried to convince voters that taxing roughly 200 billionaires was the solution to raise $100 billion needed to offset federal healthcare cuts.

This week, the wealth tax’s supporters emphasized the high stakes. People won’t be able to afford healthcare coverage, children will die and hospitals will shutter, they said, if California lawmakers don’t find a way to get more funding.

“If Sacramento fails to protect patients and deliver a real solution that makes billionaires pay their fair share, healthcare workers will pursue every available avenue, up to and including returning to the ballot in 2028 with a billionaire tax,” said Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the SEIU-UHW.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed said on Wednesday that Michigan voters had rejected “a hateful, spiteful campaign” after months of Republican attacks on his Muslim identity in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.

In an interview with the Associated Press, El-Sayed said he was “running on adrenaline and caffeine” after his race with Republican Mike Rogers was called early Wednesday, giving Democrats another significant victory in a premier swing state as they won a substantial majority in the Senate in Tuesday’s midterms.

Throughout the cycle, Republicans sought to demonize El-Sayed, who was born in the U.S. after his parents emigrated from Egypt. President Trump repeatedly called him a “jihadist” who was “on the side of the terrorists.”

“Michigan proved just how big we are. Rejected a hateful, spiteful campaign that had nothing to say about the issues and only wanted to point to my name and my face,” El-Sayed said. “Michiganders rejected that. Every single county, every single one, pushed against that.”

In a sign of how combative the race had become, Rogers and El-Sayed had not spoken as of Wednesday afternoon, even after Rogers issued a statement conceding the race. In 2024, Rogers called then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin to concede on Wednesday morning, before the AP had even called the race.

El-Sayed, who will become the nation’s first Muslim senator, told the AP by phone that the morning was “a moment of reflection,” including about what his victory would mean to his two young daughters. His 3-year-old, he said, has no idea what happened, while his 8-year-old understands but sees it as normal.

“Now, this is something they read about in the history books,” he said.

With approximately 97% of the vote in, El-Sayed held a lead of 7 percentage points over Rogers. Every county in the state shifted toward Democrats compared with 2024, according to AP voting data.

The AP Voter Poll, an expansive survey of more than 4,500 voters in Michigan, showed that Michigan Senate voters were roughly split on whether El-Sayed’s views were “too extreme,” with about half saying they were.

El-Sayed rose from a double-digit defeat eight years ago in the state’s Democratic gubernatorial election to an upset victory of an establishment-backed candidate in the primary after being outspent by tens of millions of dollars. He said his campaign proved that “old-fashioned politics can work if you’re willing to do the work.”

El-Sayed quickly pivoted, though, toward the future, saying his victory is “not the success” and that “the success is what you’re able to do with the seat.”

He would not commit to supporting Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York for another term, saying he did not yet know who else might run. Schumer is expected to retain the leadership position.

“I do believe we need new leadership and I think people are hungry for it,” El-Sayed added.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

Democrats swept California’s statewide down-ballot races — no surprise in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a nearly two-to-one margin, and voters haven’t elected a Republican to a statewide office since 2006.

The dominance was evident in the Democratic candidates’ victories for attorney general, secretary of state, lieutenant governor, treasurer and controller.

“When you look at the results so far, the thing that’s most striking, I think, is that the percentages are almost identical for every statewide race between the two parties,” said Kim Nalder, director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State University. One might have imagined that some candidates would have received a larger or smaller share of votes than others, based on voters’ personal feelings toward them, but Californians instead hewed strongly to party lines, she said.

“I think that says that Californians are probably voting based on nationwide trends, as much as anything else,” she said, referencing the blue surge that swept the country, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

“It also just means, honestly, that people don’t know a lot about most of these statewide offices and don’t necessarily do their homework, so they’re reverting to the cue that’s simplest, which is party cues,” she added.

The AP called the victories for the down-ballot races.

One contest remained too close to call Wednesday afternoon: The race between two Democrats to succeed Ricardo Lara as insurance commissioner. With 51.7% of expected votes in, former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim held a slight lead over three-term state Sen. Ben Allen, with 52% versus 48%. The commissioner regulates the state’s insurance industry and has the authority to approve or reject rate increases and investigate fraud.

A former director of the Working Families Party, Kim has proposed a novel “single payer” state-run insurance plan to cover catastrophic fire damage, earning her endorsements from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the California Federation of Labor Unions. Allen, who has blasted Kim’s plan as too short on details, has campaigned on improving the current system, pointing to his long record of insurance industry reform bills. He’s backed by the California Democratic Party and top elected party officials, including U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Elsewhere down the ballot, incumbent California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, a former Democratic state legislator, handily won releection as the state’s top prosecutor. He beat out former Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates, a Republican, receiving 63.8% of the vote with 59.6% of expected votes in.

Bonta was first appointed to the office by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, and then elected in 2022.

Democrat Shirley Weber was reelected as secretary of state, besting Orange County Supervisor Donald Wagner, a Republican, with 64.7% of the vote when 59.4% of expected votes were in. The secretary of state is in charge of administering statewide elections, providing information about ballot measures and candidates to voters, overseeing campaign finance and handling business licensing and filings.

Weber, a former state Assembly member, was initially appointed to the role in 2020 by Newsom and then elected by voters in 2022.

Voters chose state Treasurer Fiona Ma, a Democrat, to succeed termed-out Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis. Ma defeated former State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, a Republican, receiving 63.8% of the vote with 59.5% of the expected vote in. The job is largely a ceremonial post, but if the sitting governor dies, resigns or is removed from office, then the lieutenant governor would be elevated to take over.

Kounalakis, meanwhile, won the race to succeed termed-out Ma as state treasurer, beating Republican Jennifer Hawks, who had billed herself as a political outsider. With 59.1% of the expected vote in, Kounalakis received 64%. The California treasurer is the state’s chief financial manager and responsible for overseeing public investments and issuing bonds to fund major projects like roads, sewers, schools and affordable housing.

Incumbent Controller Malia Cohen won reelection over challenger Herb Morgan, a Republican finance and investment advisor. With 58.9% of the expected vote in, Cohen received 63.8%. The controller is the state’s fiscal watchdog, responsible for auditing government agencies, administering payroll for state employees and reuniting abandoned assets with their owners.

Cohen was elected in 2022 after serving as a member of the state Board of Equalization from San Francisco.

Times staff writers Laurence Darmiento, Iris Kwok, Summer Lin, Kevin Rector and Dakota Smith and correspondent Jon Regardie contributed to this report.

Bobby Pulido is graduating from quinceañera gigs to the Capitol. The Tejano singer pulled off a historic victory when he flipped a Texas congressional seat back to blue during the U.S. midterm elections.

On Tuesday, the Latin Grammy-winning artist defeated Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz in Congressional District 15, a narrow geographical area that extends east of San Antonio down to Rio Grande Valley.

The singer’s win comes after President Trump pushed Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts last year, with the intent to weaken the state’s Democratic strongholds by diluting the Latino vote in the region.

However, attempts to overhaul district seats in favor of a GOP candidate backfired; in fact, Texas Republicans now will have one less seat in the House come January.

Tuesday night, as poll results began trickling in in favor of Pulido — and other Democratic victors in the state including U.S. Senator-elect James Talarico and Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa — he took to X to share his disbelief in a Spanish expletive similar to “Holy s— !”

On Wednesday morning, after major polls confirmed that Pulido won 62% of the total vote, he shared a video message to all his supporters on Instagram: “I give you my word tonight that I will never forget where I came from.”

The clip was from a speech he made during his final concert on Oct. 17, titled “La Última Desvelada” (The Last Restless Night), in his hometown of Edinburg, Texas, per TejanoNation.

“I did music for me, but I’m running for Congress for you,” Pulido stated in the Instagram video. “Because I’m not going to Washington to serve a political party, I’m going to serve you.”

In July 2025, Pulido announced his political interests in Congress via Instagram, which came after he got a nudge from Lorena Saenz Gonzalez, the wife of Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas).

In an interview with The Times in July 2025, he explained that he wanted to run an “issues-based campaign” focused on immigration, the economy and healthcare. He stressed that he would not run on a platform of “vote for me because I’m famous.”

Still, it didn’t stop De La Cruz from targeting his musical background. In March, she referred to Pulido as a “scandal-plagued celebrity,” adding that “this election isn’t about who you want performing at your niece’s quinceañera,” according to the Texas Tribune.

The commentary on the traditional cultural celebration prompted Pulido to put out an open call for invitations to perform at quinceañeras across the Congressional District, aiding his popularity in the region.

“In South Texas, a quinceañera isn’t just a pachanga. It’s a rite of passage that brings family and neighbors together,” said Pulido in a TikTok clip uploaded on March 10. “And honestly, that’s exactly what this campaign is about. We want to bring people together, not tear them apart.”

Born in Edinburg, Texas, Pulido comes from a famous musical family. His dad, Roberto Pulido, is credited with the modernization of Tejano music through added brass instrumentation that helped bridge the separate camps of Tejano and Conjunto music.

In 1995, Pulido launched his own independent singing career during the golden age of Tejano music, defined by acts such as Patsy Torres, Little Joe y La Familia and Selena Quintanilla.

The singer is best known for his smash hit “Desvelado,” a 1995 cumbia-tinged track off his debut album by the same name. While many fans have speculated that the song was about Selena, who was killed in March 1995, Pulido has said it is not. Although he did admit to having a crush on the “Como La Flor” singer when they were young, “but to be fair, who didn’t,” he shared with Mitú earlier this year.

Early hits like “Se Murió de Amor,” “Le Pediré” and “Enséñame” also helped cement the crooner’s legacy as a Tejano legend with a cumbia edge, not only making his lyrics relatable for the yearning community, but also danceable.

In January, when U.S. Representative-elect Pulido takes office, he will be the first congressman to have two Latin Grammy Awards, which he won in 2022 and 2025 in the Tejano album category for “Para Que Baile Mi Pueblo” and “Bobby Pulido & Friends Una Tuya y Una Mía (Vol.1/En Vivo),” respectively.

Although, he could have a total of three gramophone trophies by the time January rolls around. His latest album, “Bobby Pulido & Friends Una Tuya y Una Mía (Vol.2/En Vivo),” is nominated in the Tejano album category at the Latin Grammy Awards, which will take place Nov. 12 in Las Vegas.

Staff writer Carlos De Loera contributed to this report.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a prolific lawmaker who has reshaped California policy on a host of fronts — from housing to transgender rights — will succeed House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi as San Francisco’s representative in Congress after San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan called Wiener on Wednesday to concede, her campaign confirmed.

Wiener, 56, who is gay and reviled by some on the far right for his progressive policies and staunch LGBTQ+ advocacy work, overcame Pelosi’s endorsement of Chan in the much-watched race between Democrats, and will be the first out LGBTQ+ person to represent the bright-blue city in the House.

“In Washington I’ll bring the same determination I showed in Sacramento every single day,” Wiener said in a statement. “It’s time to deliver a better tomorrow for our city and our country.”

Wiener’s win hands Pelosi — known for her deft political instinct and sweeping influence over the Democratic Party and donor base — a rare defeat in her home city just as her nearly 40-year career in the House concludes.

The Associated Press had yet to call the race in Wiener’s favor as of late Wednesday.

But Chan, a progressive backed by labor, announced she was conceding the race in a statement, writing, “After reviewing the results and the ballots remaining to be counted, while we expect the margin to narrow significantly, we do not have a clear path to victory. I congratulate Scott Wiener on his election and wish him success in serving San Francisco.”

Chan said she was “deeply grateful” to Pelosi “for her trust and for four decades of extraordinary service that have strengthened San Francisco and our country.”

Pelosi in her own statement said Chan “brought courage, conviction and a deep love for San Francisco” to the campaign.

“As a working mom, a public servant, and an immigrant, she gave voice to families whose struggles she knows firsthand,” Pelosi said. “I was proud to support her, and I am so proud of the campaign she ran.”

Pelosi also congratulated Wiener. “Representing San Francisco is an extraordinary honor and a profound responsibility. My office stands ready to assist in the transition, and I wish him success in service for the people of our city,” she said.

Wiener thanked Chan for a “spirited and hard-fought campaign,” his campaign team, volunteers, supporters and donors for their hard work, and Pelosi — whom he hailed as “the greatest Speaker in modern American history” — saying he is “humbled to carry forward the powerful legacy of this seat.”

He also thanked San Franciscans for placing their trust in him — and making history by sending their first queer representative to Congress, something he said he never could have imagined when he first arrived in the city’s Castro neighborhood as a young man and “fell head over heels for this city.”

“San Franciscans voted for results, and we have so much work ahead: Building the millions of homes we need; moving toward true universal health care; investing in clean energy, public transit, and high-speed rail; standing up for science, education, and immigrants; making sure people — not massive corporations — decide what works for this country, including on AI; and ensuring the rule of law applies to everyone, including the President,” he said.

He said it “won’t be easy” but that voters nationwide had “delivered a powerful mandate for Democrats in Congress” to get it done.

The race, which ratcheted up when Pelosi bypassed Wiener to endorse Chan in May, just before the June primary, had divided the Democratic Party.

Chan — who immigrated to the city from Hong Kong at age 13 and has deep ties to its large Chinese and immigrant communities — was a community and legislative aide for years, including for then-Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2020. She has served as budget chair since 2023.

In addition to Pelosi’s imprimatur, Chan had received endorsements from major labor groups including the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Teachers Assn.; a host of Congress members, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); various progressive organizations; fellow and former supervisors; former mayor and S.F. power broker Willie Brown; and Saikat Chakrabarti, the third-place finisher in the primary.

Wiener, a former deputy city attorney and local Democratic Party chair before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2010 and to the state Senate in 2016, was endorsed by the state and local Democratic parties; state leaders including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister); various queer organizations; labor groups including AFSCME; more than half the city’s supervisors; and various members of Congress.

Many of Wiener’s supporters cited his legislative effectiveness — he’s the author of more than 100 laws, including some of the state’s most progressive laws on LGBTQ+ rights — and his willingness to fight hard battles, which they said is needed with President Trump in the White House.

Wiener has pushed progressive laws backing safe injection sites, extending bar hours until 4 a.m., decriminalizing psychedelic drugs, and limits on federal immigration agents in California. He has pushed for housing deregulation and development near transit hubs statewide to solve the housing and affordability crises, and pushed for artificial intelligence regulation while seeking buy-in from wealthy tech leaders — some of whom backed his campaign.

He also has passed laws protecting net neutrality, capping prescription drug costs and mandating mental health parity, ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and requiring that corporations disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.

Wiener ran on his experience as a lawmaker who would be able “to fight in a smart way, and to fight in an aggressive way, to defeat Donald Trump and to lower the cost of living.”

“This is a race to succeed the most effective and operational member of Congress in modern American history,” Wiener told The Times in September. “San Francisco should send someone who actually has a track record, a proven track record, of being able to deliver.”

In backing Chan, Pelosi made a point of noting that she had spent much of her political career backing fellow women in office, and said she believed Chan — an immigrant woman — would make a mark in Congress, particularly given the political atmosphere under the Trump administration.

On Wednesday, Pelosi cheered the election of other women across the country — even if not her own chosen successor.

“When I came to Congress in 1987, there were only twelve Democratic women. We made it our mission to change that. Today, we celebrate the election of more than 100 Democratic women to the House — a tremendous joy and source of pride,” Pelosi wrote on X. “When women succeed, America succeeds!”

California is about to enter the “Becerra era,” though the governor-elect who coined that phrase has dropped few hints about what will define it.

After a decisive Tuesday night victory in the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunities: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games, implementing voter-approved housing bonds and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But a long list of challenges awaits: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless fires, floods and other natural disasters.

The optimistic 68-year-old told supporters gathered for his campaign party in West Sacramento that his mission is to “deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

“Here’s the good news,” Becerra, a Democrat, told the packed and cheering crowd. “Californians don’t expect a miracle from government; they just want government that works. A government that can build things. A government that keeps our streets clean and schools safe. Basic services delivered on time and on budget.”

Easier said than done.

“With billion-dollar deficits on the horizon … he’s going to be limited in his ability to break new ground,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked for former Gov. Gray Davis. “He’d be playing catchup on a lot of things.”

Becerra’s victory arrived during a monumental night for Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Senate and House in a stunning rebuke of the Trump administration.

California’s first directly elected Latino governor joined a wave of historic gubernatorial firsts, including Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, who will become the nation’s first Black female governor, and New Mexico Democrat Deb Haaland, the first Native American woman elected to lead a state. Voters in Florida, Nevada and Wisconsin also picked their first Black governors while Texans selected their first Latina.

After a surprising emergence from a brutal top-two primary in June, and with Republican Steve Hilton placing second, Becerra sailed to election as Newsom’s successor. In a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the matchup nearly guaranteed the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary would win.

By the time former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race following sexual assault allegations (which he has denied), many of California’s liberal kingmakers had already made their picks in the governor’s race — and they weren’t Becerra, who was not even included in a four-way endorsement from the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Newsom won his 2018 gubernatorial primary with the help of the California Nurses Assn. He also secured backing from the powerful California Teachers Assn. after pledging to pause new charter schools and strengthen oversight.

Though Democrats flocked to support Becerra as he rapidly ascended in the primary election polls, he won largely without help from unions or influential organizations such as the California Medical Assn.

“A lot of those constituencies didn’t support him until he looked inevitable,” said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an alumnus of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. “So he doesn’t owe a lot of people anything for any role they played in his campaign.”

Still, Becerra, who grew up in a working-class immigrant family, has shown a personal interest in allying with organized labor. He gave shout-outs to union locals at campaign events and has credited his father’s union construction job for giving his family of six access to healthcare while he was growing up in Sacramento.

Governors can’t please everyone, particularly when state funding is limited. Lobbyists, lawmakers and special-interest leaders will watch closely how the affable Becerra prioritizes his first budget proposal — due days after he takes office on Jan. 4 — for hints about his agenda.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton concedes the race Tuesday evening to Xavier Becerra at the Hyatt Regency Orange County in Garden Grove.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Though light on specifics, Becerra made his priorities clear during his campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction. He will take the baton from Newsom on the thorny question of who is financially responsible when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), a Becerra ally, said he has had “ongoing conversations” throughout the campaign about the incoming governor’s agenda, though he declined to elaborate.

“He certainly asked a lot of questions. He’s come to the Assembly Democratic Caucus already, engaged with members to begin that conversation and build those relations,” Rivas said. “We’ve been laser-focused on affordability and we’re going to continue to do more work in that space.”

Becerra said he would look closely at regulatory reform to lower housing and business costs.

It could be a small needle for the governor-elect to thread. Regulatory reform could mean easing some environmental protections.

Environmentalists flex considerable muscle in the state and found an ally in Newsom, though the outgoing governor’s aggressive climate agenda ran into affordability and federal challenges in recent years.

Becerra may also be sympathetic to environmental justice communities — poorer neighborhoods, often of color — that have experienced disproportionately negative effects from extraction industries such as oil drilling and mining.

He vigorously defended the state’s environmental rules as attorney general and has credited them with improving air quality and the coasts. During the only debate of the general election, Becerra criticized Hilton for proposing to unleash new oil drilling in the state.

“He wants to, he said it himself, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’” he said during a September CNN debate. “Steve, you weren’t living here in California at the time. You weren’t living in America at the time. We went through that experience. We don’t want to see our coastline damaged.”

“For it to be meaningful, there would have to be substantial regulatory resets, recalculating — I would say even updating and modernizing — some of the climate policies to make sure that they’re affordable,” said Stutzman. Schwarzenegger, his former boss, ushered in the state’s landmark cap-and-invest program, which aims to reduce planet-warming emissions.

Hilton conceded the race to Becerra but told supporters gathered at his party that he would work to break the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority in 2028. His team issued this statement in advance of a news conference scheduled for Thursday: “The election is over, but the desire for change is not.”

Becerra is expected to bring a much different governing style than Newsom. In an interview with KQED days before his election, Becerra named Govs. Pat and Jerry Brown as inspirations, citing the younger Brown’s fiscal expertise and the elder’s work to build infrastructure and grow the University of California.

“After eight years of showmanship, it will be refreshing to have a governor who actually focuses on the issues facing the state instead of his own ambition,” Maviglio said.

California Democrats dominated in pivotal congressional races in Tuesday’s election, soundly defeating or holding commanding leads over Republican candidates from the state’s northern redwood forests to the Mexican border.

The election marked the first test of California’s new congressional district lines approved under Proposition 50 in 2025, a counterpunch to President Trump’s push to get Republican-led states to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives — a GOP effort that flopped in spectacular fashion Tuesday.

“We fought fire with fire,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said on X on Wednesday. “And won.”

In the Central Valley, voters swept out Republican David Valadao, a longtime incumbent and dairy farmer in the San Joaquin Valley who batted away Democratic challengers for years. Valadao lost to Democrat Randy Villegas, a professor and school board member who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and is aligned with the Working Families Party.

In Northern California, Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley lost to former state Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat, for a newly suburban and rural seat in and around Sacramento. And in Southern California, Democrat Marni von Wilpert beat out a Republican candidate for a new district stretching across San Diego and Riverside counties. Parts of the district previously had been represented by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, a longtime politician who opted not to seek reelection.

Tuesday’s wins in California were part of a national trend, with Democrats seizing control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate and several governor seats.

As victors were declared on Wednesday morning, some political analysts downplayed Proposition 50’s effect. Instead, they credited Democrats’ success in California to voter discontent after two years of rising tariffs and gas prices, and immigration raids in the Golden State.

Democrats would have triumphed regardless, said Republican consultant Rob Stutzman, pointing to widespread anger over Republican policies, including that party’s push to retain control of the U.S. House through a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting experiment in some states.

“These are all things that activate Democrat voters, and things that alienate middle of the road voters. It’s just too much arrogance, too much power grab,” Stutzman said.

Newsom and other Democratic leaders campaigned for Proposition 50 in hopes of unseating five Republican incumbents in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation, the largest in the nation. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

Republicans’ redistricting efforts failed to reap them wins in several states, including in Texas.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map, disputed the notion that Democrats would have picked up five California congressional districts without Proposition 50 and argued Tuesday’s election showed the state was the most successful amid the nationwide redistricting wars.

“It would have been foolish for Democrats to sit back on their butts and say the future is going to take care of it,” he said, adding that Proposition 50 “crystallized” Democrats’ fight and “brought voters along.”

In another highly watched race, Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat from Merced, won reelection after easily cruising past Republican challenger Kevin Lincoln. The perennially competitive district — which stretches from Madera through Merced and includes portions of Stockton — became more favorable to Democrats after it was redrawn under Proposition 50 to add urban voters.

And in Northern California, state Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) beat out Republican Rep. James Gallagher of Yuba City, who won the seat in a special election earlier this year after the death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa. The newly configured district includes Santa Rosa, Paradise and Susanville.

In Southern California, a match-up between two longtime Republican incumbents saw Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona beat Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim.

Calvert retained about half of the voters from his former district heading into Tuesday’s election, while Kim retained about a third. The new maps under Proposition 50 created a district that consolidated conservative voters in Orange and Riverside counties.

In Los Angeles, Angela Gonzales-Torres, a democratic socialist, beat Rep. Jimmy Gomez for a district stretching from Koreatown to East L.A. and the northeast communities of Eagle Rock, Highland Park and El Sereno.

Gonzales-Torres’ victory marks a success for progressive groups, which have long targeted Gomez’s seat. The U.S. House Ethics Committee this summer announced an inquiry into Gomez, elected in 2017, over alleged “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.” He has denied wrongdoing, while acknowledging mistakes outside his marriage.

Other Democratic-against-Democratic races were too close to call, including a race for a district in Napa and Sacramento valleys between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts contributed to this report.

The fate of multiple high-stakes California ballot propositions remained undecided Wednesday, as poll workers continued to tally votes from across the state.

Other measures have generated decisive action from voters on such issues as public funding for housing and voter identification.

Six races have been called by the Associated Press, according to The Times tracker. They include four propositions — 1, 2, 3 and 37 — and two failed measures — 39 and 44. Eight remained undecided.

So far, there have been no big surprises, said Mark Baldassare, statewide survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The verdicts are “consistent with what we were seeing in the preelection polling.”

Undecided

Among the undecided items is Proposition 4, which would allow state and local governments to use public money to help finance political campaigns — something California largely has prohibited since 1988. The measure would lift that prohibition, subject to restrictions on how the money could be used and who could receive it. As of Wednesday, votes were leaning slightly against the proposition.

Another undecided item, Proposition 5, would change the process for recalling an elected official. It would separate the decision to recall the official from the choice of who replaces them, creating a second election or appointment process to determine the successor. The race was very tight Wednesday, with votes in favor holding a narrow edge.

Proposition 38 is leaning toward a passing vote by a solid margin. The measure would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research that aims to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Half the money would go to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute, with the other half distributed through research grants.

One closely watched item, Proposition 40 — the so-called “billionaire tax” — also is leaning toward a likely rejection from voters. The proposition would create a one-time 5% tax on individuals and trusts with wealth of more than $1 billion, with the revenue going toward healthcare, food assistance and education. State officials estimated it would generate tens of billions of dollars for the state, but others, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, warned that it would lead wealthy residents to leave California and lead to future budget problems.

Two separate ballot measures, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and still remain too close to call.

Proposition 43, meanwhile, would require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, to approve certain local government taxes. It was leaning toward rejection.

Another big-ticket item, Proposition 45, was opposed by a small margin of voters but still too close to call. It would change the state’s landmark environmental review process, the California Environmental Quality Act, by shortening deadlines and permitting rules for public and private development projects. Supporters say it would cut costly delays and expedite essential housing, transportation, water, health and education projects. But opponents say it would clear the path for more artificial intelligence data centers.

Prop. 45 “has been interesting all along because it fits in with concerns about housing affordability,” Baldassare said. However, it also raised questions about “unintended consequences” for the environment.

“CEQA reform is complicated, let’s face it,” he said. “That has made the voters more split.”

Passed

The passing propositions each won with what were considerable margins Wednesday.

They included Proposition 1, which authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds to finance affordable housing programs, with $1.25 billion set aside for housing for veterans.

Another passing item, Proposition 2, gives lawmakers the ability to put more money into California’s “rainy day fund,” doubling the reserve from 10% to 20% of the state’s general fund revenues. It also would require the state to save more in years when tax revenues are high, helping to weather economic ups and downs. It passed with a clear majority, according to The Times tracker.

Voters also approved Proposition 3, which permanently extends a high-income tax increase on California’s highest earners. The increase was approved by voters in 2012 and was scheduled to expire in 2031. The money generated by Proposition 3 would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. It is separate from Proposition 40 — the more controversial tax on California’s wealthiest citizens, which remains undecided.

“We saw a majority of Californians in our poll saying that the wealthy should be taxed,” Baldassare said. And while voters were warned that Proposition 40 could push billionaires out of the state, Proposition 3 seemed a more palatable way to do that.

Proposition 37 passed with a clear majority of the vote. It authorizes up to $25 billion in state-issued bonds to create a loan program to help middle-income Californians buy newly constructed homes. Qualified buyers can borrow up to 17% of the price of the home while contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.

“There’s been strong support for the idea of spending more money on housing affordability through bonds, not taxes, and that explains the support that we saw all along for Proposition 1 and Proposition 37, despite the fact that it’s a lot of bond money,” Baldassare said.

Rejected

Californians rejected Proposition 39, which would have required voters to provide government-issued identification when voting in person or provide identifying information on mail-in ballots. It would have changed California’s signature-based voter identification system and was a resounding rejection of the broader fight playing out over onerous voter ID measures at the national level.

This was another measure where voters received a clear message, including from governor-elect Xavier Becerra, who urged Californians to vote no, Baldassare said.

“We saw in our polling before the election that most Californians don’t think that there’s a problem with the way that we go about our elections and casting ballots and counting votes … so that sort of didn’t align with thinking,” he said.

California voters also resoundingly rejected Proposition 44. The act would have required certain nonprofit community health clinics serving low-income and medically underserved populations to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services. Those that fell short would be penalized. As of Wednesday morning, a whopping 82% of votes were against the proposition, more than any other.

Xavier Becerra, who grew up in a 685-square-foot house with his parents and three sisters in working-class Sacramento before ascending to Stanford University, Congress and the White House Cabinet, will become California’s first directly elected Latino governor.

The historic victory thrusts the unassuming Democrat into the forefront of California’s scathing fight with the Trump administration over immigration enforcement, healthcare funding, environmental protections and social issues.

“I didn’t run to make history,” Becerra told supporters at his election night party in West Sacramento. “I ran to make a difference for anyone and everyone who calls California home — whether you voted for me or not.”

He paid tribute to his parents and late labor icon Dolores Huerta before stating his “straightforward” mission: “Deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

The Associated Press declared Becerra the winner at 8 p.m. Tuesday. He beat Republican Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator and former British political strategist backed by President Trump. Hilton conceded defeat a little before 9:15 p.m.

“We have a new governor of California,” he told about 800 supporters at his election night party in Garden Grove. “I know it’s not the one you wished for but I do wish Xavier Becerra well.”

Though the mood at his event was mostly one of defeat, Hilton stirred the crowd with a promise to help Republicans break the Democratic supermajority in the state Legislature in 2028.

“We love California and we’re going to fight for California,” he said. “The fight goes on. We have a plan.”

Becerra, 68, will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunity: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But there are also a long list of challenges: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless natural disasters.

Becerra spent more than 25 years in Congress before he was appointed California attorney general and, later, secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration. His long resume, as he often argued during the campaign, positions him to enter the governor’s office without “training wheels.”

“It’s groundbreaking,” Anna Sampaio, a professor of ethnic studies and political science at Santa Clara University, said of Becerra’s win. “It’s particularly important in this moment when Latinos are under siege, when they’re targeted by the federal government, and you have a Latino not only being elected, but a Latino who is consistently delivering this message that he is going to stand in opposition to a Trump agenda.”

Despite his long-standing presence in California politics, the modest Becerra initially struggled to energize support for his gubernatorial campaign. When explosive sexual assault allegations pushed a front-running Democrat out of the race, Becerra, a staid and experienced candidate with a clean reputation, leaped to the top of the crowded field and finished first in the top-two June primary.

The state has had one Latino governor, Romualdo Pacheco, who assumed office in 1875 when Gov. Newton Booth stepped down after winning a U.S. Senate seat.

Becoming the first Latino directly elected to California’s highest office is a distinction Becerra was reluctant to promote on the campaign trail, preferring instead to focus on his humble roots. His father, born in Sacramento and raised in Mexico, labored on farms and construction sites; his Mexico-born mother was a clerical worker.

The largest ethnic group in California, Latinos make up more than 40% of the state’s population and roughly a third of its voters.

Though noteworthy, polling suggests Latino voters care more about results than his history-making win.

“We’re moving from an era that has defined Xavier Becerra’s career as focused almost entirely on representation to one where the voters are demanding results far more,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who studies Latino voters. “When the housing situation for Latinos is getting worse, when affordability is getting worse, when school performance measures are not getting better, what difference does it make who’s holding office when we should be focused on results?”

Though he offered few specifics, Becerra discussed his priorities throughout the campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction.

He will take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s baton on the thorny question of who should pay when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, even for undocumented workers — a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

“Hopefully he uses an overwhelming victory to achieve what he wants to get done in 100 days,” said Steven Maviglio, who served as a spokesman for former Gov. Gray Davis. “That’s when you’re most powerful: when you assume office with an agenda, so hopefully he’ll detail that within days of being elected.”

Becerra’s victory ushers in a new era of Latino political power in California. For the first time, all members of the “big three” who negotiate the state’s behemoth budget — the governor, Assembly speaker and state Senate president — come from working-class, immigrant backgrounds.

“When you’ve watched your parents and grandparents struggle to make ends meet, you bring a different perspective,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister). “If we do this right, history won’t remember us simply because we were the first. History is going to remember us because we made a difference. We want California to work for everybody.”

Times staff writer Andrew Campa contributed to this report.

Mike Madrid was prepping to interview Xavier Becerra on Olvera Street last month when the immensity of the moment hit him.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

That morning, Becerra held a rally for his gubernatorial campaign in the birthplace of Los Angeles alongside California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and the leader of the state Senate, Monique Limón, that doubled as a referendum on where Latinos stood politically.

Never before have Latinos occupied the top spots in both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion simultaneously, Rivas told the cheering crowd. Becerra reminded the audience that the moment was fraught for Latinos, though. Federal agents were still detaining undocumented immigrants across the state, and Latino residents — the state’s largest ethnic group at 41% — were suffering under the crushing cost of food, gas and housing.

“[Latinos] are here, we are present and we will fight,” Becerra said. “But right now, our fight is to get the vote out, to make sure everyone understands that our power lies in our vote.”

Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra purchases an agua fresca from Taqueria Vista Hermosa in Mercado La Paloma on June 9.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

Madrid, a longtime political commentator and strategist, had set up his recording equipment at the Pico House, formerly a historic hotel named after the last Mexican governor of California. He recalled how Pio Pico, who helped found the California Republican Party but ended up dying destitute, opened the structure in 1870 as a testament to what Latinos had contributed to their state. But they would eventually be seen as a relic of the bygone days when Mexicans ruled — days that gringos imagined would never return.

The symbolism of a Becerra victory would be “kind of a big deal,” Madrid said, representing a back to the future opportunity for an ethnic group that ruled California until the United States won the Mexican-American War, then was relegated to political irrelevance for over a century before finally being at the doorstep of the governor’s mansion again. Becerra would become California’s first Latino governor in modern times and the second since Romualdo Pacheco served for 10 months in 1875.

Now that the race has been called, Becerra’s victory signifies how much Latinos have advanced since Pico’s days. But it’s also anticlimactic.

As California’s Latino population grew and their political power eventually did too, the days when such a victory would have been an inspiring surprise are long gone. Becerra is now just one of many Latino political captains who steer the Golden State.

Xavier Becerra, right, fist bumps with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles, during a tour of businesses in Little Tokyo on Aug. 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero became the first Latina to occupy that role when Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed her in 2023. The state’s senior U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, is the son of Mexican immigrants who settled in the San Fernando Valley. Rep. Pete Aguilar, a fourth-generation Mexican American from Redlands, is the third most powerful Democrat in Congress as the head of the party’s House caucus. Lorena Gonzalez, daughter of a Mexican immigrant father and white mother, leads the California Labor Federation, a longtime kingmaker in state politics.

And now, with Becerra at the helm, they will have to govern at a precarious moment, inheriting a state with existential problems affecting everyone, everywhere.

Droughts, El Niño, an eroding coast and the year-round threat of wildfires, much of it accelerated by climate change. Stagnant population growth that threatens to shrink the number of congressional seats. A presidential administration that keeps fighting California in federal court and has attempted to block the votes of 20,000 Californians it alleges are noncitizens. A restive population that Madrid predicts won’t let Becerra bask in his historic win.

“This is what you’ve always wanted. Here’s the keys to the car,” he cracked. “You’re responsible for it now. Who you’re going to blame if things don’t get better — Trump?”

Jody Agius Vallejo, associate director of USC’s Equity Research Institute, said she hopes that California’s new caretakers remember the struggles of getting to the summit — that they represent the dreams and battles of generations of politicians, voters and activists — as they embark on whatever’s next.

“You use these narratives [of Latino personal and collective struggle] to get elected,” she said. “Use them to understand what people need, and govern for them.”

1

2

3

4

1. Patricia Guerrero, left, is sworn-in to the California Supreme Court in 2022 by Gov. Gavin Newsom. (Nathaniel Levine / The Sacramento Bee via Associated Press) 2. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., questions Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2025. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press) 3. Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., speaks at a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in 2026. (Allison Robbert / Associated Press) 4. Lorena Gonzalez at podium with California Attorney General Rob Bonta during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024. (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Many voters were already shrugging about the significance of Becerra’s likely victory — especially Latinos. Only 45% of Latino voters in California felt “proud” about the prospect of a Latino governor, according to a Berkeley IGS poll released last week.

Those results aren’t surprising to Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach-area state senator who chairs California’s Latino Legislative Caucus. She praised Becerra’s victory as the culmination of decades of political organizing. But voters care more about results than identity, she said — something the Latino political class has been slow to realize.

“People will say, ‘OK, that’s great [he’s Latino], but how are you fighting back?’” she said. “I just think we need to lead now and not advertise we’re Latinos.”

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Xavier Becerra waves goodbye after a visit to Hoover St. Elementary School in March 2001.

(Kim D. Johnson / Associated Press)

Becerra has long been a poster child for Latino political firsts, representing L.A.’s Eastside in the state Assembly and Congress for 27 years before Gov. Jerry Brown appointed him to be California’s first Latino attorney general in 2017. Three years later, Becerra became the country’s first Latino Health and Human Services secretary under President Biden.

Becerra has rarely highlighted his latinidad while never shying away from his background as the child of Mexican immigrants. He told Madrid at the end of their interview at the Pico House that Californians should be prouder of his working class roots than his ethnicity.

Some have complained that Becerra is an unworthy, boring torchbearer for Latinos — not dynamic enough to meet a moment where many hoped for a firebrand. But in many ways, his style is a callback to the past.

When Latino politicians first began winning local and state legislative elections in the decades after World War II, they “were constantly about, ‘How do I mobilize the Latino vote without alienating the white vote, and how do I get support from the establishment which is white?’” said Fernando Guerra, director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University and a longtime chronicler of California politics.

Latinos were the majority of the population in some areas during that era, but politicians couldn’t rely solely on them to win, because they still didn’t represent a majority of voters. That changed by the late 1980s, as immigration brought millions of Latinos to California.

Civil rights activists successfully sued cities and counties to draw district lines making it easier for Latinos to vote for Latino candidates. Local activists registered new voters by selling them a future where people like them would be leaders, not tokens. Pioneers like Richard Alatorre and Gloria Molina subsequently created political machines, which helped Becerra get his start.

Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, center, and Assemblywoman Karen Bass, left, dance to gospel music sung by the McCoy Memorial Baptist choir during an endorsement celebration in 2005.

(Stefano Paltera / For The Times)

That set the stage for politicians who “didn’t need the external validation anymore” of white voters or power brokers, Guerra said. “They could now say, ‘I am a Latino candidate with a Latino agenda, because I represent a Latino district.’”

By 1996, two years after the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 galvanized Latino activism, a record number of newly registered Latino voters in Orange County helped Loretta Sanchez upset longtime Republican Rep. Bob Dornan, the first welt of purple in a famously red county. That same year, Cruz Bustamante became the first Latino Assembly speaker, then lieutenant governor — the first Latino elected to statewide office in California since Pacheco ascended to the same position in the 1870s. In 2005, Antonio Villaraigosa was elected mayor of Los Angeles, sparking national headlines as the first Latino to occupy that position in modern times.

The Latino political firsts kept coming over the next 20 years, now reaching a pinnacle with Becerra’s win. Guerra said that “incremental” approach made Latinos mainstream to the point where the novelty of another milestone quickly wore off.

“Do you want a transformative moment? Absolutely,” he said. “But those come few and far in between. Incremental comes every two years.”

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie with supporters after a campaign stop on May 21 at the Wende Museum in Culver City.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Becerra started his campaign for governor far behind in the polls, surging after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out due to sexual assault allegations. Becerra’s campaign leaned into his milquetoast persona and crowned him Tío Xavier — Uncle Xavier — to market him as a non-threatening moderate who happened to be Latino.

Madrid, a lifelong Republican, voted for Becerra because of GOP candidate Steve Hilton’s refusal to denounce MAGA. He also thinks Becerra can “resurrect a healthy economy for the working class” — something he accuses Democrats of “abandon[ing] for a generation.” The “burden” is on California’s Latino leaders to show they can serve not just their own community but everyone, he said.

On Monday, Becerra mingled with eaters at Homegirl Cafe in Chinatown, looking anodyne in a white shirt, wire-framed glasses and tan khakis as supporters asked for selfies or a hug.

Half-hearted shouts of “¡Sí se puede!” gave way to authentically boisterous chants of “Be-ce-rra!”

The heavy favorite for governor took questions in the packed dining room and didn’t flinch when I asked him to reflect on the fact that Latinos will head every branch of California government if he wins.

“We’re all fortunate when a state like California gives all of us opportunities to be in position of authority,” Becerra replied.

He nodded at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who stood by his side.

“But we gotta do it right,” he said. “And it’s on me to be a good governor — not to be a good Latino governor, but to be a good governor.”

The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.

California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.

The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.

While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.

“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.

Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants, notably in California, are swaying elections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.

The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.

The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.

Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.

The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.

The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.

Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.

Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.

In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.

Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:

Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:

• Proposition 1, which proposed a $11.25-billion bond to boost the construction of affordable housing, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 2, which would gave state lawmakers more flexibility over state spending by exempting certain tax revenue from a state spending limit, allowing them to place it into a “rainy day” fund, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 37, which would create a down-payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a home, was approved by voters.
• Proposition 44, which would require certain health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care rather than overhead and executive compensation, failed.

Among those that remained too close to call:

• Proposition 4, which would allow state and local candidates to receive public campaign financing if they demonstrated broad support and agreed to expenditure limits.
• Proposition 5, a constitutional amendment that would alter the state’s recall process by limiting it to the question of whether to remove an elected official from office, and no longer including the cadre of candidates hoping to replace the politician.
• Proposition 38, which would create an $8.4-billion bond to support the immunology and immunotherapy fields.
• Proposition 43, which would bar local governments from imposing special taxes unless two-third of voters support the effort. Current law requires a simple majority vote.
• Proposition 45, which would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up certain housing, water, energy, transportation and other projects deemed essential.

For more than a decade, Donald Trump seemed to defy all the known laws of political physics.

He was impeached, repeatedly indicted and convicted of multiple felony counts. He ranted and raged and acted more like a colicky infant than any president that anyone living today has ever seen.

He enriched himself lavishly, pursued his self-interests relentlessly and indulged his whimsies — from war, to tariffs to tacky decor — without regard to cost, crudeness or any flicker of conscience.

And yet Trump bestrode the country like no figure since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was not just a political titan, but an irresistible social and cultural force.

On Tuesday, however, time, impatience and gravity finally caught up with Trump.

He took an electoral thrashing that will stand alongside the worst political beat-downs of modern times. His party not only lost control of the House and Senate, but drowned in a blue wave that swept away Republicans in election contests big and small, from sea to shining sea.

No lies, no bluster, no flimsily drafted lawsuits challenging the result can change or overturn that fact.

Presidents almost invariably lose congressional seats at the midpoint of their term, especially during their second stretch in office. But Tuesday’s results weren’t predestiny. They were a Republican disaster wholly of Trump’s making.

Keeping control of the House, which the GOP held by a historically small margin, was always going to be exceedingly difficult, even after Trump and his allies ruthlessly gerrymandered congressional lines to improve their chances. Democrats needed a gain of merely three seats. They scooped those up before the polls even closed in California, Nevada and other Western states.

The only question, with many races still to be decided, is how big a majority Democrats will enjoy when the next Congress convenes in January.

The Senate, where Republicans enjoyed a 53-47 advantage, should have been the GOP’s bulwark.

The political map could scarcely have been more favorable. Roughly two-thirds of the contested Senate seats were in states that Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races were in states Trump won, several by double digits.

Democrats were happily biding their time Tuesday night, awaiting results from Michigan and Alaska to see how many seats they would ultimately gain.

At the start of this election cycle, the notion that Democrats would seriously compete in such deep-red bastions as Kansas, South Carolina and Texas would have seemed absurd. On Tuesday, voters elected Democrats James Talarico in Texas and Annie Andrews in South Carolina, the first time the party has won a statewide office in either state in decades.

In Kansas, Adam Hamilton beat Roger Marshall to become Kansas’ first Democratic U.S. senator since before “The Wizard of Oz” was released in movie theaters in 1939.

Trump could not have done more in the last two years to undermine his party and its political standing if he’d purposely set out on a mission of self-sabotage.

His meddling in primaries left Republicans with several flawed candidates, including in Texas and South Carolina. His cruel and roughshod anti-immigrant policies alienated Latinos, who just two years ago voted for Trump in record numbers.

His tariffs and, in particular, go-it-alone war with Iran stoked inflation and sent the cost of gas, diesel, groceries and fertilizer soaring. Those elevated prices taxed consumers everywhere but hit particularly hard in rural, small town and exurban America, which is home to much of the Republican base.

Trump’s focus on building a White House ballroom, raising a triumphal arch and resurfacing Washington’s Reflecting Pool — which he visited on election eve for a closing message, that, inexplicably, drew attention to its botched renovation — showed exactly where his skewed priorities lie during these economically anxious times.

Empathetic it was not.

As inflation worsened and his seeming obtuseness grew — “I don’t give a damn,” Trump said of higher gas prices, “we’re making a freaking fortune” — the president’s approval ratings sank to levels not seen since a Trump-inspired mob laid siege to the Capitol in a failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Even that defeat wasn’t as bad as Tuesday’s political massacre.

Voters were not happy.

Roughly three-quarters of those sampled by the Associated Press said they were angry or dissatisfied with the overall direction of the country as well as the state of the economy. Nearly 7 in 10 said they wanted Congress, supine under Republican control, to provide more checks and balances on the capricious president.

We live in an age of remarkable political volatility.

From 1960 to 1978, there were three elections in which control of the White House, Senate or House switched parties. From 1980 to 1998, there were four. Since 2000, there have been 12 elections in which power shifted, with Tuesday’s midterm referendum being the latest.

Voters have punished presidents for an unpopular war (in Iraq), for policies they didn’t like (Obamacare, threatened cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and for that particular scourge of presidents and their parties, inflation.

But no other midterm election this century delivered the kind of personal repudiation that Trump faced, because no other president placed himself so very front and center in the campaign.

Riding the thermals of his over-inflated ego, marching stridently beneath his banner of self-regard, Trump incessantly urged voters “to pretend I’m on the ballot.” They did and their verdict was thunderous and clear.

Trump lost. Epically.

Let the healing — and the reckoning — begin.