The Trump administration has frozen, terminated or delayed billions in congressionally approved research grants since last year. Proposition 38 aims to backfill some of that loss by creating a stable source of money to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.
The basics
Proposition 38 would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to uncover treatments that help the immune system fight diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease more efficiently.
The impact
The measure would require at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. It also would authorize the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health and allocate half of the bond revenue to it. The remaining funds would be used for competitive grants that focus solely on immunology and immunotherapy research.
Californians would take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for about 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The Yes on 38 campaign says the proposition pays for itself: 10% of all proceeds from the licensing of immunotherapies must be returned to the state to offset the total cost of the bond measure, including interest.
However, it’s difficult to predict whether any research projects will lead to marketable treatments.
Dig deeper
Proposition 38 is backed by organizations including the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the ALS Assn., as well as a majority of local chapters of Democratic organizations across the state. Supporters say the proposed funding could give those afflicted with chronic illness hope and potentially more options for treatment.
Its opponents have said the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely small pool of qualified recipients. Only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria, according to No on 38, the campaign against the proposition.
Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the Yes on 38 campaign, said “lots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.”
But she said at a virtual news conference in mid-September that it was “very likely” that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy “will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria.”
Ultimately, Swanson said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.
A federal appeals court for the second time Friday denied a Trump administration request to block 20,000 ballots from California voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens — ruling that the administration had failed to show that “such extraordinary relief, during an ongoing election, is clearly required by law.”
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution gives the state and Congress the power to decide how elections are run, and that allowing the Trump administration to “misuse” federal statutes to “prescribe” how California must process ballots would “override the plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself.”
“Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so,” the judges found.
The panel’s majority — comprised of Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — wrote that “if the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts.”
They also wrote that separate federal law prescribes sweeping changes to voter lists 90 days prior to an election, especially given questions about the reliability of the Trump administration’s list of purported noncitizens.
“The suspect reliability of these lists found by the district court reflects the concern Congress sought to mitigate with the 90-day quiet period,” they wrote.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, dissented — arguing that his colleagues erred in denying a basic request by the Trump administration to ensure only citizens are voting.
“The federal government proposes a modest remedy — stopping California from mixing the ballots of citizens and suspected noncitizens,” Bumatay wrote. “This solution would not cancel any vote but would allow time to verify the eligibility of suspected noncitizens. The district court, and now our court, denies this reasonable request.”
VATICAN CITY — Pope Leo XIV has become the first pope to vote in a U.S. general election, casting a mail-in ballot in a contest that will decide America’s future as the Trump era slowly comes to an end.
The Vatican confirmed Friday that the Chicago-born pontiff had submitted a mail-in ballot in Chicago ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, citing his long-standing belief in civic participation.
Leo, formerly Robert Prevost, “has exercised his right to vote as a United States citizen” and has done so “whenever he was eligible to do so,” the Holy See press office said.
The statement said he had also voted while living in Peru whenever he was eligible. Leo lived in Peru as a missionary priest and bishop for over 20 years.
“The Holy Father expresses his belief in the right and the duty of citizens to participate in democratic processes,” it added.
Leo holds U.S. and Peruvian citizenship, and is also the head of state of a foreign country, the Holy See. The city state is an absolute monarchy with no political elections.
This election, Illinois voters are deciding whether to elect Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to his third term, and they’re also filling an open U.S. Senate seat after longtime Catholic Democrat Dick Durbin’s retirement. President Donald Trump is not on the ballot but he has campaigned hard to try to preserve Republican control of the U.S. House and Senate for the final two years of his second term.
Leo’s vote was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, which quoted the chief of staff at the Will County clerk’s office as saying the pope, registered at a New Lenox address, requested a mail-in ballot on Oct. 3.
The request was made just 10 days before Leo underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor from his right lung. Leo has been slowly resuming his activities at the Vatican after being released from the hospital Oct. 17.
It is unclear how Leo returned the ballot. The pope’s older brother, John Prevost, was in Rome this week accompanying parishioners from St. Jude’s, an Augustinian-run parish in New Lenox, Illinois. The elder Prevost attends Mass there, and Leo gave a talk at the parish in 2024 while still a cardinal.
Prevost’s past votes have gone Democratic and Republican
Since 2000, Robert Prevost has voted in five primary elections, requesting Democratic ballots twice and Republican ballots three times, according to records held by the Illinois State Board of Elections.
The records do not show which candidates he supported. Illinois voters must declare a party preference to receive a primary ballot. No such declaration is required in general elections.
While registered in heavily Democratic Cook County, Prevost requested Democratic primary ballots in 2008 and 2010. After moving to the more conservative suburban Will County, he requested Republican primary ballots in 2012, 2014 and 2016.
The records also show that he submitted ballots in every general election since 2000 except those in 2020 and 2022.
Clashes with Trump
Since becoming pope, Leo has drawn criticism from President Donald Trump for repeatedly condemning the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and calling for dignified treatment of immigrants.
Earlier this year, Trump called Leo “weak” and captive to the “radical left.”
Responding to Trump’s public rebuke, Leo told reporters en route to Algeria in April: “I’m not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the church works for.”
“I will continue to speak out strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems,” he said.
The public dispute has subsided in recent months.
A pope who follows U.S. politics closely
Leo has made clear on several occasions that he follows local and national U.S. politics closely, and is not afraid to intervene.
He has repeatedly called for reflection and humane treatment for immigrants in his native U.S. amid the Trump administration crackdown and mass deportation program.
Recently, Leo reiterated official church teaching declaring the death penalty “inadmissible.” He made the pronouncement in a social media post on the World Day Against the Death Penalty, which came as the U.S. announced plans to livestream an execution by firing squad. The plans were later scrapped.
In 2025, Leo intervened in a debate over abortion, after Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich announced plans to give a lifetime achievement award to Sen. Durbin. The plans drew objection from some conservative U.S. bishops given the powerful Democratic senator’s support for abortion rights. Leo called for respect for both sides, but he also pointed out the contradiction between people who call themselves “pro-life” but also support the death penalty.
Also in 2025, Leo said he was “very disappointed” that his home state of Illinois approved a law allowing medically assisted dying, which is condemned by the Catholic Church.
Winfield writes for the Associated Press. AP editor Holly Meyer contributed to this report from Nashville, Tenn.
There has been much debate about efforts in California to tax the rich. But almost all of it centers around Proposition 40, the heavily contested billionaire tax, and two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42.
But there is another ballot measure that also would tax California’s wealthiest citizens that is getting far less attention — and has even garnered support from some billionaires who oppose Proposition 40.
The basics
Proposition 3 would make an expiring state income tax on high earners permanent.
The impact
Tax rates for the top 2% of earners would remain as they are. Income brackets rise with inflation, but last year the top 2% of taxpayers earned at least $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for joint filers. Money generated by Proposition 3, like the current tax, would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Dig deeper
In 2012, California voters approved a temporary increase in the income tax rate for the top 2% of California earners. In 2016, voters approved another extension through 2030. Proposition 3 would make the additional levy permanent.
Backers say the measure is crucial to maintain education funding levels and predict there would be grave problems if the measure is not approved. The state could expect to lose $5 billion to $15 billion annually in tax revenue starting in 2031, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Opponents say taxes are already too high and the state should focus on cutting waste.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is escalating a criminal investigation over an Alaska Senate candidate who shares a name with the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, issuing a raft of new grand jury subpoenas, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.
Subpoenas seeking grand jury testimony or documents, along with records preservation demands, were issued after the New York Times reported that Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign appeared to be involved in recruiting Dan J. Sullivan Jr. as part an alleged effort to confuse voters in the highly competitive race.
More subpoenas were expected to be sent Thursday, according to a person briefed on the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the ongoing probe. Neither the recipients of the subpoenas nor the number of them were immediately clear.
The Justice Department for months has been looking into allegations that Dan J. Sullivan Jr. entered the race to siphon votes from the incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
The potential targets of the Justice Department’s investigation are unclear, but President Trump earlier this week called for the criminal prosecution of Peltola and her campaign.
The new subpoenas were confirmed by a person briefed on the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the ongoing probe.
Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in a Fox News interview on Wednesday said he wouldn’t discuss any criminal investigations but accused Democrats of “cheating.”
“They are trying to take votes away from the incumbent, not by running an election, not by running on issues, but by putting up a person with the same name,” Blanche said.
The race is among a handful of Senate contests this year expected to determine control of the chamber. Trump had previously directed his Department of Justice to sue to block certification of the Senate race should Peltola defeat Sen. Sullivan.
Dan J. Sullivan has long denied he was running at Democrats’ behest and has said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign. “Zero, none, zilch,” he said in June after announcing his run.
Separately, Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has ordered an investigation into Peltola, saying the newspaper’s reporting “reveals disturbing new evidence of an organized effort to manipulate Alaska’s elections by recruiting candidates — including one with the same name as an incumbent U.S. Senator — to deliberately confuse voters and misdirect their votes.”
“Deliberately tricking voters into casting their ballots for someone else strikes at the integrity of our elections,” Dunleavy added, noting that the reporting “substantially supports” earlier findings by the state’s elections board into the matter.
Trump on Thursday cast doubt on whether Peltola would be seated in the Senate even if she won the election. “Well, you’re going to have to see what happens,” the president told reporters on his way to a rally in South Carolina. “It’s hard to believe that she could even be allowed to run.”
Later, as he rallied for GOP Sen. Darline Graham, Trump said he felt Peltola “actually should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted.”
Peltola’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a message Thursday seeking comment on Dunleavy’s order. But during a campaign stop in Soldotna, Peltola, a former congresswoman, suggested the Times’ report was a “distraction” from issues such as Sen. Sullivan’s support of the war in Iran.
“This is just another distraction. It’s another diversion,” she said in a video posted online. “This is all stuff to sell newspapers. This is all stuff to get subscriptions.”
And the situation in Alaska isn’t that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on ballots to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.
In Ohio’s Senate race, Republicans have been tied to an effort to boost a socialist on the ballot who would pull votes from the Democratic candidate challenging Sen. Jon Husted.
On Thursday, Vice President JD Vance didn’t go as far as Trump did in calling for Peltola to be prosecuted but said he supported a probe into possible election fraud.
“I mean, she is a person who, for months now, has pretended that she has had nothing to do with the fact that they have put a fraudulent person, a person explicitly designed to confuse Alaska voters, on the ballot,” Vance told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Texas. “She is trying to steal a Senate seat from the voters of Alaska, and it’s disgraceful.”
Earlier this year, a top state elections official ruled Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher in the small fishing community of Petersburg, ineligible for the primary ballot, concluding that his declaration of candidacy was filed “with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”
The case went to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled he was qualified to run. Alaskan voters will see “Dan S. Sullivan” identified as a “registered Republican” and “incumbent” on their ballots, while “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” will not have a party affiliation.
The New York Times reported that interviews, text messages and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit showed Peltola’s team aimed to coax candidates into the race, with the aim of splitting support for the GOP senator.
Asked about the reporting on Wednesday, Trump told journalists, “I think they should be prosecuted.” He earlier had posted on social media that “Peltola should suffer the Legal and Political consequences for what she has done.”
Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.
That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.
“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.
Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”
With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.
That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.
“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.
Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.
“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.
Appeal, rebuke, appeal
Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.
On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.
“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”
Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”
“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.
The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.
Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.
War of words
On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.
“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”
On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”
Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”
The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.
In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.
When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”
Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.
In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.
On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.
Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”
Former ESPN reporter Britt McHenry says she threw a drink at a man after he said “something truly vile to me” during an incident at a Washington Wizards game last week that reportedly led to McHenry resigning from her job with the U.S. Department of State the following day.
Video footage, posted by TMZ, from the Wizards’ game against the Milwaukee Bucks on Oct. 21 at Capital One Arena shows McHenry talking to a male companion and an usher from her seat while fans seated around her can be heard making negative comments about her and chanting, “Kick her out!”
As McHenry and her friend eventually start to leave on their own, a clear liquid can be seen hitting or coming close to hitting her on the back of the head. She then throws a drink of her own. As she makes her way up the stairs, McHenry gives the middle finger and blows kisses to the crowd as some people heckle and throw towels at her.
On Tuesday, McHenry posted a video on Instagram giving her side of the story. She said that a man sitting in front of her was making “egregiously loud” and “vile” comments toward Bucks forward Kyle Kuzma about the appearance of his fiancée, model Winnie Harlow, who has the skin condition vitiligo.
“I then make a snarky comment — probably shouldn’t have, but everyone behind me laughed — and just said, ‘Oh, I’m sure your girlfriend’s really beautiful, right?’” McHenry said. “Guy in that row, whether he was with that man or not, turns around and says to me, ‘Why don’t you shut the f— up, you dumb b—,’ quoting him, to which I say to him, like, ‘I wasn’t even talking to you. Who are you?’ And that’s where it escalates.”
McHenry says she and her friend, whom she identifies as Andrew, left their seats and went to a foyer, where an usher offered to move them to seats in another part of the arena.
“But I say to Drew, you purchased $250 to $300 a piece tickets,” McHenry said. “Why should we have to move because these men around us can’t behave and are heckling and harassing me. No, we’re going back. In hindsight, I wish we would have left.”
After they returned, McHenry said, people started throwing drinks at them.
“And the main agitator says something truly vile to me about what should be done to me, allegedly about getting gang raped outside,” McHenry said, “and that is when I threw the rest of my beer in that direction, turned around, and said, ‘Drew, let’s get out of here.’”
One video shows McHenry later speaking with a security worker near one of the venue’s entrances. When he gestures toward the exit, she appears stunned and asks, “What did I do?”
McHenry does not mention this encounter in her video and says she decided to leave the arena. But, she said, the “main agitator” was thrown out. Monumental Sports & Entertainment, which owns and operates the Wizards and Capital One Arena, did not immediately respond to questions from The Times about the incident.
McHenry worked at ESPN from 2014 to 2017, then spent several years with Fox News. In September, she announced on social media that she was working as a press advisor for the State Department.
Page Six reported Friday that McHenry had been “forced to resign” the previous day. McHenry then told Front Office Sports that she signed a resignation letter. The State Department told both publications that it does not comment on internal personnel matters.
McHenry, who did not mention her employment status in her video, doesn’t seem to have any regrets about her behavior that night.
“I was sticking up for Winnie Harlow, a woman that I admire, and many women and young girls look up to,” McHenry said. “And I was sticking up for myself.”
Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.
It’s no longer hypothetical.
Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.
Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.
Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.
Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.
But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.
Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.
“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”
Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’
Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.
That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”
Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.
So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.
In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.
It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.
Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.
“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”
After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.
Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic
Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.
Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.
While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.
Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.
“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”
The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.
That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.
Can the institutions hold?
Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.
“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”
It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.
“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”
The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.
All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.
“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.
Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.
MINNEAPOLIS — Conservative activists James O’Keefe and Cam Higby were charged Wednesday with unlawful voting and identity theft after a Minnesota prosecutor said they gave false names to poll workers during the state’s primary election. The men recorded the exchanges for a video to expose what they say are vulnerabilities in the state’s voting laws.
Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty announced the felony charges at a news conference. She said O’Keefe, 42, of West Palm Beach, Fla., and Higby, 26, of Covington, Wash., wore costumes and used the names of registered state voters while starting the “vouching” process in the Aug. 11 primary. The process provides a way for unregistered voters who lack proof of their current address to register and vote after signing an oath of eligibility.
Poll workers were suspicious and reported their behavior. Moriarty said the situation shows that “the system for identifying misconduct and responding to it functioned well during the primary.”
O’Keefe, who founded and later was ousted as leader of Project Veritas, gained notoriety by publishing undercover sting-style videos such as the one made at the Minnesota polling places. He was not immediately available for comment, and court records do not name an attorney to comment on his behalf.
Higby did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment and did not have an attorney in court records. Neither of them has had an opportunity to enter a plea.
Minnesota allows registered voters to “vouch” for another voter in the same precinct by signing an oath attesting to the second person’s identity and that they live in the precinct. The person being vouched for also must sign an oath attesting to their identity and eligibility to vote, and must also provide their Minnesota driver’s license or identification card number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
The process is rarely used but is most commonly done by older adults who have not updated their address on a driver’s license because they no longer drive. In the November 2024 election, fewer than 0.6% of votes cast used the process, according to the Minnesota secretary of state’s office website.
Workers flag ‘strange behavior’
In their video that was posted to YouTube on Aug. 13, O’Keefe, Higby and others dressed in costumes similar to attire worn by some Muslims and used fake accents while asking about the vouching process at multiple Minneapolis voting sites. Higby’s face was covered, and when talking to poll workers, O’Keefe referred to him as his wife.
Moriarty said both men “identified themselves using names of registered voters in the precinct without those voters’ knowledge or permission.”
The poll workers noticed the “strange behavior” and flagged it to election officials, who asked police to investigate, Moriarty said. The men stopped short of signing the oath required for vouching, but Moriarty said that giving false names and starting the process was enough to justify the felony charges.
“Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy, and their protection is one of our highest priorities,” Moriarty said.
O’Keefe’s organization, O’Keefe Media Group, posted a statement and the video on its website and said the men presented “an intentionally extreme scenario to expose what they see as the lunacy of the state’s ‘vouching’ system.”
“The team wanted to determine how election workers would respond, what safeguards they would describe, and how far they would allow the vouching process to proceed,” the statement said. “Not every election worker reacted the same way. While several workers explained how the undercover team could proceed under the vouching rules, others became suspicious of the group and took issue with the investigation. Some workers communicated concerns about the team over their radios.”
David Becker, a former Justice Department official and the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said he wasn’t aware of any examples of vouching leading to organized or widespread fraud. But he said there have been more efforts recently by those pushing voter fraud claims to commit questionable acts themselves.
“Impersonating another voter is a very serious crime,” Becker said.
Voter ID laws vary
Voter identification laws vary from state to state. Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but that identification can range from a photo ID to documents such as a utility bill or bank statement.
In the remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., voters can cast a ballot without showing ID. They must verify their identity in various other ways, such as signing an affidavit or providing personal information such as birth date, name or address.
Some states, such as Minnesota, allow election officials or other registered voters to vouch for people without a current ID. Alaska and New Hampshire, for instance, allow officials including a clerk or a supervisor to verify a voter’s identity if they know the voter personally. North Dakota allows people who lack ID cards because of a disability to have an attester certify that they are a qualified voter. West Virginia allows an adult who has known a voter for at least six months to sign a sworn statement verifying the voter’s identity.
Vancleave and Boone write for the Associated Press.Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. AP writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report.
A federal judge in Los Angeles denied a Trump administration request Wednesday to immediately block California elections officials from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters whose citizenship the administration questions in a blistering opinion.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the administration’s allegations were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.
“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”
Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”
“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.
Carter’s ruling was the second to deny the Trump administration a temporary restraining order against the state and Los Angeles County this week, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency request in a separate order Monday.
Carter ruled following a 3½-hour hearing Tuesday, where a slew of attorneys for the state, county and independent voting rights groups argued against the administration’s demands.
First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — who is the top federal prosecutor in L.A. and argued for the Trump administration at Tuesday’s hearing — did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Wednesday. After Tuesday’s hearing, he suggested the administration was likely to appeal Carter’s ruling if it didn’t immediately halt the counting of the flagged ballots.
You have until 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 3, to cast your vote in California’s general election. The Times has answers to last-minute questions about the voting process.
Here’s what you need to know:
What are the key races to watch?
The California governor’s race has narrowed down from six contenders to two top candidates: Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who has a long résumé in California electoral politics and received an endorsement from outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom. Steve Hilton is a Republican immigrant, an ally of President Trump and a former senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron. Your guide to the race for California governor can be found here.
In the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Karen Bass faces a reelection challenge from Councilmember Nithya Raman, who was, until recently, a close ally of the mayor. In October during the only televised debate between the candidates, Bass portrayed Raman as someone who wasn’t ready to lead the city; Raman continues to allege the mayor is “missing in action” and that a vote for Bass would put the city in a position of further decline. Your guide to the L.A. mayor’s race can be found here.
What is on the ballot?
There are several races, ballot measures, local district seats and statewide races that Southern Californians must decide on.
Most of the attention will be on the races for California governor and mayor of Los Angeles.
Residents of the city of Los Angeles have several other items to consider, including:
Los Angeles County residents will be asked to vote on:
On the ballot are 14 statewide propositions including:
Voters will decide on six local congressional district seats and other statewide races including:
Six state congressional district seats are on the ballot including:
Is it too late to vote by mail?
No. You can return your vote-by-mail ballot by:
Dropping it off in the return envelope at a secure official drop box now through the close of polls on Nov. 3.
Dropping it off in person at a polling place, vote center or county elections office by 8 p.m. on Nov. 3.
Dropping it off at the post office. To ensure your ballot is postmarked by election day, mail it at least by Thursday — five days before Tuesday’s election. If mailing on election day, get a hand-stamped postmark from a postal employee at a United States post office.
What is the deadline to return a vote-by-mail ballot?
To be counted, vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day, Nov. 3, and received by your county elections office by Nov. 10.
How do I check if I’m registered to vote?
To find out if you’re registered to vote, visit the secretary of state’s website. You’ll need to enter a California driver’s license or identification number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.
How do I register to vote? Can I register on election day?
Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers and fill out their ballot the same day.
To find an early voting location, use the secretary of state search tool here. You can find your local polling places here.
Your submitted ballot will be processed and counted once the county elections office has completed the voter registration verification process.
Where is the closest drop box?
Secure ballot drop-off locations opened Oct. 5. You can visit the Los Angeles County Office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s website here to find a ballot box near you.
MINNEAPOLIS — A man who played a major role in defrauding a federal food program in Minnesota was sentenced Wednesday to 30 years in prison, the latest punishment in a sprawling scheme to collect millions of dollars during the COVID-19 pandemic by claiming to have fed needy children.
The depth of fraud in Minnesota — dozens of people have been convicted — has repeatedly drawn the attention of President Trump, who ridiculed the Democratic governor for failing to stop it and partly cited it as grounds for an extraordinary immigration crackdown in the state’s largest cities.
Salim Said operated Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, which specialized in dishes from Somalia. He was accused of vastly overstating the number of meals when seeking payment for providing food. The government said he was responsible for $44 million in fraud, some of which was committed by others he recruited.
Said was claiming a “ridiculous daily distribution of 6,000 meals” while FBI cameras showed 40 people a day collecting food, prosecutors said in a court filing.
“The defendant and his sites did not serve thousands of children; he served a calculated, lucrative lie,” prosecutors said in court documents.
Said, a native of Somalia, denied the allegations while testifying at trial in 2025. He described his restaurant as a go-to spot for Somali immigrants in “Little Mogadishu” and said many meals were delivered.
“If you’re making good food,” Said told the jury, “people will come to you.”
Said’s attorney didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment on the decades-long sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel. A sentencing memo filed ahead of the hearing by his lawyer, Samuel Savage, was unavailable to the public.
COVID-19 brought changes to a federal program that typically fed children through schools. Restaurants could participate, and food distribution was extended to places outside schools.
“For 21 consecutive months, Said made thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims, day after day, month after month,” prosecutors said. “Each submission represented meals purportedly provided to underprivileged children, yet the listed children themselves were entirely fictitious.”
The government said Said hit the jackpot: He bought a $1.2-million home, commercial real estate and an $87,000 pickup truck.
Said was convicted of a raft of charges in 2025, along with Aimee Bock, the leader of a Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future. She is serving a 42-year prison sentence for devising the overall plan to recruit Said and others to join the federal food program during the pandemic.
State auditors found that the Minnesota Department of Education received numerous complaints about Feeding Our Future, but often told the group to police itself. In January, Gov. Tim Walz said he would not run for reelection after being pounded by Trump about theft in programs that rely on federal cash.
Buried in the language of Proposition 45, the initiative that would overhaul California’s powerful law on environmental review, are provisions that would mean government agencies have to consult only with certain tribes in the state, and not others when they develop major projects.
Tribes that are federally recognized would be consulted; those without recognition would not.
This effort mirrors similar ones supported by tribes that have federal recognition to limit the say of tribes without it in recent years. Non-recognized tribes see it as another move by economically powerful tribes to protect their own interests and avoid having to negotiate with other local tribes over territorial disputes and how to best protect important sites.
“Our concern is that wealthy casino interests and political influence are being allowed to outweigh ancestral connections,” Andrew Salas, chairperson of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, said in a statement to The Times.
Proposition 45 on the Nov. 3 California ballot would create a streamlined environmental review process for projects deemed “essential” — including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, education, internet access and clean energy projects. The streamlining would mean stricter deadlines for review and court challenges, would bar local governments from requesting repeated analyses and allow developers to propose a single alternative with less environmental impact rather than several.
One of the largest contributors to the Yes on Prop 45 committee is a federally recognized tribe, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, which contributed $750,000.
“Federal recognition is the legal and constitutional foundation of tribal sovereignty and establishes a government-to-government framework for consultation,” Amelia Matier, spokesperson for Yes on Prop 45, said, noting tribes without recognition still can still meaningfully participate alongside members of the public.
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation reaffirmed its support for the measure in a statement to The Times but did not respond to specific questions.
Critics, meanwhile, say moves such as this would give federally recognized tribes the power to consult on development projects hundreds of miles outside their homelands, overriding local tribes.
“Proposition 45 is part of a much longer struggle over whose voices California chooses to hear,” Salas said. “For decades, non-federally recognized ancestral tribes in Southern California have fought to protect our homelands while facing pressure to accept a ‘lesser role’ than federally recognized tribes.”
“Our rivers, habitats, and the animals that depend on them lose their protection when the people who know these places are removed from the table,” he said.
None of the Gabrieleno and Tataviam tribes within the greater L.A. area have federal recognition.
Last year, three tribes with federal recognition championed a bill that would have significantly limited how tribes without it could participate in the consultation process for all projects — not just the ones deemed “essential” ones under Proposition 45. A few months later, the small state agency that maintains the official list of tribal contacts unveiled a proposal that some non-recognized tribes argued would effectively exclude them. Multiple federally recognized tribes supported the effort.
The environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act, better known as CEQA, is one of the primary ways that tribes have a say over how the state and local governments develop land within their ancestral territories. It allows tribes to comment on how a proposed housing or infrastructure project might harm graves, ceremonial grounds or ancient villages. A separate law lets tribes comment on general plans that outline where developers can propose housing, and commercial and industrial facilities.
Tribal consultation differs from general public comment. It allows Indigenous leaders to discuss the location and details of sensitive information — such as burial sites — confidentially, before draft environmental reviews are published.
The Kizh Nation has used the CEQA process to consult on hundreds of land development projects a year around the Los Angeles Basin. In one instance, the process generated extra protections for one of the oldest living plants in the world, a more-than 13,000 year-old oak tree in the Inland Empire, that Indigenous people have taken care of for millennia. It also resulted in the Kizh Nation winning one of the largest land returns in Southern California history for a tribe without federal recognition — while still creating a development of nearly 1,700 homes and industrial and business parks.
There are over 100 tribes in the state with federal recognition, a status that brings protections, funds and services from the federal government, including funding for Indigenous elementary and secondary schools, access to healthcare and the potential for a reservation. Yet dozens more remain unrecognized.
Federal agents negotiated treaties in the 1850s with more than 130 Indigenous communities in the new state of California, setting aside roughly 7% of the state for reservations. But Congress refused to ratify the very treaties it had ordered and failed to notify tribes of its decision.
The federal recognition process today is long and grueling. Only 18 tribes have successfully achieved recognition through it since it was created in 1978. Only one was in California — Death Valley’s Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.
Tribes along the coast who were coerced into building the missions, including the Gabrielino, have had an especially hard time gaining recognition. They endured three waves of settlers: the Spanish, Mexican, and American. With these came death, forced displacement and cultural suppression. When the federal government sent agents to create reservations for California’s mission-affected tribes in the 1890s following reports of dire circumstance, the agents inexplicably overlooked the Gabrieleno.
At least one-third of tribal cultural resources protected under CEQA are in the homelands of tribes without federal recognition, Jonathan Cordero, executive director of the Assn. of Ramaytush Ohlone, estimates.
If Proposition 45 passes, “that means that hundreds of sacred sites and thousands of invaluable and irreplaceable tribal cultural resources would be destroyed in subsequent years,” he said in a statement.
The US Secretary of State hosted far-right Machado in March. (EFE)
Caracas, October 27, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has announced plans to back electoral reforms in Venezuela and push for presidential elections.
In a press briefing with international journalists on Monday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Venezuela’s electoral infrastructure “designed to rig elections” and argued it must be replaced quickly to ensure a valid vote.
Rubio, who has been the Trump administration’s chief architect of US policy toward Venezuela, said talks between Acting President Delcy Rodríguez’s government and opposition sectors led by Dinorah Figuera were moving toward the appointment of a new Supreme Court (TSJ) before the end of the year, followed shortly afterward by the renewal of the National Electoral Council (CNE).
“Obviously, we need to use our influence with the interim [Venezuelan] authorities, to ensure that the process moves forward responsibly (…) Our goal is to have an election,” Rubio said. He welcomed what he described as “serious progress in that direction” and warned that “if anyone tries to derail the process, they will seriously harm Venezuela.”
In a separate press briefing, a senior State Department official added that, once both institutions have been reconstituted, the Venezuelan presidency will be declared permanently vacant, triggering a six-month constitutional deadline for presidential elections to be held “under competitive conditions.”
The anonymous official stressed that the process would also require political guarantees and regulations on access to the press. The official also defended the inclusion of pro-government sectors in a “transition,” arguing that peaceful democratic processes often require cooperation from outgoing factions, citing Spain and Portugal as precedents.
Asked about a specific election date, Rubio said the Rodríguez administration had complied with US timetables so far.
“Are we going to wait two years [for an election]? That’s not going to happen. At best, I have two years and two months left in this position,” he added.
His remarks coincide with statements by Dinorah Figuera, who heads the opposition delegation in talks with government representatives and forecast presidential elections to take place in late 2027 or early 2028.
Meanwhile, the third round of political dialogue in Venezuela agreed to review four laws governing political participation, pluralism, and the autonomy of political organizations, including the Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, and Demonstrations. The discussions also addressed disqualifications from holding public office and the review of legal frameworks related to political rights.
In parallel, Venezuela’s National Assembly formally launched the process to renew the 32 justices of the Supreme Court (TSJ). Applications from legal professionals seeking to join the court will be accepted from Wednesday, October 28, through Wednesday, November 11. The fourth round of dialogue is scheduled for November 11–15.
Rodríguez and other Venezuelan high-ranking officials have not commented on the State Department announcements.
The White House’s claims relating to Venezuelan reforms and elections coincided with the return of opposition leader María Corina Machado to the country on Sunday. The far-right politician had spent more than a year abroad and her supporters have called for her inclusion in the ongoing negotiations.
Asked about Machado’s return, Rubio said he had told the Rodríguez government “weeks ago” that Machado should be able to come back without obstacles. The secretary of state denied that Washington had obstructed Machado’s return, stating only that she was advised against traveling immediately after the June 24 double earthquake.
Rodríguez, for her part, said the opposition politician could have avoided the “show” of appearing at a church in Lara state before traveling 400 kilometers to Caracas at the head of a motorcade, amid chants of “freedom” and calls for immediate presidential elections.
“The airports are there. Let’s move away from the show (…) Many people who have benefited from the amnesty law and this process, which seeks peaceful coexistence, have been able to enter through the airport’s new transitional structures,” Rodríguez said.
The acting president declined to clarify which route Machado had taken to reenter Venezuela. Machado left the country in December 2024 for Oslo, where she received the Nobel Peace Prize before gifting it to Trump. She and her party maintain that the government prevented her from returning on seven previous occasions, a claim the authorities deny.
Asked whether the justice system would take action against Machado, Rodríguez replied that she hoped there would be “repentance and a change of course” from the opposition figure and that the opposition leader would be able to “contribute something to the country.” In recent years, Machado endorsed economic sanctions and a foreign military attack against Venezuela.
Imprisoned “That ’70s Show” actor Danny Masterson on Tuesday suffered a legal blow that ensures he will remain behind bars for at least another decade.
Three California appeals court judges rejected Masterson’s efforts to overturn his 2023 rape convictions and allegations that he did not receive a fair trial, deciding in an opinion filed in the state’s 2nd District Court of Appeals that “judgment is affirmed.”
The decision “ignores the extraordinary new evidence that has been before them for more than a year,” Masterson attorney Cliff Gardner said, referencing statements from “both complaining witnesses that their sexual experiences” with the actor were “both consensual and positive.”
“Danny is serving a life sentence for crimes he did not commit,” Gardner added in his statement. “No one in California — not defendants and not victims who have actually been the victim of a sex crime — is safer by virtue of today’s unfortunate decision.”
Masterson’s legal team is seeking further review in California Supreme Court and exploring additional legal action regarding evidence presented to the jury.
Attorneys for Masterson first filed their notice to appeal the actor’s conviction in November 2023, then filed a 242-page opening brief in December 2024. Key witness testimonies changed over time, the court excluded significant exculpatory evidence and judicial rulings skewed the jury’s view of the evidence against Masterson, his lawyers alleged at the time. The attorneys also argued that “jurors had significant reservations.”
A mix of errors by another defense attorney and a law enforcement investigation heavily biased against Masterson’s faith led to a wrongful conviction, the actor’s attorney Eric Multhaup alleged in another motion filed November 2025. Multhaup said Tuesday in a statement that the appeals court judges’ recent decision “are fundamentally wrong.”
“The Court of Appeal did not address any of the exculpatory evidence that was contained in the habeas corpus petition, and instead justified the denial with a one-paragraph summary of the one-sided evidence presented by the prosecution,” Multhaup alleged. “This cursory treatment reflects poorly on the administration of justice in the Court of Appeal, and will be rectified by a petition to the California Supreme Court.”
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Masterson in 2020 for three counts of rape involving three different women in the early 2000s. He denied all wrongdoing and maintained all sexual encounters were consensual. He also framed the accusations as an attack of the Church of Scientology. The women said they took years to report the rapes to police out of fear of retaliation from the church.
Masterson first went to trial in 2022, but jurors failed to reach a verdict on any of the three counts, leading the case to end in a mistrial. He was tried a second time in 2023 and found guilty of raping two women, both former members of the Church of Scientology. The jury was deadlocked on a third woman’s accusations. His attorneys argued in December 2024 that there was “no physical evidence supporting the state’s theory [of rape]” and the case was a “a pure credibility contest.”
The actor is currently carrying out his sentence at the California Men’s Colony prison in San Luis Obispo. According to a state database, he will be eligible for parole in June 2042, but is scheduled for a consultation in May 2038.
Times staff writers Clara Harter and James Queally contributed to this report.
A federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a Trump administration request to immediately block California officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the administration questions, but said he would not issue a ruling until Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned how the administration had derived its list of suspect voters, worried about disenfranchising eligible voters, said the demands would represent a “monumental change” to California elections and suggested federal prosecutors bringing the case had other means of holding illegal voters accountable.
But just one day after a federal appeals court rejected the same request, Carter said at the conclusion of a 3½-hour hearing in Los Angeles that he needed more time to rule — except on one related issue.
“This court believes it would be wise — that it would be wise — that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately,” he said — a clear reference to federal authorities threatening elections officials with criminal penalties if they count any of the flagged ballots.
After the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said he had made it “abundantly clear that American voters are being disenfranchised in real time,” and that the administration will wait to see what Carter says Wednesday but was likely to appeal the matter back up to the appellate court.
He also denied threatening state officials, despite the Justice Department having sent formal letters to election officials statewide last week warning them of criminal punishments, and Essayli reiterated that position Tuesday.
Carter’s hearing came after Monday’s decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the reverse of what’s normal — because Justice Department attorneys had tried to go over Carter’s head after he didn’t acquiesce to a deadline they’d set for him to rule on their request for a temporary restraining order against the state last week.
However, when the three-judge appellate panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case given Carter hadn’t yet had the chance, the case returned to Carter’s courtroom.
And there, Carter — an appointee of President Clinton — seemed loath to rush to judgment, despite the Trump administration’s claims of urgency. He said the administration’s method for arriving at its list of potential noncitizen voters was unclear and that he would like to develop the record further, including by bringing in an expert for the court.
“What are these systems? What are the algorithms? How was this derived?” he said.
He also seemed unmoved by the Justice Department’s argument that the ballots must be segregated immediately to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted, and more focused on whether noncitizens who illegally vote can be identified and held accountable while avoiding disenfranchising legitimate voters in the process.
For those who do vote illegally, “you’ve got a remedy, for goodness sakes,” he told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”
The Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters, whom McCotter described as “likely noncitizens.”
During the hearing, Essayli argued on behalf of the Trump administration that its demands on California and L.A. County were not onerous, could be complied with easily and did not call for ballots to go uncounted. Essayli said the federal government was in court “on a very narrow request for an injunction to separate ballots of those suspected of being noncitizens” only until the state can prove their citizenship.
He argued that the “reliability and credibility” of the federal government process for flagging the 20,000 voters is unquestionable — while also telling Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.” He said every vote counts, as some elections “are decided by a handful of votes,” and that the federal government is simply asking California not to break existing federal law barring noncitizens from voting.
“We’re not telling California what they have to do. We’re telling them what they can’t do, which is just count these ballots without doing more to ensure whether they’re citizens or not,” Essayli said.
Essayli — who has aggressively sparred with California officials on social media for weeks — also argued to the court that the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since first asking the state to segregate the ballots, and that he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials have been on the issue.
Attorneys for Weber and the state said the Trump administration’s demand on the state “distorts several legal doctrines beyond recognition” and is clearly illegal, particularly during an ongoing election. They said the administration has provided no evidence that the 20,000 voters aren’t citizens, and has used “data and methods known to be unreliable.”
Michael Cohen, a deputy attorney general for the state, said the Trump administration questions California law that allows voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, while ignoring the fact that standard was set not by the state but by Congress.
Anne Bellows, another deputy attorney general, said California has an established framework for running elections, and the Trump administration is trying to “sweep it off the table and replace it with a new, unclear procedure in which the federal government can issue a list and require California to change the way a subset of its voters’ ballots are received, and whether or not they are tabulated,” which she said was illegal and a “recipe for disenfranchisement” of thousands of legitimate voters.
“The stakes here are enormous,” she said.
Attorneys for Logan said the Trump administration has made its demands “without any credible argument” as to how it is legal, that the “proposed remedy” it is demanding from the state is “vague and unworkable,” and that if it wants to question California’s existing processes, “the proper audience for that argument” is Congress — not the federal court.
Several attorneys for voting and civil rights groups also argued against the Trump administration during the hearing, including by arguing that its reliance on third-party data sets — including from Lexis Nexis — was not a trustworthy way of identifying whether voters are citizens.
The litigation is just one part of a much wider battle by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections nationwide, and particularly in California, including on the notion that state elections have insufficient guardrails to prevent noncitizens from voting. Elections experts say such fraud occurs, but is exceedingly rare.
While the 9th Circuit panel’s unsigned ruling Monday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote independently to make clear that they would have rejected the case on its merits too.
They said it ran afoul of federal law barring interventions in voting in the immediate lead-up to elections, and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves control of elections for the states and oversight for Congress, not the executive branch.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also wrote independently in dissent — arguing the federal government must “have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections.”
Carter previously rejected an administration lawsuit demanding California’s unredacted voter rolls as “unprecedented and illegal” — a decision similar to those made by dozens of other federal judges in other states. Federal prosecutors recently charged 28 lawful permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote. Some of those charged expressed confusion, said they had no recollection of registering or had never voted.
There are more than 23 million registered voters in California.
Last week, Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials in counties across California demanding they sequester any flagged ballots in their jurisdictions, and warning them that they could face criminal penalties if they don’t. State officials denounced the letters as a legally baseless intimidation tactic.
Federal judges also have slapped back executive orders in which President Trump demanded new nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements, and blocked a Trump administration plan to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots for the first time.
Beyond the courts, Democrats and voting rights groups have been strategizing for months on how to prevent the Trump administration from interfering in the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. The Trump administration has said it is merely trying to enforce the law and ensure that noncitizens do not illegally vote and negate the ballots of U.S. citizen voters.
A federal appeals court Monday denied an emergency request from the U.S. Justice Department to step in and block California election officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has questioned.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two judges appointed by President Trump and one by President Biden — ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the request, given that a lower district court has not yet made a ruling on it.
But two of the three judges also wrote separately to make clear they also would have denied the Trump administration’s request on other grounds, if they did have jurisdiction.
In an unsigned order — joined by Judge Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — the court granted a request from Los Angeles County to dismiss the appeal, writing that the Trump administration “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” its request for a temporary restraining order barring the ballots from being counted before filing its unusual appeal to the appellate panel.
The court found that the “emergency” the Trump administration asserted was in part a “self-constructed one” and that delays in the district court were partly attributable to its “own delay in filing suit, in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots, in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale, and in communicating to the court its desired relief.”
Both Bennett and Sanchez also each wrote a concurring opinion — in which they made clear that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request even if they did have jurisdiction, too.
Sanchez wrote that federal law would bar the court from issuing such a demand on state elections officials so close to an election.
“The United States seeks to have a federal court dictate to California the manner in which it must administer its own electoral process by segregating mail-in ballots and undertaking a citizenship verification process the State has never done before,” Sanchez wrote. “The proposed injunction would transform California’s election rules for an election that is already underway and would cause widespread confusion among voters and election officials, divert election administration resources, and ‘usher in electoral chaos.’”
Bennett wrote that he would have denied the Trump administration’s emergency request for several reasons beyond jurisdiction, including that it would be likely unconstitutional under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which he wrote “confers broad authority only on Congress and the States, not the Executive,” and Congress has not acted to say that California’s existing laws for ensuring only U.S. citizens vote are problematic.
“Thus, under the Elections Clause, the legislature’s statutory scheme remains as the only method to do so,” Bennett wrote.
Bennett wrote that there are existing California laws to deal with the harm the Trump administration claims it is suffering, but that granting its request to intervene could “result in immense hardship” to the state “and harm the public by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy.”
Bennett wrote that the Trump administration “offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California’s ongoing election.”
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee, dissented — arguing the Trump administration was well within its legal rights to intervene, and the appellate court did have jurisdiction to grant its request and bar the state “from accepting and processing ballots likely cast by aliens until their citizenship could be verified.”
“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”
The ruling clears the way for the lower court to proceed with a hearing scheduled Tuesday afternoon before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Los Angeles.
Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, previously rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to obtain California’s full voter rolls, calling that demand unlawful and a threat to democracy in January. Other federal judges made similar rulings in dozens of states across the country.
The question at issue Tuesday — and hashed over by the appellate court during oral arguments Sunday — is whether the courts should bar the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from processing and tabulating the flagged ballots until they can provide to the Trump administration proof that those individuals are citizens.
The Trump administration has argued in court filings that the federal government is suffering irreparable harm each day such counting is allowed to continue, as once California ballots are removed from their mail envelopes or cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate those ballots from others.
More than 3 million ballots have already been cast in the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections statewide, and more than 500,000 have already been cast in L.A. County.
Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued in court filings that the administration’s demands to segregate 20,000 ballots and vet those voters for citizenship with just days to go before the election are impossible to comply with and would cause catastrophic disruptions if elections officials across the state were forced to try.
They have also said the demands are clearly unconstitutional, illegal under state and federal law, and based on federal immigration and third-party data sets that have been shown to be deeply flawed, inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.
While the appellate court’s formal ruling Monday adhered closely to the technical issue of jurisdiction, its conversation Sunday did not — with both Bennett and Sanchez expressing substantial doubts about the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s request, just as they did in their separate concurrences.
Bennett grilled Matthew Donnelly, the attorney for the Justice Department, on how the executive branch’s demands squared with the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly gives states the power to set laws regarding the time, place and manner of elections and Congress — not the executive branch — oversight over those laws.
Bennett said that while the Trump administration is “unhappy” with how California law ensures voters are citizens — namely by requiring that they attest to their citizenship upon registration — the state has the right to determine its election laws under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, and Congress has not challenged its process.
“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”
Bennett and Sanchez both questioned how the appellate court could step in and adjudicate whether to grant the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the state’s election when it is not a fact-finding body, and the district court was never given a chance to develop a record of facts — including around the dueling and contradicting claims about the origins and reliability of the federal government’s list of “likely” noncitizen voters and the state’s claims that an order forcing them to segregate out the votes at this late stage in the election would cause catastrophic harm to the election process.
Carter is sure to pick those issues back up on Tuesday.
The UCLA football team produced its worst quarter of the season Saturday.
After fumbling twice in Michigan State territory, halting offensive momentum, the Bruins were trailing going into the second quarter and tied 7-7 with three minutes left in the second quarter.
But for the third consecutive week, the defense shifted the momentum and ignited the offense.
Powered by a defensive unit that tallied three takeaways, four sacks and limited the opposing offense to 156 yards, UCLA earned its seventh win of the season Saturday afternoon at the Rose Bowl, trouncing Michigan State 28-10.
It is the first time the Bruins have gone 7-0 since 2005. The team moved up to No. 7 in the Associated Press top 25 poll Sunday.
Newsletter subscription change
Starting Sept. 21, this newsletter will be available to Los Angeles Times subscribers only. A free press isn’t free, and we depend on reader support to report on the stories that make a difference. If you’re already a subscriber, nothing will change. If you’re not, there’s never been a better time to sign up. Get started here.
Let’s take a look at the three takeaways from the Bruins’ fifth conference win. UCLA sits atop the Big Ten standings, with its last nonconference game against 3-4 Nevada on Saturday.
Are the Bruins aggressive enough?
The final score did not reflect the Bruins’ dominance over the Spartans.
UCLA ran the ball 48 times compared to 31 passing attempts. And while the ground game was successful, rushing for 245 yards and three touchdowns on 5.1 yards per carry, the Bruins had the opportunity to blow the doors off the game through the passing game.
The Bruins opted to play a clock management game, running out the entire fourth quarter with a multi-score lead instead of taking shots downfield and manipulating the defense through the air. And Michigan State adjusted accordingly, stacking the box and preparing for the run.
With the Spartans focused on stopping the run, UCLA’s offense had the opportunity to take advantage of an already depleted secondary and give quarterback Ty Dieffenbach more opportunities to get comfortable in the passing game.
Dieffenbach’s one deep shot connected with sophomore wide receiver Brian Rowe Jr. for a 63-yard touchdown. But outside of that, Dieffenbach did not connect for a pass of more than 20 yards. And coach Bob Chesney acknowledged that the offense could have opened up more, but that the Bruins decided to run out the clock.
“There were moments there in the fourth, too, and the late third, where that box got pretty loaded, and we should have taken some shots on the outside,” Chesney said. “But at the same point, you’re trying to run this clock out and get out of here with the win, ultimately, and could have taken a little more risk if we wanted to. But I thought we managed it well enough to get a victory here.”
It doesn’t always have to be Wayne
Wayne Knight has been the star of UCLA’s offense so far.
But the Bruins have proven that the backfield is less of a bell cow system and more of a three-headed beast.
And despite a shaky first half, senior Jaivian Thomas and fifth-year Anthony Woods more than illustrated that they could be the featured back on any given day.
Thomas and Woods fumbled in the first half in Spartan territory — their first of the season on 118 combined carries thus far. But the duo refused to let the mistake define them. Thomas ran for 41 yards and a touchdown in 10 carries while Woods rushed for 112 yards and one score in 14 carries alongside three receptions.
Woods and Thomas’ production in the dying embers of the affair became pertinent when Knight went down with a chest/ribs injury. While Chesney said that the injury is nothing overly serious and that the tailback could have returned to the game, the coaching staff decided to keep him sidelined as a precaution.
“I thought [Anthony] Woods was rolling today. To be able to see some of the holes that he found and be explosive and physical was really good,” Chesney said. “But both of those guys put the ball on the ground early. That’s not what we were looking for, but I love their response.”
Linebacker University
All season, the Bruins’ secondary has earned praise.
Defensive coordinator Colin Hitschler’s unit has not allowed a quarterback to gain more than 160 passing yards during its last four games and has given up fewer than 100 yards in two of those games.
But the entirety of the Bruins inside linebacker department has hounded opposing offenses all season — dominating in all facets of defense, from blitzing the quarterback, to finishing off tackles in open space to blanketing pass catchers when tasked in coverage.
And all of that was on display Saturday.
“They understand the run scheme. They do all of the things right. They relate pre-snap. And then they communicate post-snap extremely well,” Chesney said. “And those are all the things that they have to be able to accomplish. But then they play a very physical brand of football. And when you start to blitz them, they get downhill quick, and they pack a punch when they do.”
Headlining the crew is Sammy Omosigho, who has not missed a beat since coming to Westwood from Oklahoma. He ranks first in the nation in forced fumbles with five through seven games, and ranks first in the Big Ten in sacks with five despite playing inside linebacker.
His linebacker partner — fifth-year Jalen Woods — is playing up to Omosigho’s level, with 2.5 sacks, one interception and 59 tackles, which ranks fourth in the Big Ten. Sophomore Scott Taylor, who has been playing as a hybrid inside/outside linebacker, has three sacks and two forced fumbles.
And senior Donavyn Pellot joined the fun Saturday, recording the first interception of his career and returning it 67 yards, flipping the field, and turning the tide of the game.
Sign up for UCLA Unlocked
A weekly newsletter offering big game takeaways, recruiting buzz and everything you need to know about UCLA sports — exclusive to L.A. Times subscribers. Free Members receive a partial preview of each edition.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
UCLA alum Natalie Nakase’s strategy change pays off
Valkyries coach Natalie Nakase reacts on the sideline during Game 4 of the WNBA Finals against the Atlanta Dream at State Farm Arena in Atlanta on Saturday.
(Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)
Former UCLA point guard Natalie Nakase shook up her starting lineup and helped spark the Golden State Valkyries’ Game 4 win over the Atlanta Dream during the WNBA Finals, evening the series 2-2.
Guard Tiffany Hayes and Kaila Charles joined the starting five during Golden State’s 67-62 win Saturday in Atlanta. Nakase tightened her rotation to seven players, bringing Kayla Thornton and Cecilia Zandalasini providing a spark off the bench.
“I just wanted to change it up,” Nakase said. “The best thing about our team is no one cares who starts, no one cares. People coming off the bench, it doesn’t matter … because we have a really selfless team, egoless team. So, yeah, I just wanted to change it, and you definitely saw some energy, better fight.”
Nakase said her players have bought into doing whatever it takes to support each other all season.
“We’re about caring for each other,” she said. “We’re about pouring into each other, and I think what’s really big key is they want to see success in their teammates more than themselves.”
Golden State will host Game 5 of the series Monday at 5 p.m. The remainder of the series schedule is in flux as the WNBA negotiates where Atlanta can play its remaining home games.
Bruins on deck
Here is this week’s UCLA athletics schedule. All Times are PDT.
Monday, Oct. 26
Men’s golf at East Lake Cup, All day
Women’s golf at Nanea Invitational, All day
Tuesday, Oct. 27
Men’s golf at East Lake Cup, All day
Women’s golf at Nanea Invitational, All Day
Men’s basketball vs. San Diego (exhibition), 7 p.m.
Wednesday, Oct. 28
Men’s golf at East Lake Cup, All day
Women’s golf at Nanea Invitational, All day
Friday, Oct. 30
Men’s and women’s tennis at Dennis Rizza Intercollegiate Classic, All day
Cross country at Big Ten championship, Time TBA
Women’s volleyball vs. Minnesota, 7 p.m.
Men’s soccer vs. Indiana, 7 p.m.
Women’s soccer at USC, 7 p.m.
Saturday, Oct. 31
Men’s and women’s tennis at Dennis Rizza Intercollegiate Classic, All day
Men’s water polo at Cal, 1 p.m.
Football vs. Nevada, 1:15 p.m.
Sunday, Nov. 1
Men’s and women’s tennis at Dennis Rizza Intercollegiate Classic, All day
Do you have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future UCLA newsletter? Email newsletters editor Houston Mitchell at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Sports editor Iliana Limón Romero and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — Democrats and outside watchdogs are planning a massive presence at the polls on Election Day driven by concerns that President Trump will further leverage the vast resources of the federal government to interfere with a midterm that could hobble his final two years in office.
They won’t be the only ones there. A sprawling election protection effort on the left that is expected to deploy tens of thousands of monitors will be met by the largest-ever monitoring program by the Justice Department and still more observers from Republican-aligned groups. The result could be unlike anything seen at the polls in modern times.
The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning. The network includes traditional government watchdogs such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union plus a flood of volunteers assembled by state Democratic parties, congressional leaders, national activist groups and organizations focused on protecting democracy.
The Democratic National Committee created a first-of-its-kind cybersecurity unit staffed by former CIA and FBI officials to monitor and report online misinformation, including artificial intelligence deepfakes, said Jane Kleeb, vice chair of the DNC.
That’s as Democratic mayors, attorneys general and secretaries of state host tabletop exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, such as a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at voting locations or the seizure of ballots and voting equipment.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have assembled a legal team that rivals that of any presidential campaign.
“We’ve never done this before,” Kleeb said of the party’s sweeping efforts. But “we’ve never had to deal with the president of the United States saying that he may seize ballots, put ICE agents outside polling locations and other kinds of very clear direct threats to the voting process.”
The Department of Justice has already filed lawsuits in California and Alaska that could affect ballot counting or certification.
While Trump continues to make baseless allegations of cheating in the election, administration and military officials have said they have no plans to deploy immigration agents or troops to polling sites.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis blamed “radical Democrats” for creating fears about election security by refusing to enact voter ID requirements and other Republican-backed measures.
“President Trump has done more than any other president to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said.
Tens of thousands of volunteers trained to observe
State Democratic parties have trained an estimated 10,000 volunteers to observe polling places and report anything potentially concerning they might see from federal agents. Common Cause has trained roughly 16,000 more volunteers to stand watch at voting precincts, said Suzanne Almeida, vice president of states for the group.
She said a broader Election Protection coalition involving 300 other groups has trained tens of thousands more.
Smaller pockets of volunteers from other groups also are preparing to show up, including roughly 100 organized by Senate Democrats and hundreds more from a Democratic-allied group called Save America, which is training clergy members, veterans, teachers and other local community members. National groups such as Indivisible and MoveOn are activating their own expansive networks.
There are so many organizations working to protect the voting process — including many that cannot legally coordinate with each other — that some officials involved worry about unintentionally creating chaos outside polling locations.
Almeida said Election Day confusion is possible in some precincts but the nature of the threat requires a collective effort.
“It will actually take all of us if some of the threats we are most worried about come to pass,” she said.
Trump administration sends its own team
Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” whether the Republican administration is planning to send ICE agents to polling places.
“There is no plan to do that,” she responded.
Still, the Justice Department is planning its largest-ever election monitoring effort, with about 1,000 department staff expected to observe voting and ensure federal laws are being followed, spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. That comes after a primary season in which the department said it deployed more than 100 election monitors across hundreds of polling locations.
At least one of those placements sparked tensions with local officials. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said the behavior of two monitors during that state’s primary was “a bit aggressive” and “irregular.” A Laramie County clerk said the Justice Department monitors arrived at the polls intending to interview voters, but her office didn’t allow it.
The department disagrees that the monitors did anything improper, Pels said. She added that the monitors are trained to comply with federal law governing conduct at polling places and won’t “interfere with the voting process.”
Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the Trump administration’s monitors could intimidate voters or abandon the duty they’ve had for decades to protect against civil rights violations.
The department plans to send them to every state, focusing on high-population areas, jurisdictions that have had problems in the past and districts with close elections, according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.
The Republican National Committee said its operation involves deploying “election integrity deputy state directors” in 22 states, among them Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.
Those workers are the “eyes and the ears of the RNC in the field” who recruit volunteers and organize trainings, said Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director. Their mission is to surface anything that seems unlawful.
At the same time, the RNC has enlisted nearly 22,000 poll workers and is recruiting poll-watching volunteers for competitive districts. The poll watchers will “observe the process and help ensure election rules are followed in accordance with the law,” Triolo said.
Local election officials prepare for increased attention
While federal monitors have quietly observed elections for decades, largely without incident, some election officials are taking precautions.
Chris Swope, the city clerk in Lansing, Michigan, said he preemptively contacted law enforcement and his attorney in case federal monitors violate election law, although he expects them to abide by the rules.
The Democratic Mayors Association issued guidance to local Democratic officials with detailed instructions about what to do if federal agents appear at polling locations.
It notes that federal law prohibits the presence of federal immigration agents, the FBI or other investigative personnel. It also issued a reminder that federal agents are not allowed to be armed at the polls, nor are they allowed to interact with voters or handle ballots or election equipment.
Justice Department officials have said their monitors won’t be armed and will not interfere with voting. Asked about department monitors being sent to Georgia, Trump told a reporter recently: “They’re not going to do anything other than watch.”
Some of the poll observations have already begun. Mary Corcoran, Save America’s executive director, said her group’s volunteers have been monitoring precincts during early voting in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio to help give voters a sense of security.
“The fear is the point, and we must do something about it,” she said. “Left unanswered, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”
Peoples and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writers Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jessica Hill in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — You haven’t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I’m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I’ve figured them all out at last.
I’ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I’ll share here. Heads up: I’m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.
Anyway, here’s my thinking:
Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond
The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.
But it’s an expensive item — costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.
This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I’m a “no” vote.
Proposition 2: Doubles the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund
This would cement the nation’s highest state income tax rates into the California Constitution — up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.
The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.
My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, “temporary” shouldn’t be translated into “permanent.” And there’s no rush. The rates don’t expire for five years. No.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns
Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.
Proposition 5: Changes recall elections
Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal, only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.
This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes
Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers
Middle-income buyers could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They’d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.
My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition’s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.
There’s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.
This is nutty. There’s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn’t have a one-time tax anyway. It’s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who’s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.
Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills
I don’t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.
Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes
Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.
It’s ridiculously confusing. But I don’t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That’s undemocratic. No.
The low-profile measure would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.
This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they’d need to close shop. No.
Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects
This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.
It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.
Happy voting. I’m glad I didn’t vote early so there’d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.
In a rare Sunday hearing, a federal appeals court judge appointed by President Trump questioned how the Trump administration’s request to intervene in California’s ongoing midterm election in order to force state officials to set aside 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship it questions squares with the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Mark J. Bennett said that while the executive branch is “unhappy” with what California law requires for ensuring voters are citizens, the state has the right to determine the manner of its elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution and Congress has not challenged that process, despite having the ability to do so.
“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”
Matthew Donnelly, a Justice Department attorney, said the Trump administration has good reason to believe those ballots are from ineligible noncitizen voters, and has the legal right under seperate federal criminal law to challenge their tabulation until state officials can prove otherwise.
Donnelly said both federal criminal law and state election law bar noncitizen voters from casting ballots, but “the problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision.”
The exchange came during an hour-long hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Justice Department’s unprecedented emergency request that the court order California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan to immediately stop counting ballots from the 20,000 flagged voters until they can definitively prove those voters are U.S. citizens.
The appellate panel — on which Bennett was joined by circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay, another Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, an appointee of President Biden — did not issue a ruling, though a decision is expected soon given the emergency nature of the appeal.
How it will rule is unclear, though both Bennett and Sanchez hammered Donnelly with questions about how the Trump administration’s position squared with the law.
Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Sunday that the court seemed “very likely to reject” the Trump administration’s appeal, with Bennett and Sanchez having “expressed great skepticism on both jurisdiction and the merits.”
In addition to questioning its constitutionality, Bennett also questioned how the appellate court even had jurisdiction over the case, given that the Trump administration appealed the matter to the appellate court before the lower district court had a chance to assess the facts in the case or issue an order.
“How do we have jurisdiction when the district court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously?” Bennett said. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”
Bennett also questioned why the appellate court should ignore the claims of state elections officials that having to comply with the Trump administration’s demands in the few remaining days before the Nov. 3 election would be catastrophically disruptive to the election, given that the lower court has had no chance to assess those claims.
“Isn’t that sufficient to give us pause as to whether we should do exactly what [a state expert] avers is going to cause a catastrophe?” Bennett asked.
Bennett’s questions evoked many of the arguments made by the state in its own filings in the matter, which were repeated by California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel during the hearing.
Siegel said there was “nothing” for the appellate court to review, given there has been no fact finding and no order out of the lower court, and that the administration’s demands were unconstitutional and illegal. He said the court did not have to wrestle with many of the arguments being put forward by the Trump administration, because it should simply reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and send the matter back down to the lower court.
Bumatay appeared most interested of the three judges in the damage done when noncitizens do vote, and the underlying question of how the state should handle objections to alleged noncitizen voters when they arise.
Siegel and Seth Waxman, an attorney for Logan, said there are existing processes for that — which require the challenger to present extraordinary proof, which they said the Trump administration has not done for the 20,000 voters it has flagged.
Sanchez repeatedly questioned the provenance of the administration’s list, asking which third parties were involved in providing the data. Donnelly could not answer, which Sanchez said raised questions about the reliability of the list.
The Justice Department appealed the case after a lower district court judge declined to immediately rule last week on its request for a temporary restraining order barring California officials from tabulating the flagged ballots.
In court filings, the administration argued that once mail ballots are removed from their envelopes in California, or a ballot has been cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate it from other cast ballots.
Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued the demands are illegal, impossible to comply with before the Nov. 3 election and based on deeply flawed federal immigration and third-party data sets shown to be inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.
In court filings, they have argued that the Trump administration’s argument “rests on mere suspicion, aroused by suspect data,” and that its lawsuit is at best “a reckless political stunt” and at worst “threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”
Independent elections experts have said the Justice Department’s efforts break with longstanding department policy of not wading into election-related issues within 90 days of an election, to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters.
They also have said the Trump administration’s lists of alleged noncitizen voters and its authority to intervene are both questionable, including because the U.S. Constitution empowers states to run elections with oversight from Congress, not the executive branch.
The Justice Department sued California, Weber and Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters — whom McCotter claimed were “likely noncitizens.”
First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has claimed federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California, and has defended the methods used to identify those voters. He and other federal prosecutors in the state also recently charged 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote.
On Friday, the Justice Department sent letters to county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens, drawing from the same list of 20,000 at issue in the case against Weber and Logan. In those letters, the Justice Department gave the county officials 48 hours to comply, and threatened them with criminal punishment if they refuse.
State officials have said neither Essayli nor other Trump administration officials have provided proof to back up their claims, and that their list of 20,000 voters is clearly inaccurate. Logan said a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered and had never voted.
More than 3 million people have already cast ballots in California — and more than 500,000 have already done so in Los Angeles County.
The challenge to the 20,000 ballots in California is just the latest Trump administration attempt to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms.
Federal judges in dozens of states have rejected Justice Department lawsuits demanding the states turn over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Federal judges also have rejected multiple Trump executive orders trying to institute national voter ID and citizenship checks, and his administration’s attempt to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots.
Other cases — including over the Trump administration using unproven and inaccurate federal data sets to question the citizenship of state voters — are pending.
Democrats and voting rights groups are also bracing for fresh litigation from the Trump administration to challenge the outcome of pivotal election results the president doesn’t like — and are already defending against a lawsuit the Justice Department brought at Trump’s urging in Alaska, preemptively challenging a Democratic win in the Senate race there based on a third candidate sharing a similar name as the Republican incumbent.
Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.
No. 9 UCLA was hosting a Michigan State team with one of the least productive offenses in the country led by freshman quarterback Kayd Coffman, who was taking his first college snaps after the Spartans’ top two quarterbacks were injured.
After forcing three turnovers and four sacks, UCLA trounced Michigan State 28-10 Saturday afternoon at the Rose Bowl. The Bruins improved to 7-0 for the first time since 2005 after winning just three games last season.
UCLA’s defense carried it after the offense was flat in the first half, dropping two passes, drawing drive-killing penalties and fumbling twice in Michigan State territory. Both fumbles were forced by Spartans safety Devin Vaught and returned 50-plus yards to the red zone.
While UCLA conceded a touchdown after the first giveaway, allowing Michigan State (2-6, 0-5) to score in two plays, the Bruins avenged the second fumble with an interception from linebacker Donavyn Pellot.
Pellot returned his first career interception 67 yards. Wayne Knight scored on a one-yard run five plays later for his 13th touchdown of the season. The score gave UCLA a lead it would never relinquish.
UCLA quarterback Ty Dieffenbach passes in the first quarter against Michigan State at the Rose Bowl on Saturday.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
“Second half [was] much, much better than the first half,” UCLA coach Bob Chesney told CBS immediately after the game. “Mistakes in there and uncharacteristic things that we cannot allow to happen at this point in the year.
“So a little bit disappointed in moments, but at the same point in time we did what we had to do.”
Once the offense found its footing, it did not step off the gas.
The Bruins leaned heavily on their running game as they returned to its usual form after being limited to 3.5 yards per carry and failing to surpass 150 yards the past two weeks. All three starting running backs reached the end zone for the third time this season, as UCLA finished with 245 rushing yards at 5.1 yards per carry. Anthony Woods led the UCLA rushing attack with 112 yards and a touchdown in 14 carries.
The running game loosened up the Michigan State defense, and UCLA quarterback Ty Dieffenbach took advantage of an already depleted secondary on the first drive of the second half, unloading a 63-yard pass to sophomore wide receiver Brian Rowe Jr. for his first touchdown of the season.
Dieffenbach made the big play after sustaining an apparent leg injury on a hard hit late in the first half.
With the defense holding the Spartans to just 156 total yards of offense — 73 of which came in the fourth quarter with UCLA in control — Dieffenbach didn’t have to be perfect to secure the win. He completed 18 of 31 passes for 198 yards and a touchdown.
Defensively, UCLA refused to allow a forward push at the line of scrimmage, flying into the backfield and holding Michigan State to 1.6 yards per carry.
UCLA running back Wayne Knight scores a touchdown in the second quarter against Michigan State on Saturday.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
And when the Spartans tried to pass, the Bruins dug deeper, making it a nightmare for Coffman until Michigan State coach Pat Fitzgerald turned to fourth-string quarterback Leo Hannan. UCLA finished with four sacks, six tackles for a loss and five quarterback hurries, essentially living in the Spartans’ backfield.
The Bruins sealed their seventh consecutive victory with an interception from safety Malik Hartford, his second forced turnover of the game.
The UCLA defense was one of the team’s biggest liabilities during the past decade, stretching from the Chip Kelly era to last season’s three-win effort.
This season, UCLA hasn’t allowed an opponent to score more than 15 points since Sept. 19.
