state

Washington, DC – Democrats have the momentum; Republicans are surging in defence and cash.

That narrative has emerged ahead of the United States midterm elections in November, as races across the country enter their final stretch.

With control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate at stake, Democrats begin October with a surprisingly rosy outlook as more congressional seats are seen as in play.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear to be in damage control, pouring millions of dollars into races once seen as secure victories while injecting more funding into a handful of marquee showdowns.

The party’s standard bearer, President Donald Trump, who has embraced the notion of the election being a referendum on his leadership, enters the final month with staggeringly low approval ratings.

The most recent Associated Press-NORC polling, released on Thursday, showed Trump with 31 percent approval, the lowest during either of his two terms. Only 26 percent of respondents approved Trump’s handling of the economy, dipping two points below his predecessor, former President Joe Biden’s lowest rating on the topic.

Surveys continue to show voters rank the economy as their top issue, with topics like gas prices, made higher by the US-Israel war with Iran, dominating their concerns. Immigration and corruption have also regularly ranked high.

“The broad stroke is that Americans are disappointed, bordering on angry that President Trump hasn’t delivered on the core promises he made when he won re-election,” according to Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

House looking solid for Dems

Political trackers have long projected Democrats will take control of the US House of Representatives in the November 3 vote.

Winning a majority in the 435-member chamber from Republicans would give the party renewed legislative power to assert leverage over Trump, while launching investigations into his administration’s dealings. Top Democrats have already signalled that probes into Trump’s family business dealings would be top priorities.

Two election non-partisan prediction authorities, the Cook Political Report and the University of Virginia’s Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have recently assessed that the likelihood of Democrats taking the House has only increased.

The Cook Political Report recently shifted 15 House races in the direction of Democrats, moving some considered “toss-ups” to “leans Democrat” and some previously considered “lean Republican” to “toss-ups”.

One such shift was for a Texas border district represented by Republican Monica De La Cruz. Her district was emblematic of a wider Latino shift towards Trump in 2024. Once seen as holding the advantage over her challenger, Democrat Bobby Pulido, Cook now rates her race as a “toss-up”.

All told, the political analysis clearinghouse now predicts Democrats are on track to win 5 to 15 House seats.

Senate in play

With 30 days left to go, “there’s much more drama in the Senate than the House races”, according to Kyle Kondik, the managing editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Once considered a pipe dream for Democrats, who need a net gain of at least four seats to win a slim majority, the 100-member chamber has moved within a more comfortable striking distance.

Unlike in the House, where every seat is up for re-election, only 35 Senate seats are up for grabs in this cycle, creating a far narrower pathway to control.

“The trajectory of the polling since Labor Day (September 7) has generally been that a bad Republican environment is just getting worse,” Kondik said, adding that “the Senate just seems to get more and more competitive as the cycle has gone on”.

To be sure, the quality of polling can vary across the country, with Kondik cautioning that gauging the political temperature of the Midwest has been particularly challenging for pollsters.

Still, in North Carolina, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper is expected to trounce former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley in the race for a Senate seat currently held by Republicans. Top conservative donors have already begun to divert funds from the contest.

Surveys have consistently shown Democrats leading in three other races for seats currently held by Republicans: Democrat James Talarico against Republican Ken Paxton in Texas; Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown against Republican incumbent Senator John Husted in Ohio; and Democratic Mary Peltola against Republican Dan Sullivan in Alaska.

Races for Republican held seats in Iowa, between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek, and in Maine, between Republican incumbent Susan Collins and Democratic challenger Troy Jackson, remain separated by less than one point, according to Real Clear Politics polling averages.

Democrats, meanwhile, have consistently led in polling in Senate races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Michigan for seats the party currently holds.

Big money in the race

For Republicans, salvation could be in the spending, with this year’s race continuing a US phenomenon of small fortunes poured into politics.

All told, at least $4bn had been spent on gubernatorial and congressional midterm advertising buys as of September 17, putting the race on track to become “perhaps the most expensive midterm on record”, according to Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Republicans entered September with a considerable funding edge. The Republican National Committee had $125.6m on hand, with the Democratic National Committee trailing far behind with $16.9m and $17.6m in debt.

When accounting for the three major committees associated with both groups, the Republican Party had $233.4m in cash, according to a CNBC analysis, while the Democratic Party had $130.4m.

Trip Yang, a Democrat strategist based in New York City, told Al Jazeera such spending can be deployed to help boost a candidate’s name recognition or to tear down a competitor.

According to AdImpact, Republicans and their allies were set to spend $888m on advertising from mid-September to election day, with Democrats and their supporters set to spend $666m.

The firm found pro-Republican ad spending would be particularly pronounced in the key Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Michigan, outpacing Democratic spending by at least $24m in each state.

Trump’s unpopularity, Yang said, means “Republicans spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars improving their candidates’ images by itself may not be enough”.

“If you’re a little bit handicapped because your president is so toxic, you try to spend your hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the Democrats to make it more of a food fight,” he said.

A New York Times analysis estimated by the end of August at least $1bn in so-called “dark money” had been poured into the midterms. The term refers to spending where the donor’s identity is shielded, typically through nonprofit and shell-company donations to Super PACs.

Industry groups, including those supporting Crypto, AI and online betting firms, are expected to be top spenders in key races, although their support tends to cut across partisan lines.

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to spend between $400m and $500m from his MAGA Inc Super PAC, though it has so far spent about $15m to support Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas.

Pro-Paxton ad reservations far outpaced Talarico in September, according to AdImpact data analysed by NPR, with $94m spent compared with $30m to support the Democrat.

The Trump factor

Trump has pledged to spend the final days before the election in non-stop campaign mode, after urging supporters during his Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, to “vote like I’m on the ballot”.

His plan to criss-cross the country for rallies underscores a “base turnout” strategy meant to energise voters already loyal to the party, according to conservative analyst Olsen.

“But the Republican problem is a persuasion problem with people in the middle,” Olsen said. “[Trump’s campaigning] might help with some turnout … but their real problem is persuasion, and it’s not something that’s going to help with that in the slightest.”

Polls have spelt trouble for Republicans when it comes to swaying independents, with a PBS News, NPR and Marist poll from September 23 showing unaffiliated voters breaking for Democrats at 57 percent compared with 32 moving towards Republicans.

The scenario has created a dilemma for some top Republican candidates over whether to break from the president on his most controversial actions, according to Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist University Institute for Public Opinion.

Senate candidates Ashley Hinson in Iowa, Jon Husted in Ohio and Mike Rogers in Michigan all recently put daylight between themselves and Trump on the war with Iran.

One Republican House candidate, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, has criticised Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies as she seeks to rally Latino voters in South Florida.

Trump, in turn, reposted a social media message calling Salazar a “backstabber”.

“You need to have, you know, something else going for you other than endorsement of Trump,” said Miringoff. “Some Republicans are starting to have self-preservation kick in because they’re concerned.”

What can change?

Achieving a wide-scale shift in public opinion remains a tall order for Republicans in the final stretch of the race.

Many of the defining issues are unlikely to change before November, with Trump signalling a possible escalation with Iran following the vote as he has downplayed the prospect of short-term affordability relief.

At the same time, the US president has also not ruled out actions that rights groups say could upend voter turnout. Most recently, he refused to commit to not invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a state of emergency surrounding the vote during an interview with Time magazine.

Miringoff said he believed that the “potential for more than just a marginal shift is there”, as he assessed some Democratic candidates have struggled to present clear visions beyond opposition to Trump.

“The result isn’t formed in concrete,” he said, “to the degree that there’s going to be a lot of money still spent.”

Analyst Olsen saw less remaining wiggle room for the party.

“Republicans have the time and the resources to change the outcome with respect to a few close Senate races,” Olsen said. “But to change direction, they would need something that would be apocal.”

Oct. 3, 2026 3:03 AM PT

Menopause has been having a moment lately, and Washington is taking notice. On Sept. 16, the Senate held its first hearing on the dismal state of federally funded menopause research and vast gaps in treatment and care. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health and Human Services also convened pharmaceutical manufacturers and physicians to troubleshoot the alarming lack of availability of estradiol patches, an essential menopause hormone treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration held a full day of expert panels on female-dosed testosterone, which is currently only FDA-approved for men.

One week later, Health and Human Services joined the American Urological Assn. for a discussion about a silent killer of postmenopausal women: urosepsis from recurrent urinary tract infections. There is a simple solution — localized vaginal estrogen — and yet because of outdated guidelines and lack of clinician training, the medication is too often ignored or denied. Nor is the prescription routinely covered by Medicare, despite its well-established health and longevity benefits for women over age 65.

These are among the attempts to now, finally, address decades of policy failures — a refreshing change, quite frankly, given neither political party has ever prioritized menopause. That 2026 marks the year when menopause has entered the policy arena comes as little surprise to me. I’ve been beating this drum for years. Every aspect of daily life that menopause touches — the soaring cost of medical care, inadequate access to health insurance, extreme underinvestment in scientific research focused on women’s health, even the myriad ways midlife women are stretched to the limit caring for kids and aging parents — is smack in the middle of the political zeitgeist. These are the kitchen table issues on the minds of voters this election.

Menopause moment, meet the midterms.

Another issue rightly revealed by menopause is the chasm of public trust in government. As one of the four expert witnesses who testified at the Senate, I was heartened that it was a true bipartisan endeavor. But that’s a rarity these days in Congress, an institution rife with dysfunction. Our federal health agencies have become so shamelessly politicized they are on a collision course with science — from HHS’ overt moves to undermine childhood vaccines, to the decimation of leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is struggling to respond to the crisis of measles outbreaks across the country.

My goal as a policy advocate is to help turn the tide on this country’s long record of neglect when it comes to menopause. Like many other women’s and reproductive health advocates, after the 2024 election l turned my attention to state legislatures — not just as a consolation prize but as a way to test what range of reforms were feasible and to get as many good laws as possible passed. It was the right move. Over the last two years, more than 60 bills have been introduced in 28 states — to do things like require private insurance and Medicaid to cover menopause care and treatment, improve clinician training and public education, and bolster antidiscrimination protection in the workplace. Ten of those states now have 21 laws on the books.

California is one and can claim real leadership. Among the bills passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 2270 from 2023-24 incentivizes continuing medical education on menopause for clinicians, the majority of whom receive little to zero training while in medical school and residency. The California Department of Corrections is now collaborating with medical experts to help bring menopause resources to incarcerated women in state prisons.

Newsom also just vetoed AB 1940, which would have codified menopause as a protected category in the state’s workplace antidiscrimination laws.

The Legislature has been especially deft at easing access to FDA-approved hormonal treatments, including testosterone, often used off-label by menopausal women: AB 82 ends the requirement to report prescriptions to the state’s tracking database; AB 1778 proactively declassifies testosterone as a controlled substance under state law, should there be action in Washington to do the same under federal law.

Although Newsom twice vetoed bills to mandate insurance coverage for menopause treatment — and deserved all the flak he received — the 2026-27 state budget includes a minor course correct: a $3.4-million “trailer bill” to invest in public education and make menopause treatments more affordable; Medi-Cal patients are not fully covered by the addendum, though, making it a toothless reform for those who need support the most.

Why should California’s menopause agenda, or that of the other 27 states that have introduced reforms, matter to the rest of the country? They offer useful models of what to do — or in the case of Medicaid exclusion, what not to do — in crafting meaningful policies. Perhaps more important, they offer a rationale that can help persuade the public; those who might balk at a congressional bill or federal policy, in part because of skepticism of the federal government or the current administration, can listen to and learn from other stakeholders, including governors and state lawmakers and activists.

Take for example the FDA decision in November 2025 to remove the long-critiqued “black box” warning on estrogen products for menopause. This was the culmination of a decade-long campaign by physicians, researchers and scientists — who had been waging the fight for accurate labeling well before the acronym MAHA ever existed and regardless of which party held power. Yet the very image of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using his moment at the podium to credit the Trump administration’s deep commitment to women’s health posed a serious credibility challenge. Aligned and contemporaneous state reforms offered much-needed reassurance and clarity to many.

Trust in government is understandably at a low point, but this happens to be when menopause finally has caught the attention of policymakers at all levels of power. Some are taking long-overdue steps for women’s health, however implausibly. Let’s take the wins.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is the author of “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” She is executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center.

Kounalakis is well known in state politics. She is serving her final term as lieutenant governor, a largely ceremonial role that includes seats on various higher-education boards including the University of California Board of Regents and the California State University Board of Trustees.

A major Democratic donor, Kounalakis in 2023 launched a campaign to become California’s next governor before dropping out of the race and announcing in August 2025 she would run for state treasurer.

Kounalakis holds a master’s in business administration from UC Berkeley and is the daughter of Sacramento real estate magnate Angelo Tsakopolous. She spent 18 years working for AKT Development, the business her father founded, eventually becoming its president. In 2009, she was appointed to the U.S. ambassador post in Hungary by President Obama.

“I have been using my international experience serving the state as our representative for international trade and investment, which has a very heavy economic development piece to it,” she said this year.

Hawks is a retired businesswoman and a Republican activist. She has served as president of Palo Alto Republican Women Federated, been involved with the California Federation of Republican Women and has gathered signatures for the GOP-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39.

Hawks spent two decades working as an executive assistant at the Sacred Hearts School, a private Catholic school in the tony Silicon Valley town of Atherton, before her retirement in 2021. Before that, she worked in various human resources and office manager roles.

“I am a people person,” Hawks said on Assemblymember Carl DeMaio’s (R-San Diego) Reform California podcast. “I’ll get to know [the] rank-and-file in there, and I will garner their trust.”

The Times submitted surveys to the candidates. Unedited excerpts from the surveys, in which candidates lay out detailed goals and policy analysis, can be found at the links below.

Barrera

Shaw

Aligned with their parties

Shaw, 44, is the president of the Chino Valley Unified Board of Education, overseeing a relatively large school system of 26,000 students in San Bernardino County.

Barrera, 59, is the president of the San Diego Unified Board of Education, which governs the state’s second-largest school system with about 113,000 students. Barrera also serves as a senior adviser to state Supt. Thurmond, whom Shaw has sharply criticized.

Both are parents. Barrera’s children are grown; Shaw’s still are in school.

Shaw broadly characterizes the public education system as failing because of liberal Democratic policies, although she praises the quality of the public school system over which she presides. On the culture-war front, she supports flag bans at schools — which were conceived to target gay pride flags — and book restrictions that target content deemed as sexually obscene.

She became politically activated by the pandemic’s prolonged school closures, COVID vaccine mandates and mask mandates — all of which she opposed.

Despite a consistent policy alignment with the Trump administration, Shaw, a longtime religious conservative and a small business owner, objects to any implication that she is falling into line behind Trump or that she is subservient to his policies.

“I don’t put loyalty behind a person,” Shaw said. “I put my my effort and my love and my everyday sacrifice behind protecting kids, whether it’s this president, the next president or whatever. If they’re on the right side of protecting kids, then, of course, when it comes to the issues, I’m all in. I really honestly hate the division. In my heart, if we just speak on our issues, it’ll bring people together. We could see more eye to eye. We can actually have decent conversations, right?”

At times, Shaw presents a sharp rhetorical style, as when she characterized a September court ruling that placed limits on when school officials would have to notify parents about their child’s gender issues. Shaw believes such notifications should be mandatory. Her first emphatic comment, in an interview and a social media post after the hearing, which she attended, was: “Kangaroo courts. Dishonorable judges.”

Shaw sidesteps discussions about Trump’s immigration enforcement. “Districts should follow the law, communicate clearly with families and keep their attention on the classroom … That’s where our energy belongs,” she said.

Barrera, in contrast, calls Trump’s immigration raids harmful.

“This assault on our immigrant families by the Trump administration absolutely is a real issue that affects students and affects educators,” he said. “And I’m going to stand up to those assaults, and Californians will continue to stand up to those assaults.”

Barrera defends the quality of public schools and advocates for increased funding and expanding what works from successful campuses to those with poorer academic results.

Barrera sees the superintendent as a convener and organizer to advance initiatives that benefit students — with or without state funding or direction from the governor and Legislature.

As an example, he cited the education department’s effort to promote affordable workforce housing projects on school district property. He also cited efforts to reduce chronic absenteeism, for which the department gathered a working group that has produced guidance for schools.

Barrera has a long career in community and labor organizing and worked as a senior official in two unions. That background, combined with his 18 years on the San Diego school board, where he has been a union ally, made him an ideological fit with CTA. Neither Barrera nor CTA had to compromise values or shift positions to join forces for this campaign.

“I have absolute respect and … a long demonstrated partnership with the unions that represent our educators,” Barrera said, “and believe strongly that unions are democratically elected, governed institutions where the educator voice comes out most powerfully, and so for me, the unions are a partner and will always be a core voice in influencing the way that I make decisions.”

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Arizona’s eleventh-hour bid to block the upcoming start of a court-ordered takeover of healthcare operations in its prisons after the state was found to have provided constitutionally inadequate care to incarcerated people and dragged its feet for over a decade in making required improvements. Justice Elena Kagan denied the state’s request Thursday, leaving an outside corrections professional set to take over healthcare management for 25,000 incarcerated people on Oct. 19.

Arizona had asked the courts to delay the takeover while it appealed that decision and the appointment of former Ohio corrections director Annette Chambers-Smith to lead the effort. The state sought the delay from the Supreme Court after lower courts rejected by the request.

Over the past 14 years, Arizona has been dogged by complaints that its prison healthcare system was run shoddily and callously and that it repeatedly failed to improve a system found to have exposed prisoners to harm and preventable deaths.

Under a 2014 settlement, the state pledged to overhaul medical and healthcare services for prisoners but was soon accused of failing to make promised improvements. That led to more than $2 million in contempt-of-court fines and the eventual revocation of the agreement by U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, who said corrections officials had shown little interest in making required changes.

After a 2021 trial, Silver ruled against the state, issuing an injunction that required corrections authorities to address the constitutional violations. Earlier this year, she ordered the takeover after concluding the state hadn’t gotten a semblance of compliance with court-ordered changes and the U.S. Constitution after more than a decade of litigation. Silver found that prisoners remained exposed to grave threats of harm and suffering because of systematic deficiencies in their health care.

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re-entry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s decision.

In a statement, Corene Kendrick, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents prisoners in the lawsuit, applauded the court’s refusal to delay the takeover, also known as a receivership. She said Arizona fought accountability at every turn while prisoners suffered. “Today’s decision clears the way for a receiver to do what the state has failed to do for more than a decade,” Kendrick said.

In seeking a delay, Arizona’s attorneys said Silver adopted a drastic takeover remedy without first trying intermediate fixes to speed compliance. They also said the judge hadn’t given the corrections department enough time to continue making progress and argued that the official appointed to run healthcare operations wouldn’t be politically accountable. They said the agency is committed to improving health care in prisons, has made significant progress since 2023 and that the prisoners won’t suffer harm if the start of the takeover were delayed by a few months.

Lawyers for prisoners said the state was minimizing its noncompliance, disputed its claim it had not been given enough time to comply after 14 years of litigation and said Silver had already tried less-intrusive remedies. They also said the state’s proposal of a months-long delay in the takeover “grievously minimizes” the harm prisoners face from the state’s inability to provide adequate care.

Complaints about health care in Arizona’s prisons have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 during Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration and continued under Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, when both contempt fines against the state were issued. Under Ryan Thornell, the corrections director in Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs administration, the department has complained that its progress in overhauling health care operations in recent years hasn’t been acknowledged.

The lawsuit over healthcare for incarcerated people covers Arizona’s nine state-run prisons but not the nearly 10,000 Arizona inmates held in private prisons.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

When twins Keira and Kelsey Luderer of Sherman Oaks Notre Dame announced they had committed to Florida State to play college softball, their father, Brian, the new head coach for Notre Dame, was ready to cry.

“Special moment,” he said of his junior daughters.

Kelsey, an infielder who was Mission League player of they year, and Keira, a standout catcher, have been working hard for years for this moment and learned plenty from Brian, who played baseball in high school and college.

Michigan, California and Loyola Marymount were also finalists for the twins who were coached last season by Justin Siegel, a new assistant coach at Loyola Marymount.

Now dad and mom, who have been transporting them around for years in club softball, will have to begin looking for the cheapest flights to Tallahassee.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Oct. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

California’s general election takes place on November 3. Here is information Times reporters gathered about the races:

L.A. mayor election

L.A. City Council elections

Other L.A. city elections

Community college elections

L.A. County elections

Judge elections

Governor’s race

California statewide propositions

Other statewide races

U.S. House elections

How to vote

Follow more election coverage

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of bills this week designed to help a San Diego stadium and development project led by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke sidestep environmental review hurdles.

Newsom signed Senate Bill 344 and Senate Bill 958, which were put forward by state Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) to help the stadium project, known as Midway Rising. The project would replace the decades-old Pechanga Arena and include a new 16,000-seat facility, 4,254 homes, including up to 2,000 affordable units, and commercial and outdoor space. The site is south of Mission Bay.

Newsom cast the bills as part of a package to help speed up the construction of much-needed housing.

“Every Californian deserves a fair shot at a stable home — families shouldn’t have to wait years for housing to be approved and built in their communities,” he said in a written statement.

Senate Bill 344 deems Midway Rising in full compliance with the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act, known was CEQA.

The act, adopted in 1970, has been credited for protecting California’s natural resources and minimizing pollution. It also has been criticized for sometimes being weaponized by opponents of a project, including housing developments.

After the state Legislature’s vote last month, Weber Pierson said the project would provide “much-needed affordable housing, permanent jobs, community spaces, and health resources in a part of our city that is ready for investment.”

Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, a longtime critic of the proposal, called Senate Bill 344 “reckless and rushed” because it was introduced late in the session without public input. Saldaña said the site isn’t suitable for development because of sea-level rise that she said is causing street flooding in the area.

Senate Bill 958 states that a project’s increased building height, and any related noise, shadows, or impact on wildlife shall not be considered significant environmental impacts, if the project meets a host of conditions.

It would apply to any development in the state but was introduced to benefit Midway Rising, according to Weber Pierson.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was among those who voted against both bills.

The developers “don’t want to play by the rules, so they came here to Sacramento asking for a special exemption,” DeMaio said during a discussion on Senate Bill 958 last month.

“We’re talking about the coast. I think a big condo tower on the coast impeding the view is a significant environmental impact, and I think deep down in your heart of hearts, you know that,” DeMaio said.

State lawmakers routinely carve out environmental exemptions for proposed sports stadiums, sometimes in the closing days of the legislative session.

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

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

SACRAMENTO — Days after signing a package of bills to rebuff aspects of federal immigration enforcement in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills from Los Angeles lawmakers that targeted public employment for federal agents.

One of the bills, backed by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), would have blocked agents and contractors who worked to enforce federal immigration laws from state and local jobs in California, including for law enforcement agencies. It was called the “Get the Feds Out” or “GTFO” Act.

Newsom said the bill goes “a step too far.”

“It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration’s policies and tactics reprehensible,” the governor wrote in a veto letter to the Legislature made public on Wednesday.

The governor added that hiring for public employment already includes personal conduct evaluations. He emphasized the “horrific tactics” used by immigration agents during President Trump’s second term but said it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the administration and individual agents accountable.

Newsom signed a similar bill that prevents federal agents from becoming police in California if their federal badge was revoked for misconduct.

While he expressed disappointment in the veto, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), the author of Assembly Bill 1896, applauded Newsom for signing “a strong package of legislation that will protect Californians and stand up for our immigrant communities.”

“From the beginning, the GTFO Act was about a simple principle: We should never use public dollars to reward conduct that has caused fear, terror, and pain in our communities. I am proud to have stood alongside my brother, Speaker Rivas, in this fight and this fight is not over,” Gonzalez said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Rivas said while the proposal did not become law, “Californians know Trump’s immigration agenda is failing and doesn’t keep anyone safe. That’s why Assembly Democrats are leading the nation in holding ICE accountable. The Speaker thanks his colleagues for delivering real results this year.”

The outgoing governor also vetoed a proposal from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City), Assembly Bill 1537, that would have prevented sworn law enforcement officers from taking secondary employment or contract jobs for immigration enforcement.

Newsom took issue with the prospect of prohibiting “secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time.”

“State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct,” Newsom wrote in the veto letter. “Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.”

Bryan, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the veto.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed 21 bills aimed at federal immigration enforcement, including bans on electric shock gloves and face coverings for law enforcement. Other laws impose a 25% tax on companies that operate private detention centers, along with additional oversight of the facilities.

“No tax will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make California safe again,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email. “While California sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make California safe again.”

The California I grew up in had its pluses and minuses, just like the state I’m living in now.

But consider this:

In 1974, I wrote a check for a semester of college.

The fee was $98.

That was the cost of registration, by the way. Tuition for in-state residents was free at San José State University and other public universities in California. The state’s leaders believed subsidized higher education would serve the greater good and seed economic growth.

Two years after graduating, I was working as a sportswriter for a small Bay Area newspaper. My spouse was a drug store clerk. Together we made less than $20,000 a year.

And we bought a brand-new house, 45 minutes east of Oakland, for just under $50,000.

In a thousand ways, we’re living in a different California today. Tuition and fees for a semester on a Cal State campus now run about $4,500, and the average mid-tier home costs about $775,000 in some places and far more in others, which is out of reach for nearly 80% of working people.

So as I watched the gubernatorial debate Wednesday night between the two men who want to lead us into the future, I was wondering which California is better in terms of hope, opportunity and livability?

The one I was born in during the postwar boom, or the one we’re living in now?

There’s no easy answer. The California of my youth was more affordable, but it was no utopian dreamscape. Housing discrimination and segregation were deep-seated, and the Los Angeles sky was the color of swamp water.

In the last half of the 20th century, California went on to become a global leader in technology, aerospace, the arts and healthcare, and its investment in public education helped build an economic superpower. Even the air got cleaned up, to a degree.

But for all of California’s riches and unrivaled natural beauty, it’s fair to say things are out of whack at the moment. How is it that the world’s fourth-largest economy also has the nation’s highest poverty rate?

There’s a flotilla of yachts, but millions of have-nots, and enough homeless people to fill stadiums. If we’re so progressive, and swimming in more venture capital than the rest of the nation combined, why are the masses crippled by a housing shortage and the high cost of living, and why did we build a soaring higher education model while letting our once exalted K-12 system sink in national rankings?

If California weren’t so lopsidedly blue, Republican candidate Steve Hilton might get a little more traction with a campaign built around the idea that there’s an easy explanation for the state’s misery of problems: Democrats have been in charge for years, they’ve mucked things up, and Xavier Becerra is yet another textbook California liberal who will stay the course.

“It’s impossible for regular working people to live in this state anymore,” Hilton charged during the debate, calling out over-regulation, the high cost of living, the housing shortage and a homelessness problem that “shames” our state. “And all you’re offering,” Hilton continued, “is more of the same, backed by the same corrupt machine in Sacramento.”

Becerra, meanwhile, kept handcuffing Hilton to President Trump, a good move, given that the president has helped launch an idiotic war, gummed up the economy, and seen his favorability plummet.

Hilton is not entirely off base, although there’s no evidence he has plausible solutions.

What he doesn’t tell you is that other states have their own problems, many of which have more to do with global economic forces — and President Trump’s war-mongering and tariff tirades — than with public policy decisions at the state level.

When I was a lad, my father drove a milk truck, and then a bread truck, and then he sold candy and tobacco for a wholesale distributor based in Oakland, near the Coliseum, where he’d take me to A’s games but save a few bucks by parking next to the railroad tracks a half-mile away from the parking lot.

His jobs were mostly unionized. Unions were plentiful in the private sector back then. My family saved up for a house while we lived in an apartment, and then I paid next to nothing for a college degree.

The boldness of that idea — a free education at an elite university, with a lofty if unfulfilled goal of equal access for all — is still a testament to California’s long-ago grand ambition, even if Gov. Ronald Reagan eventually ended free tuition.

In her new book, “California Dreams: The Making and Remaking of the University of California,” Miriam Pawel references a quote from UC Berkeley alum Joan Didion, who called the system “the most coherent expression of the California possibility.”

The staircase I climbed was the essence of what USC professor Natalia Molina called “the infrastructure” of upward mobility. In her immigrant family, her grandmother established an Echo Park restaurant that Molina wrote a book about — “A Place at the Nayarit” — and her mother ran the bar there after attending bartending school.

Molina went to UCLA, and is now both a MacArthur Foundation fellow (the “genius” grant) and a Guggenheim fellow.

“There’s not that same path for upward mobility,” Molina said. “But there sure seems to be a path for downward mobility.”

That brings me back to the economy, and lessons I learned in 2018, when I spent several weeks in and around Telfair Elementary School in Pacoima, looking into why nearly a quarter of the students were homeless.

The answer? Several once-bustling manufacturing and aerospace companies in the area had shut down. The new economy was fast food and big box stores. Pay dropped; housing prices spiked. It was a snapshot of a changing world — one we haven’t yet adapted to.

Modern politics is not built to foster long-term thinking about such challenges, said longtime political strategist Darry Sragow.

“What are the dreams, what are the aspirations, where do you want to go?” said Sragow, who doesn’t know the answers but would like to at least hear the questions. “I keep looking for somebody who will do that.”

Agoura Hills resident and attorney Dan Douglass, 80, who detests President Trump and isn’t a fan of Hilton, told me that as a moderate Republican, he feels like “a man without a party.” But he is not without an answer to California’s housing problem.

“They’ve made it too complicated to build anything,” Douglass said. “Too many permits. Too much time to build.”

He is not wrong.

Samuel Trachtman, a political scientist with the UC Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative, argues that despite recent legislative progress on the housing crisis, state policies are restricting growth and making California more unaffordable.

“California must reduce regulatory costs that fall disproportionately on low- and middle-income residents,” Trachtman wrote in a recent four-part analysis.

“The state has “long led the nation in regulations promoting safety, sustainability, and quality,” he went on. “These policies can produce strong benefits. But they can also drive up the cost of essentials — costs that hit the poor hardest. This amounts to regressively funded progressivism.”

California was, and is, a work in progress, richly endowed and deeply flawed. Fixing complicated problems isn’t easy, but what I’d like to see from the next governor is more of the striving, imagination and sense of collective purpose that made California great.

There’s no way and no reason to go back to the state of my youth, but Trachtman had a thought about where to go next.

“In some ways we can use the past as a model,” he told me. “But in other ways we need to be more innovative and think about charting a path forward.”

Toward the most coherent expression of the California possibility.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The two candidates to become California’s next governor painted vastly different portraits of the state they want to lead during a televised CNN debate Wednesday night — though they both agreed the state faces tremendous challenges.

Democrat Xavier Becerra, leading in polls, cast the state as an economic engine and a critical bulwark against the disastrous economic policies and creeping authoritarianism of the Trump administration, but also a victim of Trump policies, including tariffs and the war in Iran, that have made life less affordable and the nation less safe.

Becerra said he would work hard to help struggling Californians — including by cutting red tape on housing and regulating AI to ensure it doesn’t destroy jobs — while his challenger, Republican Steve Hilton, would harm them further by backing President Trump’s agenda at every turn.

Hilton, endorsed by Trump, blamed the state’s most entrenched ills on years of Democratic governance, awash in unnecessary state bureaucracy and regulation that have made it wildly unaffordable, and wrongly obsessed with fighting the president instead of bringing down costs and fixing related local issues like homelessness.

Hilton said he would help struggling Californians by cutting taxes, cutting the cost of building new housing, eliminating fraud and bringing common sense back to state policy-making.

Both candidates came out of the gate on offense, and at times it got intensely personal, particularly on immigration — with Becerra accusing Hilton of welcoming white immigrants into the country while rejecting Latino immigrants, and Hilton accusing Becerra of handing migrant children over to sex and labor traffickers during his time as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

With ballots soon arriving in voters’ mailboxes and the Nov. 3 midterm election rapidly approaching, the hour-long debate — moderated by CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash in Burbank and aired live by the national news network — provided the public with its latest look at two candidates vastly different both in politics and campaign style.

Becerra, a former Congress member from Los Angeles, California attorney general and Health secretary under President Biden, surged past a slate of other Democrats to win the June primary after onetime front runner Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race amid sexual assault allegations. Hilton placed second after Republican voters and others coalesced behind his message to shake up Sacramento — earning him the right to face off against Becerra in November.

Hilton, a former British political aide, former Fox News host and Silicon Valley entrepreneur, has been crisscrossing the state looking for votes anywhere he can find them — an uphill battle given registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, and opposition to Trump is widespread in the state and growing even among Republican voters.

A poll this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times found 58% of likely voters surveyed said they support Becerra, compared with 33% who back Hilton — a slight increase to Becerra’s lead compared with an August IGS poll. California voters identified the high cost of living as their top concern, but that was followed closely by opposition to the Trump administration.

The same poll found found that 76% of Republican voters in the state approve of the president’s performance, down from 83% last year.

Becerra has taken a less visible approach to campaigning, with critics accusing him of intentionally keeping a low profile in an effort to cruise to victory in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office in two decades.

“I just want to say thank you to CNN for bringing Xavier out of hiding,” Hilton said at the beginning of Wednesday’s face-off. “He’s barely been seen in public since the primary four months ago; it’s very important we have this debate.”

During the debate, both candidates seemed prepared to focus on the lack of affordability — namely by blaming the other’s political party for it. But they also discussed artificial intelligence and data centers, immigration policy and, of course, Trump.

Tackling gas prices, high cost of living

California has some of the highest housing and energy costs in the nation, and affordability tops the list of concerns for likely voters. It also was the first issue the candidates debated.

Hilton has made the cost of living a central theme of his campaign, with a plan he calls “Califordable” to cut gas prices and end income taxes on earnings up to $150,000. He blamed California’s high costs on Democrats, who have controlled the Legislature and statewide offices for more than 15 years. Hilton says he can lower costs by slashing onerous state regulations on businesses.

Hilton said the “quickest way to get more money in people’s pockets is for the government to take less out” and to reduce regulations to allow more housing to be built — including in “10 new cities” he said he would help build in the state.

Becerra has blamed higher prices on Trump’s tariffs and the war against Iran. In response to attacks from the U.S. and Israel, Iran has for months choked off a major oil trade route, sending global gas prices soaring — to a national average of $4.48 per gallon this month.

Becerra said Hilton’s plan to end income taxes would amount to a massive tax cut for “billionaires and millionaires” that would take money from schools, healthcare and other critical services. “The math doesn’t add up to what he’s talking about. He’s going to have to take it out of somewhere. It will come out of our schools,” Becerra said.

Becerra said he would bring down costs for people by cutting red tape, including on housing, and fighting the Trump administration — which he said is the real driver of cost increases. He also said he has helped create millions of jobs during his career.

Agree but disagree on AI and data centers

Hilton and Becerra both support regulations for data centers and artificial intelligence companies, a sign of growing bipartisan pushback seen across the country.

Hilton said he wants California to take a leading role in regulating AI, given much of the industry is located in the state, and expressed concern about losing AI jobs to other states such as Texas and Arizona. Hilton questioned whether Becerra would have the political courage to rein in the industry, saying his campaign has received funding from it.

When Bash asked Hilton if those companies should be able to “self-police,” as Trump has suggested, Hilton said, “We’ll have to see.” He also said he appreciates the effort by Trump to get assurances from AI companies on safety during a recent summit, and he would work to make sure that those promises are upheld.

Becerra derided Trump’s deal as a meaningless “pinky promise” that does not guarantee a safe path forward. He said he would lead efforts to reach real and meaningful regulations but also work directly with local communities on what they want.

“If someone wants to come in and build a data center that creates more jobs in the community, adds more energy to our grid, and it actually protects and adds more water capacity, then let’s talk,” he said. “But it has to be good for the community.”

Sharp attacks on immigration

Becerra has faced bipartisan criticism of how Health and Human Services cared for the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children during the pandemic.

Hilton has hammered Becerra on it, and at the debate accused him of sending “thousands of young children directly into the clutches of child sex and labor traffickers.”

Becerra was attacked by Democratic rivals in the gubernatorial primary in the aftermath of a Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the New York Times, including an article that said thousands of migrant children who entered the United States between 2021 and 2023 worked in slaughterhouses, factories and other dangerous jobs that violated child labor laws. The investigation also alleged that tens of thousands of the children Becerra’s agency released couldn’t be found because he relaxed screening of relatives and sponsors.

Becerra repeatedly has said that despite a lack of congressional funding for licensed-care facilities dismantled by the Trump administration, his staff worked hard to vet the people who the children would be placed with.

At the debate, he called Hilton’s claims “Trump talking points.” He also said more needs to be done to ensure children aren’t separated from their immigrant parents.

Becerra also has slammed the Trump administration for its mass deportation program and immigration crackdown, which has sent immigration enforcement agents into cities across the country, including Los Angeles.

Hilton said he would work to “lower the temperature” in the immigration debate and “prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals,” which he said is not occurring in California because Democrats are playing “politics” with the Trump administration.

Becerra, the son of immigrants, said California welcomed Hilton as an immigrant, and Hilton “welcomed ICE mercenaries” into California in return. He also accused Hilton of welcoming immigrants that look like Hilton, who is white, while working to remove immigrants who look like Becerra, who is Latino.

“I have fought all my life to make life better for immigrants, to represent them well, to defend them, to let them grow and build like my parents. But here’s the problem I have with your policies: You seem to welcome immigrants who look like you, but deport immigrants who look like me,” Becerra said.

Hilton called that “disgraceful.”

Trump, Trump and more Trump

Hilton repeatedly has praised Trump and his policies and consolidated support among California Republicans after Trump endorsed him before the June primary. But Trump’s endorsement could be an albatross in the Nov. 3 election, given his low approval ratings — particularly in California.

Becerra repeatedly hammered Hilton as a Trump acolyte, so much so that Hilton said that it was Becerra’s only attack line, and that Becerra “takes no responsibility” for Democratic policies that have harmed California for years.

“All you ever say is Trump, Trump, Trump, and that’s nothing but an insult to every Californian who is desperate for something to change in this state, and all you’re offering is more of the same,” Hilton said.

Becerra countered that Hilton embraced Trump during the primary.

“Your words, Trump, Trump, Trump. Because he is your supporter,” Becerra said. “You chased his endorsement.”

Where they stand on billionaire’s tax, schools and other quick hits

• Proposition 40, the billionaires tax: Both Becerra and Hilton oppose the controversial wealth tax proposal on the ballot that would enact a one-time 5% levy on billionaires’ assets to largely replace $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts to California.
• Proposition 39, voter ID: Hilton expressed support for the ballot measure, which would require voters to present ID at the polls or write a special pin on their mail-in ballot. Becerra, who opposes the measure, claimed the initiative is part of an effort by Trump and his supporters to interfere in elections.
• Improving schools: Fewer than half of third-grade students read at grade level. Hilton said it’s a “catastrophe” that exemplifies Democratic failure in the state. Becerra conceded that the school system is not “well coordinated” but supports transitional kindergarten, a new pre-K grade created by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

California voters will decide whether to establish a $7.5-billion state scientific research arm — similar to the National Institutes of Health — after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that will put the proposal on the March 2028 ballot.

The new state fund would aim to blunt federal research cuts by the Trump administration and ensure state and private institutions — including the University of California and California State University — can continue to produce scientific breakthroughs.

If voters approve the measure, $7.5 billion in bonds would fund California scientific and medical research into diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s and ALS. Other research areas include reducing wildfire risk and fighting pandemics and climate change.

“This is a research and science bond that does the opposite of what Donald Trump is doing that will allow us to double down on what makes this state great — what makes America great,” Newsom said Wednesday during a bill signing atop the Golden Gate Bridge. “We are the tentpole of the U.S. economy because we invest in the future so that we can all do well there.”

The legislation to establish the bond measure, state Senate Bill 895, was authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who in a statement called it a “bold step to protect science, improve lives, and continue California’s global leadership on innovation for many years to come.”

The bill was sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and the University of California, as well as the United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 60,000 UC academic workers.

The bond measure represents a pullback from what Wiener and supporters first proposed.

Originally conceived as a $23-billion bond measure that the Legislature would approve to go before voters in November, it was whittled down to $12 billion. But lawmakers then did not approve it in time for the November ballot.

Wiener said legislative leaders and the governor’s office then worked out a compromise, deciding on a $7.5-billion bond measure for 2028.

The measure also calls for the new state fund to establish regulations that would allow it to recoup part of its investments while not damaging innovation.

“This is a major achievement, made possible by an extraordinary coalition of people who understand the importance of investing in scientific research,” UC President James B. Milliken said in a statement.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that would give a financial boost to California’s struggling newsrooms.

Assembly Bill 2222 will create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ. It passed through both houses. It marks an innovative yet controversial attempt to slow the decline of local journalism.

The bill, called the Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act, works by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions will be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

Before signing the bill Wednesday morning, Newsom spoke about what he called the “assault on the free press and the First Amendment..coming from Washington D.C. and Donald Trump.”

“It’s journalists that need to report those stories and local journalists that need to uncover and sort of peel back the facade if democracy is going to survive, let alone thrive,” Newsom said.

The bill was supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member and a wide range of other community news boosters. Backers said it could be a lifeline to local news organizations, many of which have struggled to maintain staffing levels over the past two decades.

California has lost more than 12,000 of its local journalists since 2002, according to nonprofit advocacy group Rebuild Local News. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax change, a move which would increase tax revenues to the state.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes.

They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Newsom acknowledged some of the concerns that have been raised about those who will receive benefits from the bill’s funds, specifically hedge funds and billionaire owners and outlets who he says spread propaganda.

“It does subsidize those that don’t need to be subsidized,” he said. “We have hedge funds in this space. We have billionaires in this space. We have people that are profiteering in this space by gutting the newsrooms and extracting value out of the space that also are the beneficiaries.”

Newsom said he chose not to veto the bill because he believes its benefits outweigh the liabilities. He added that he hopes the legislature and next governor can work to narrow down who benefits most from the legislation.

“We should not be subsidizing hedge funds,” he said. “We should be focused on where the need is the greatest, in my humble opinion, and I do think when you have no cap, the limitlessness of this…to some of the most well-heeled organizations, where now they simply could pull from this bill the benefits that they didn’t even ask for or need, is self-evident.”

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill, said the governor’s signature shows California’s commitment to the free press at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and misinformation is rampant.

“Local journalism is the backbone of an informed democracy, and today California made clear that the people doing this essential work are worth investing in,” Ward said in a statement. “This historic investment will help keep reporters in our communities, strengthen nonprofit and public media, and ensure Californians continue to have access to trusted, fact-based local news.”

In signing the bill, Newsom emphasized the role of journalism in uncovering scandal and wrongdoing.

“The L.A. Times to their credit did a big investigative piece on Bell, and people getting paid a million dollars in some cases, local government officials, a million damn dollars a year. No one would have known had it not been for local journalism. How many more Bells are out there, not just in this state, but all across the country?”

With gas prices topping $6 a gallon and an unpopular war continuing in Iran, President Trump’s approval has slipped with California Republicans — a falloff that could diminish the party’s chances in the state’s few competitive congressional races.

A new poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 76% of Republican voters in the state approve of the president’s performance, down from 83% last year.

The president’s approval has softened even among those who still support his performance. Only 44% of Republicans in California said they strongly support Trump’s performance, down from 57% who said the same in August 2025.

That could translate into lower Republican turnout in the state’s few competitive races, said the poll’s director, Mark DiCamillo.

“Republicans are losing some of their enthusiasm in terms of being motivated to vote,” he said.

In addition, the more Trump tries to make the midterm elections about himself — such as the pro-Trump ads recently sponsored and paid for by the government — the more Democrats might be inclined to show up, said G. Cristina Mora, the UC Berkeley institute’s co-director.

“That might actually have a galvanizing effect on voters,” she said.

Trump’s sinking support in California mirrors a national decline in the president’s approval, even among Republicans.

The congressional map in the state was already challenging for Republicans after voters last year approved a referendum championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw districts to be more favorable for Democrats — a response to similar efforts by Republicans in Texas and other states.

In the new map, only four of the state’s 52 districts are currently considered safe Republican districts, while three additional districts are seen as competitive, according to the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political handicapper.

The remaining 45 districts are seen as either likely or solidly Democratic in a state where Democrats hold a roughly 20% advantage in party registration.

Only one race is considered by Cook to be a true toss-up — California’s 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, which is held by Republican Rep. David Valadao.

“We’re looking at the best case scenario for Democrats at this point,” said Erin Covey, Cook’s U.S. House editor.

Valadao, one of only 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, faces progressive Democrat Randy Villegas, a political science professor who has the backing of Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator is joining Villegas this weekend for a rally in Bakersfield.

Valadao first won a seat in Congress in 2012, but was ousted from office during the Democrats’ “blue wave” election in 2018, in which the party gained 40 seats in the House in the first election after Trump took office in 2016. Valadao was able to win back his seat in 2020 and has held it since.

There has been scant public polling in the race, but a poll conducted in June by a political committee backing Villegas showed the Democrat holding a 4-point lead over Valadao.

Two other congressional districts in the state are listed by Cook as leaning Democratic:

• California’s 48th Congressional District in Riverside and San Diego counties, now held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who opted to retire rather than seek reelection in the redrawn district.
• California’s 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley, where Democratic Rep. Adam Gray is trying to fend off a challenge from Republican Kevin Lincoln, the former mayor of Stockton.

Trump’s approval also dipped among Black and Latino voters in the poll. Both groups were part of Trump’s winning coalition in the 2024 presidential election.

The poll also found broad disapproval of two signature Trump administration policies.

It found that 70% of California voters disapprove of Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

Also, 70% of California voters believe that the president’s immigration policies are hurting California’s economy and local businesses, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20 and included the opinions of 6,989 registered California voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

California is set to bring back a program aimed at reducing conflict between wild animals and people, as the state’s rebounding wolf population continues to cause concern among ranchers.

Newsom signed a bill restoring the program Tuesday ahead of a “fireside chat” focused on biodiversity and natural resources, during which he described growing up with a father who was dedicated to protecting mountain lions, condors and other wildlife.

Protecting nature is “a moral issue,” Newsom said, describing a “relationship we have to what’s above us, and … how that connects us to our Creator.”

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife once employed 13 specialists dedicated to resolving human-wildlife conflicts, but it let all but one of them go after funding ran dry in 2024. The loss came as such clashes are increasing, with climate change and urban sprawl bringing people closer to bears, mountain lions and other animals.

State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, author of Senate Bill 1135, said she’s seen it play out with sea lions around La Jolla Cove. This year, someone kicked one of the marine mammals, she said, and in general there have been no government staffers “to provide the guardrails.”

When the program ended, “we weren’t doing the education, and we didn’t have staff at the state that could help intervene or provide guidance,” Blakespear (D-Encinitas) told The Times. “It was a clear lack.”

The legislation also codifies a program to compensate ranchers when they lose livestock to wolves or suffer indirect harm. The program also provides money for nonlethal equipment to deter wolves, such as electric fences with bright flags.

Part of the law is rebranding, adding “coexistence” to both programs’ names.

The California Cattlemen’s Assn. and the California Farm Bureau shifted from opposing the bill to an “enthusiastic neutral,” said Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs for the former trade group, noting his colleague coined the term.

Wilbur’s group was initially concerned about parts of the bill focused on livestock compensation, but he said they were amended in a way to avoid impeding how the program operates. However, the changes “didn’t quite get us to a support position because we didn’t necessarily view it as a significant improvement over the status quo.”

His group is in favor of the bill’s requirement to relaunch the Wildlife Coexistence Program, as it’s now called, saying it “does provide resources, for instance, for my members that are contending with mountain lion depredations of their livestock.”

The bill signing comes as California’s gray wolves had at least 42 pups this year — a record. The apex predators were extirpated in the state in the 1920s, beginning to naturally recolonize their native digs only 15 years ago.

“It’s a great sign for the conservation of the species that the population continues to reproduce, and that the number of individuals continues to reproduce,” said Axel Hunnicutt, gray wolf coordinator for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The animals’ success has delighted conservationists but frustrated some cattle ranchers, whose livelihood can become dinner for the endangered canids.

Hunnicutt spoke to The Times from Siskiyou County, where he was trying to get more GPS collars on wolves in the Whaleback pack, linked to 41 confirmed or probable livestock attacks this year, according to a recent report. That’s by far the most of any pack in the state.

Hunnicutt’s team consists of him and two other employees, along with temporary staffers. Collaring wolves in a pack that doesn’t already have the devices is challenging, he said. It involves setting up cameras, howling throughout the night to try to get the animals to respond and sometimes driving hundreds of miles looking for tracks.

Some members of the Whaleback pack are collared, providing a good starting point. While on the phone, he said he could see the tracks of two wolves on the road where he was walking.

Proponents of SB 1135 say it could lead to the expansion of Hunnicutt’s team or more resources for efforts such as collaring, which wildlife officials say helps reduce conflicts by enabling ranchers to know where wolves are.

However, the legislation does not guarantee funding for the programs it establishes.

Pamela Flick, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, a co-sponsor of the bill, said advocates asked state leaders for $18 million in one-time funding for the human-wildlife coexistence program, followed by $15 million annually. They also asked for around $30 million for wolf compensation and management.

What they got this year is $6 million, with $2.5 million earmarked for compensation, according to Flick.

“It’s really a drop in the bucket when we’re talking about statewide human-wildlife conflicts,” she said. “So we will be advocating for additional funds in out years for sure.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to visit California on Wednesday to stump and fundraise for Republican candidates in a state that could determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives during President Trump’s final two years in office.

Johnson (R-La.) plans to visit the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, a sign of the importance of California congressional contests in the November midterm election.

David Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that Johnson is attempting to mitigate the aftermath of Proposition 50, the redrawing of California’s congressional districts that voters approved in November in response to Trump’s efforts to tilt districts in his favor elsewhere in the nation, notably Texas.

“If it weren’t for Republican efforts to redraw Texas, Proposition 50 wouldn’t have seen the light of day,” said Wasserman, who predicts Democrats will win control of the House, and said that Republicans would have a better chance at holding more seats if they hadn’t prompted the redistricting fight.

Redrawing congressional districts typically happens once a decade after the U.S. Census, and in California, voters in 2010 decided to hand the power of crafting the state’s districts to an independent commission. After Trump pushed Texas to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase GOP representation in Congress last year, California Democrats responded by persuading voters to reshape its districts to favor Democrats, who already dominate the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

“California Republicans are on the verge of extinction because of the White House action,” Wasserman said.

In Chowchilla, Johnson is scheduled to hold a fundraiser and a rally in support of former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln, who is trying to topple Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced) in one of the most competitive congressional races in the nation. He is expected to be joined by Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters, California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin and Congress members from Texas and Michigan.

He is also holding a get-out-the-vote event in support of Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), a longtime Democratic target given the voter makeup of his Central Valley district. Johnson is also holding an evening fundraiser in Riverside for Jim Desmond, a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors who is running in the district being vacated by longtime Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista).

Issa decided to retire after his congressional district was redrawn because of Proposition 50. He has endorsed Desmond to represent the new district, which spans San Diego and Riverside counties.

The California trip is part of Johnson’s plans to campaign in 22 states in an effort to help Republicans retain control of the House before the Nov. 3 election.

Despite California’s sapphire tilt — registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one — the state’s residents are often the largest donors to politicians on both sides of the aisle. Democrats headed here in coming days include gubernatorial candidates Amy Acton of Ohio, Deb Haaland of New Mexico and Gina Hinojosa of Texas.

Trump sent followers a fundraising appeal Tuesday focused on Democrats’ ability to win control of Congress, which would upend his agenda during his final two years in office.

“I’ve never asked for sympathy. I’ve never asked this country to feel sorry for me. I’ve never asked for anything,” he said in the email. “That changes today. With less than 45 days until midterm elections, the left is ready to put the final nail in my coffin.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, pointed to the pivotal role California will play in determining control of Congress.

“California’s House races will decide whether working families keep fighters like David Valadao, James Gallagher, Kevin Lincoln, and Jim Desmond or get more of the same from Democrats who raised costs, left the border wide open, and made communities less safe,” Martinez said. “Californians are done paying more, waiting longer, and living with less safety so corrupt Sacramento and Washington Democrats can protect their socialist agenda.”

Anna Elsasser, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, shot back that the policies and beliefs of Desmond, Lincoln and Valadao have deeply harmed California families, including high gas prices and the cost of living.

“That’s why Mike Johnson is swooping in to try and save their fledgling campaigns. Voters won’t forget who sold them out to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires and wealthy corporations by gutting health care and food assistance, championing chaotic tariffs, and refusing to rein in a costly war that has sent gas prices soaring,” she said. “Californians are ready for change, not another two years of Mike Johnson and DC Republicans’ status quo.”

After being securely held for nearly four decades by one of the most preeminent politicians in California history, the House seat to represent bright blue San Francisco in Congress is up for grabs in November — and dividing the Democratic Party.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), 86, the powerful former House Speaker who’s held the seat since 1987, announced last year that she would not run again. In May, she passed over state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — a prolific California legislator long considered a potential successor — to endorse San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, a local progressive with less legislative experience but strong support from labor.

Pelosi’s endorsement sent Chan, who had been languishing in polls, surging past Democratic tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti in the June primary. Chan finished with nearly 30% of the vote and Chakrabarti took 18%. Wiener won, with nearly 41% of the vote.

Both Wiener, a gay man and staunch advocate for the city’s large LGBTQ+ community, and Chan, who immigrated to the city from Hong Kong at age 13 and has deep ties to its large Chinese and immigrant communities, would make history by winning. Wiener would be the first out LGBTQ+ person to represent the city in Congress, and Chan the first Asian American immigrant woman.

The race has sharply divided the state’s Democratic establishment as a rare intraparty showdown between a deft legislator who has driven liberal California policy for years and a rising progressive with the powerful imprimatur of the icon they seek to replace.

Both acknowledge they would take the same or similar positions on many issues, and fiercely oppose President Trump’s agenda. But they also say San Franciscans face a real choice between them that will help define the city for years.

“There is a clear cut between the two of us,” Chan said. “He has long enjoyed establishment support and industry support, and we’ve been grassroots, on the ground, [Asian American and Pacific Islander] community, working people and labor unions — in collaboration and coalition building.”

“We need Democrats who are willing to fight — to fight in a smart way, and to fight in an aggressive way, to defeat Donald Trump and to lower the cost of living,” Wiener said. “We are past the time where we need Democrats in office who were just going along to get along, or who, like Connie Chan, are just part of the status quo.”

Wiener is a MAGA target

Wiener, 56, has lived in the Castro neighborhood since 1997 and was a deputy city attorney and local Democratic Party chair before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2010. He was elected in 2016 to the state Senate, where he’s had a massive influence, authoring more than 100 bills that have been signed into law. Allies and critics say he is a workhorse, and at times both effective and divisive.

Wiener has been endorsed by the state and local Democratic parties; a slew of 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 and labor groups including AFSCME; more than half the city’s supervisors; and various members of Congress.

Wiener has passed some of the state’s most progressive laws on LGBTQ+ rights, including protections for gender-affirming care, and challenged federal immigration agents in California. He has also pushed progressive laws — backing safe injection sites, extending bar hours until 4 a.m., decriminalizing psychedelic drugs — that have put some of his fellow Democrats in uncomfortable spots when forced to vote on the controversial issues.

Some in San Francisco label him a moderate, though that designation would draw laughs elsewhere in the country and even in Sacramento. Wiener is one of the most reviled state politicians on the conservative right nationally, and has received scores of death threats for his work, particularly on transgender issues. His website touts a laundry list of profane and homophobic attacks from MAGA loyalists — Elon Musk called him a “scumbag,” former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called him a “communist groomer” — that he wears as a badge of honor.

On housing, Wiener has pushed for deregulation and development near transit hubs statewide to solve the housing and affordability crises, riling some homeowners averse to increased density and some progressives who say his plan favors developers and threatens existing rent-controlled housing. On tech, Wiener has pushed for artificial intelligence regulation but also been criticized for taking a technocratic approach with buy-in from wealthy tech leaders.

Wiener has passed laws protecting net neutrality, capping prescription costs and mandating mental health parity, ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and requiring corporations disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. He has received substantial financial support from tech leaders and opposes Proposition 40, the ballot measure that seeks to impose a one-time tax on the state’s billionaires.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), also gay and a former Long Beach mayor, said he considers Wiener a friend but also a generational legislator who has “led the country” on LGBTQ+ rights and housing policy. “I don’t think there’s a better legislator in the United States on housing,” Garcia said.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who worked with Wiener for years in the state Legislature, said he has been a champion for many issues important to Californians — including the environment — while holding big industry accountable and backing labor. She said while many politicians decide to either rack up easy wins with legislation that barely moves the needle or focus on “progressive value signaling” without accomplishing much of anything, Wiener “takes on some of the most difficult and controversial progressive issues and really gets them done.”

Nancy Tung, the local Democratic Party chair, said many San Francisco politicians “recede” from the city’s raucous local policy debate once they reach higher office, but Wiener is “still is in the knife fight,” especially on housing and affordability issues — showing he cares about the city and making him “such a good fit” for Congress.

Tung said she understands the appeal of sending a fellow Asian American woman to Congress in this political moment, but that Chan “just does not have the legislative record that Scott has.”

Chan for ‘working people’

Chan, 47, who lived in a rent-controlled Chinatown apartment after immigrating with her mother and younger brother, now lives with her firefighter husband and son in the Richmond neighborhood. She 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 and has centered her campaign, largely funded by Pelosi’s network, around what she calls her “career fighting for working people.”

Chan has been endorsed by a host of Congress members, including Pelosi and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); major labor groups including the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Teachers Assn.; various progressive organizations and fellow and former supervisors; former mayor and S.F. power broker Willie Brown; and Chakrabarti, who since the primary has shared his campaign staff and funding with her.

Chan, who supports Proposition 40, has helped create a $400-million reserve fund in San Francisco to make up for federal cuts to Medicaid and housing subsidies. She also passed a supplemental budget to fund immigration defense services for people targeted by the Trump administration and passed various labor-friendly measures, including a minimum wage increase for in-home workers and cost-of-living adjustments for city service workers.

Pelosi said Chan “understands that budgets are statements of our values,” has “championed justice and progress for working families” and “brings an important lived experience to this moment” as an immigrant woman. Schiff said Chan has impressed him as “a very powerful voice for those who are disenfranchised” and someone with “the potential of growing into” a leader like Pelosi.

Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, said she encouraged Pelosi to endorse Chan because Chan “supports San Francisco values,” listens to labor and is a great strategist.

Cleve Jones, the San Francisco activist who has fought for gay political representation since Harvey Milk’s historic 1977 election to the Board of Supervisors, said Wiener “has done some very good things, particularly around LGBTQ issues and HIV/AIDS,” but also angered some in the LGBTQ+ community by repeatedly showing up to an annual Trans March that organizers ask politicians not to attend.

Wiener, who is Jewish, was aggressively heckled at this year’s march, namely for his stance on the Israeli war in Gaza, which he was slower than other progressives to label a genocide. Conservatives mocked him for being targeted by his base, and Wiener ended up fundraising off the incident — which Jones said was “so cynical.”

He said Wiener’s “loyalty is to big developers, big tech and big real estate,” and that he “doesn’t really see the urgency of yet another white man elected to Congress” when San Francisco can send a stronger message by electing Chan, an immigrant woman of color.

Affordability and Trump

Chan said she is a “pragmatic” progressive who has balanced the city’s budget while protecting “healthcare, education, immigration resources” and other working-class priorities. She said Wiener is focused on deregulation for market-rate housing development, whereas she has prioritized tenants’ rights and protecting existing rent-controlled housing in her push for affordable units.

Chan said she will “walk and chew gum at the same time” in Washington by working for affordability while battling Trump, including by reversing his healthcare cuts, expanding Medicaid, providing affordable childcare, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and finally figuring out meaningful immigration reform.

“I’m not sugarcoating it as if it’s easy. But we gotta be able to find ways to work together to push those things forward,” she said.

Wiener said he and Chan share the goal “of getting Trump and MAGA out of office, and then making sure that people never feel tempted to flirt with authoritarianism again.”

But he said the way to do that is to advance policies that will “lower people’s cost of living and make people’s lives more sustainable” — including by passing universal healthcare, building millions of new homes, creating low-cost child care and leading a clean energy transition — and that he is the only candidate in the race with a proven ability to do that.

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

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a raft of bills designed to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in California, including bans on electric shock gloves and a revamped ban on law enforcement face coverings after a previous law was blocked by a federal judge.

The more than 20 bills approved by the governor Tuesday were crafted to thwart tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including the use of facial coverings and making arrests outside immigration hearings. Other bills are meant to boost state oversight of federal detention centers in the state.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families. California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” Newsom said in a statement. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities. We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The governor signed legislation to ban the use of electric shock gloves by any law enforcement in the state, which was hastily written and passed after reports that the Department of Homeland Security planned to spend $20 million to outfit agents with the gloves.

One bill, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for residents to sue federal agents for alleged civil rights violations, such as racial profiling, unlawful searches or interfering with the right to free speech.

Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said the law already applies to state and local officials and that his bill, SB 747, closes a loophole that exempts federal officials.

Newsom signed another bill by Wiener that bans ICE agents and other law enforcement from wearing face coverings or masks while on duty. After a federal judge blocked his prior bill, which applied to federal agents but not state police, Wiener passed legislation that applies to both.

Many of the bills Newsom signed Tuesday aim to improve state oversight at immigration detention centers within the state and slowroll the development of new facilities.

Among them is AB 1801, which requires municipalities to wait at least 180 days and hold public hearings before approving any plans to build or convert facilities into immigration detention centers.

Newsom signed a 25% tax on companies that operate immigration detention centers in the state. Most of the detention centers in California are run by the private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic, under contracts with the federal government. AB 1633 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would raise an estimated $177 million, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.

Another new law requires local agencies to disclose 911 calls made from immigration detention centers. It stems from a CalMatters investigation which found alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa, a detention center in San Diego, were being investigated by CoreCivic, the company that operates the facility, rather than local law enforcement.

“Our communities deserve safety, and no person in detention should have to resort to throwing notes over the walls of a detention facility to have their needs met and their voice heard,” Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Legislative Latino Caucus and the bill’s author, said in a statement after lawmakers passed her legislation.

Activists and Democratic lawmakers have raised alarms about the rising number of in-custody deaths and poor conditions inside ICE detention facilities. The federal government has reported 57 in-custody deaths during Trump’s second term, up from the 26 deaths reported during the previous four years.

During reviews of detention centers around the state last year, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office found substandard conditions including overcrowding, delays in medical care and poor quality food and drinking water. At one center, detainees were not given clothing warm enough to protect against extremely low temperatures in the facility, Justice Department staff reported.

Newsom signed legislation indefinitely extending the attorney general’s duty to review private detention centers, which had been set to expire next year.

For Dylan Feierabend, there are few things more life-affirming than fishing for redtail surfperch and smelt at Centerville Beach in rural Humboldt County.

His favorite spot, where the Eel River meets the Pacific Ocean, is a few miles from the main road — too far to walk with fishing poles and an ice chest in tow. He instead gets there by driving a side-by-side, a small off-road vehicle, right onto the sand.

He might not be able to do so much longer.

If the California Coastal Commission has its way, vehicular access will soon be nixed at Centerville Beach County Park outside Ferndale — one of just a handful of beaches along the state’s 840-mile coastline where driving is allowed.

This month, the Coastal Commission approved a request from Humboldt County for a coastal development permit to rebuild a 0.17-mile segment of a storm-battered road adjacent to the fast-eroding beach — but only if the county stops people from driving on the sand.

Coastal Commission staff, in a 78-page report, said motorized vehicles threaten both sensitive vegetation and critical habitat for the federally threatened western snowy plover, a small, white-bellied shorebird.

“California’s dune habitats are particularly rare and important, so where driving could damage these sensitive areas, the Coastal Act requires that we protect them,” commission spokesman Joshua Smith said in a statement to The Times.

However, he said, the agency does not “have a one-size-fits-all policy on driving on the beach.”

But Humboldt County residents and officials decry the move as just the latest example of overregulation and government overreach in liberal California — and of the disconnect between its rural and urban places.

“What you see in Southern California isn’t what we see up here,” resident Joey Sancho told the Coastal Commission during its meeting in Eureka this month. “The beaches aren’t overly populated. They’re not being torn up by ATVs and so forth. But yet, [it’s] just one more thing just to take away from us up here in the North Coast.”

Humboldt County wants to make improvements to Centerville Road.

(Google street view)

Feierabend, a 36-year-old loan officer, told The Times: “It’s about slowly choking out the individuals that utilize the beach and gaining control under the ruse, or the guise, of conservation.”

The discord in Humboldt County comes as the Trump administration is taking aim at what it calls “environmental extremism” in California, with federal officials trying — largely over state objections — to open the treasured coastline to more offshore oil drilling, expanded rocket launches and floating nuclear reactors.

Amid this wider debate, beach driving has emerged as an unexpected flashpoint.

Last month, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called coastal commissioners “idiots” for their years-long effort to end off-road driving at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, the only state park that allows recreational driving on the beach.

Cars, bikes and pedestrians share the sand at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area near Pismo Beach in February 2021.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Oceano Dunes, near Pismo Beach in San Luis Obispo County, temporarily closed to off-roaders this spring amid long-running legal battles between recreation advocates and environmentalists who say all-terrain vehicles are tearing through western snowy plover habitat and sending clouds of unhealthy dust into nearby neighborhoods.

“Surprise, the Coastal Commission are trying to shut it down because they’re joyless bureaucrats who don’t want anyone to have fun,” Hilton said in a social media video as he leaned on a bright yellow dune buggy on the sand. “And it’s not just about fun. This is a real economic engine for this community.”

If elected, he said, he would create a state “Office of Fun and Freedom.” Its first task? Protecting off-roading at Oceano Dunes.

The campaign for Xavier Becerra, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, did not return requests for comment.

In Humboldt County, residents have stressed that rural Centerville Beach is nothing like Oceano Dunes, where thousands of pickup trucks, ATVs and dirt bikes may carve through the sand on a given day.

Centerville Beach’s nearest town, Ferndale, the childhood home of celebrity chef Guy Fieri, has a population of just 1,500. Residents say the beach typically sees a handful of four-wheelers and side-by-sides — with most heading out to fish, not joy-riding.

“Centerville is not a beach anyone can just drive on — you’ve got to know what you’re doing,” said Shawn Griggs, a painter who surfs there most mornings. “It’s a very volatile beach with coarse sand. It’s steep right off the shore; the sand bars are transient.”

A view of Centerville Beach, near where Humboldt County is looking to repair a stretch of Centerville Road.

(Beau Sanders / For The Times)

Griggs, 57, described himself as “an environmentalist at heart” who appreciates efforts to protect threatened species. But he doubts vehicles are doing much harm at Centerville.

“With the amount of sand that is pushed off that beach every year and moved around, it’s hard for me to imagine that beach would be a super stable beach for the snowy plover,” he said.

The Coastal Commission staff report says the area is “moderately suitable for plovers,” but that “heavy human use” has degraded the habitat.

In Humboldt County, driving is allowed on a handful of county-maintained beaches, as well as portions of the Samoa Dunes Recreation Area, which is managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management.

Feierabend, who grew up next to Centerville Beach, said vehicles are not destroying the beach — the ocean is.

“No one’s going too fast,” he told the Coastal Commission. “No one’s driving through dunes. In fact, there are no dunes.”

Centerville Beach, home to some of the state’s fastest-eroding cliffs, has been shrinking for decades. The rising and warming sea has accelerated that process in recent years, and powerful El Niño-charged storms this fall and winter could wreak further havoc on the coastline.

A beach parking lot that once accommodated up to 100 vehicles has already washed away. And Centerville Road — a narrow county thoroughfare that provides access to the beach, a few rural homes and the federally managed Lost Coast Headlands — is so regularly slammed by powerful storm waves that it is often covered with sand and made impassable.

The road is what initially brought Centerville Beach to the Coastal Commission’s attention.

The Humboldt County Department of Public Works applied for a required coastal development permit to repair a short stretch of storm-damaged roadway, a project for which it had already secured federal and state funding.

The county has proposed elevating the road 10 feet and adding a new parking area. It also is looking to build a revetment — a sloping layer of rocks on the sand meant to protect the road from waves, at least for a few decades.

Humboldt County initially pushed to move the roadway farther inland, but faced resistance from private landowners.

According to the Coastal Commission staff report, beach erosion puts Centerville Road at “severe risk of being destroyed” within the next five years.

Given the urgency of the needed repairs, the decision to tie the development permit to beach driving felt like “a backroom deal stuck into the project,” Humboldt County Planning Commissioner Iver Skavdal said at the Coastal Commission meeting.

The commission is “holding the project, the residents and the county hostage,” said Skavdal, noting that seven generations of his family had enjoyed the beach.

Though the commission approved the permit on the condition beach driving will be stopped, it added an amendment after locals pushed back — giving Humboldt County an opportunity to write a plan to allow restricted driving, provided it would not harm sensitive habitats. That plan would have to come back to the commission for approval.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors still must decide whether to accept the stipulations of the coastal development permit before any construction begins.

The potential loss of driving on Centerville Beach — a unique attraction in California’s sparsely populated, economically depressed northwest corner — struck a chord with residents, about two dozen of whom sat through several hours of a Coastal Commission meeting on a Wednesday morning to speak about it.

“Families here don’t have a lot to do,” Sue Long, former mayor of the nearby city of Fortuna, told the commission. “There’s not a lot of the kind of entertainment you guys have, with waterslides and Disneyland and all of those things. … We count on nature.”

Mike Astry, who runs a small off-road recovery business pulling out vehicles stuck in sand or mud throughout the region, told the commission most people towed off Centerville Beach are out-of-town tourists who traveled just to drive on the beach.

Stopping vehicular access is “a big deal to a lot of people,” Astry, 49, said in an interview. “People driving from out of town that want to come drive on that beach are not going to come to our town and spend money on hotels and food.”

Astry, who also is an automotive maintenance supervisor for Humboldt County, started the towing business with his souped-up Jeep during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people flocked to outdoor spaces during lockdowns. Now, he typically gets one or two calls a week.

At Centerville Beach, he said, “I’ve had some pretty gnarly tows,” including some “little old ladies who thought, ‘Oh, I thought my Prius could go here,’ and it can’t.”

A few years ago, he yanked a Tesla out of the ocean. Powerful waves ripped off its bumper. The driver was from the Bay Area.

“People are just sick of California, their mandates, and this is just one more thing to add to it,” he said of the coastal commission decision. “It’s just a power trip. We pay our frickin taxes.”

Jennifer Savage — California policy associate director for the Surfrider Foundation, a coastal protection nonprofit — was one of the few speakers at the Coastal Commission meeting who focused on a different aspect of the county’s Centerville Beach proposal: the rock revetment next to the old, crumbling road.

Revetments and sea walls, which generally are not allowed for developments built after the Coastal Act took effect in 1977, “make a beach erode significantly faster,” she told The Times.

Erosion has been a known problem for a long time, she said, and “the failure to prepare doesn’t justify sacrificing the public beach.”

A proposal to tax California’s billionaires has fractured Democratic politics, repelled some of the state’s richest residents and exploded into a costly battle that’s overshadowing even the gubernatorial election.

Known as Proposition 40, the ballot measure is also dividing the very industry it’s supposed to help. The healthcare workers union behind the initiative, which would authorize a wealth tax on billionaires, says the levy would raise sorely needed funds to shore up health coverage.

By contrast, leading California hospital and doctor groups are opposing the measure ahead of the November vote. They say the one-time 5% levy on the state’s wealthiest is a risky gambit with an uncertain path to victory — as well as a distraction from other proposals to shore up healthcare.

“This is an experiment on a taxation scheme that’s not been done before, and it puts healthcare in a more vulnerable position as a result,” California Medical Assn. Chief Executive Dustin Corcoran said at a recent briefing in Sacramento. “It’s not a healthcare ballot measure.”

Less than six weeks before election day, polls show a divided electorate. But whatever the outcome, the fight is exposing a broader problem confronting California: how to preserve one of the nation’s largest expansions of publicly funded healthcare as a big chunk of the money that helped pay for it disappears.

Over the last decade, California increased access to publicly funded healthcare by broadening eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and other types of insurance, allowing millions more residents to gain coverage. The number of people without insurance fell to 2.4 million in 2024 from about 6.5 million in 2011.

Now, that trend is expected to reverse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s budget bill last year will lead to $1 trillion in healthcare-related cuts over a decade. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it recently removed 760,000 people from Obamacare plans across the nation, alleging that some were enrolled improperly and others don’t exist.

Combined with strict work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and a pullback in state spending pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the changes are projected to push California’s uninsured population under the age of 65 to 4.6 million by 2030, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Without trying to be melodramatic, when millions of people lose coverage, it is entirely predictable that thousands will die unnecessarily because of foregone treatment,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the healthcare-workers union pushing the billionaire tax.

“There is an absolute consensus on what the problem is, and there’s a consensus that there’s no other solution on the table,” he said in an interview at Bloomberg’s San Francisco offices.

Even before the budget cuts start to bite, financial strains are mounting at institutions such as Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in South Los Angeles.

MLKCH’s waiting room is now mostly used for treating patients, with 16 wooden cubicles functioning as care rooms. Sick or injured people are also cared for in the hospital’s front hallways and in what used to be the meditation chapel and the gift shop.

The hospital opened in 2015 with an emergency department built for 25,000 visits annually. In 2024, it handled 130,000. Dr. Elaine Batchlor, its CEO, said further funding reductions “would threaten the sustainability of the hospital.”

Batchlor isn’t taking a position on Proposition 40 and has been looking for other sources of revenue. SEIU-UHW’s Regan argues there’s no other way to raise the money needed to fill the massive gap.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates the state stands to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medi-Cal funding each year. Asking California lawmakers for that amount is a “fool’s errand,” Regan said. “And on top of that, the only people the legislature will tax are ordinary people.”

The union estimates the levy would raise $100 billion over five years, with 90% earmarked to shore up health coverage amid impending budget cuts.

Critics dispute the projection. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the tax would probably raise tens of billions of dollars, but potentially reduce income-tax revenue in the long run, as some ultrawealthy residents depart the state.

Recent polls show an increasingly contested path for Proposition 40. A recent UC Berkeley-Politico poll found 45% of likely voters in favor, but opposition has increased since early this year and now stands at 43%. A separate Public Policy Institute of California survey put support at 52% and opposition at 46%.

Led by Sergey Brin, wealthy opponents have poured almost $230 million into funding Building a Better California, according to a filing late Thursday. That’s helping them flood the airwaves with anti tax advertising. There are also two competing ballot measures designed to torpedo Proposition 40 if they pass.

Billionaires aren’t the only detractors. Critics have also assailed Proposition 40 for carving out an exception to California’s constitutional funding rules to steer most proceeds to healthcare. While the state generally earmarks at least 40% of General Fund revenue to public schools and community colleges, the billionaire-tax proposal excludes the new levy from that calculation.

Corcoran, the medical association chief, argues that even if Proposition 40 passes in November, legal challenges would potentially delay its implementation for years.

“There’s a lot that we can do looking ahead to 2028 when these cuts start taking greater effect that frankly would provide more immediate relief than Proposition 40 would,” he said. His group and others are pushing instead for large corporations to help cover the cost of public insurance for their workers.

Regan called that proposal “the worst public policy on planet Earth,” saying costs will be passed on to consumers and that it essentially acts as a payroll tax on low-wage workers.

He also disputed the notion the billionaire tax would lead the ultrawealthy to leave the state, pointing to Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang, who earlier this year said he would be “perfectly fine” with the levy. As for legal challenges to the billionaire tax, Regan said he believes they can be resolved in 12 months.

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

James Suver, CEO of Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, said he’s not betting on proceeds from the billionaire tax. He’s weighing options that include pausing maternity care again, cutting physician recruitment and reducing emergency-room service.

“Our future under the most likely scenario is not looking very good,” Suver said. “We’re beyond doing minor nips and tucks to be able to offset some of the changes that I suspect may be happening in the future.”

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.

The California attorney general will help oversee healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente’s medical arbitration system to ensure it operates fairly under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed late Sunday.

Patients, their families and lawyers have complained that Kaiser’s private and confidential system of handling medical malpractice complaints is designed to favor the health plan over those bringing the claims.

Under legislation known as Assembly Bill 1770, the attorney general will decide what actions justice officials should take to ensure private arbitrations required by any health plan are handled fairly and in line with state law.

To do that work, the state plans to add as many as four deputy attorneys general, a legal analyst and three legal secretaries, according to a legislative analyst’s report.

“We look forward to continuing to resolve claims through an independently administered system that provides a fair and efficient process for members and patients,” Kaiser Permanente said in a statement Monday.

Roughly 1 of every 4 Californians get healthcare from Kaiser. To join the plan, each one had to check a box, agreeing to use arbitration to settle any dispute.

Many companies and other organizations, including some hospitals and physician groups, require customers or patients to take their complaints to private arbitration rather than to court.

But unlike most other companies, which send claims to large arbitration firms, Kaiser created its own system.

Under Kaiser’s system, once a neutral arbitrator is selected, either party can opt to disqualify that person without cause. There is no limit on the number of disqualifications.

While the health plan designed the system to be fair, patients and their lawyers have alleged that Kaiser’s greater knowledge of arbitrators’ past rulings and its ability to veto arbitrators gives it an advantage to pick favorable judges.

Critics also say the hourly fees paid to arbitrators provide them with a financial incentive to rule in Kaiser’s favor so they will be selected for future cases. Most of the arbitrators are retired judges.

Kaiser has previously defended its arbitration system, saying it was fair for both patients and for the nonprofit.

The bill was authored by Assemblyman Robert Garcia (D-Rancho Cucamonga), a longtime Kaiser member.

Support for it was led by Stephen Martinez, a retired aerospace engineer from Bellflower, who with his wife, Lindalee Iverson, spent $350,000 to bring two arbitration cases against Kaiser. The arbitrator ruled against the couple in both cases.

Iverson died of cancer in 2023.

Martinez told legislators at a hearing this year how his wife had found a lump in her breast and asked for an appointment with her longtime caregiver at Kaiser to examine it. Instead she was sent to a physician assistant, who dismissed it, he said. Later, it was found to be cancer that had spread.

A chief breast surgeon at Kaiser and another surgeon who had retired from that job both testified that the Kaiser physician assistant failed to follow the health system’s guidelines.

Kaiser’s expert argued that the physician assistant did an appropriate exam and that his low suspicion of breast cancer was reasonable. The neutral arbitrator sided with the health plan’s expert.

Martinez has spent years trying to get legislation to make the system more fair.

“I’m elated,” Martinez said of Newsom’s signing of the bill, which was named Lindalee’s Law. “It’s been a long road.”

According to the annual report prepared by the independent administrator of Kaiser’s system, the “most common” complaint the office heard last year was about the neutral arbitrator.

“Most complained that the arbitrator was biased, partisan, unjust, and in Kaiser’s favor,” the report said.