state

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, was charged Thursday with leading what authorities alleged was a wide-ranging criminal enterprise that acquired and distributed large quantities of marijuana and laundered the proceeds.

Lucas, who has been in elected office for decades, used her political power to insulate the operation from scrutiny, according to an indictment charging her and six other defendants, including several of her relatives. She “put her own financial interests before the people she was elected to serve,” said U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who spoke at a news conference with FBI Director Kash Patel.

Lucas surrendered, the Justice Department said. She made a brief appearance in federal court on Thursday afternoon, where she was released on her own recognizance, according to court records. She left the court without addressing media gathered outside and went straight into a waiting vehicle.

The charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, came after the FBI searched Lucas’ hometown office and a cannabis shop in which she has a stake in May. At the time of the search, Lucas — who has been a vocal critic of Republican President Trump’s administration — characterized it as an attempt to intimidate her.

“This is the circus we always expected it to be,” said Brian Woolfolk, chief counsel for the L. Louise Lucas Legal Defense Fund.

Lucas says she won’t be bullied by the federal government

A statement attributed to Lucas posted on her social media account did not directly address the substance of the charges but said Thursday’s actions amounted to the federal government wielding its “full weight” against a great-grandmother.

“I will not be intimidated. I will not be bullied. And I will not back down,” Lucas said in the statement.

The brash 82-year-old lawmaker has spent decades ascending the ranks of Virginia politics and has served since 1992 in the state Senate, where she’s the president pro tempore, overseeing the chamber in the lieutenant governor’s absence. More significantly, she leads the powerful Senate finance committee, through which all legislation with any budget impact must flow. She’s used the position to kill legislation she opposes.

Justice Department denies politics played a role

The indictment comes as Trump’s Justice Department has faced intense scrutiny over investigations and prosecutions against foes of the president that critics have called politically motivated.

Blanche rejected any suggestion politics played a role in Lucas’ case, noting the investigation began well before the second Trump administration started in January 2025.

“We don’t do political paybacks,” Blanche told reporters.

A person familiar with the May search told the Associated Press at the time that the probe was opened during Democratic President Biden’s administration. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a continuing criminal investigation.

FBI alleges a ‘criminal marijuana enterprise’

Patel said in a statement that “Lucas and a close-knit group of family members and associates orchestrated a multi-year scheme to enrich their own criminal marijuana enterprise, ‘the Lucas Enterprise’ — using Lucas’ position as Chairwoman of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to insulate the enterprise from criminal scrutiny and influencing legislation to financially benefit themselves.”

The indictment describes Lucas as the “leader of the enterprise” who “approved and directed criminal activities,” including arranging for the acquisition and distribution of marijuana and supervising the laundering of the proceeds.

The indictment alleges Lucas worked this year with another of the defendants to use her political position to obtain a recreational marijuana license for him, with the understanding that the proceeds from sales under the license would be shared with her to support the “enterprise.”

Since 2021, marijuana has been legal to possess in Virginia, and many shops across the state have sold cannabis-derived products. But full recreational sales are not yet underway; legislation enacted earlier this year will allow them beginning in July 2027.

Law enforcement made multiple controlled purchases of marijuana from Lucas’ shop, which purported to sell hemp products, in 2024 and 2025, the indictment said.

In addition to drug and money laundering charges, Lucas faces a charge of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and maintaining a drug-involved premises. An arraignment is scheduled for next month.

Among the other defendants who face a mix of those and other charges are two daughters of Lucas and a grandson. It was unclear if they had obtained legal representation. They were also scheduled to make an initial court appearance Thursday afternoon.

Virginia officials react

A forceful advocate of legalizing marijuana, Lucas partnered in opening the shop, The Cannabis Outlet, in 2021. She has publicly spoken about her ownership stake as recently as June, though her most recent financial disclosure forms do not list the business by name.

At the time of the search — when marijuana was recovered at The Cannabis Outlet, according to the indictment — many Democrats spoke up to defend Lucas.

On Thursday, Scott Surovell, the Democratic leader of the state Senate, said in a statement that the indictment contained “serious allegations” but emphasized that “Senator Lucas has the right to defend herself, and she has my full support as she does so.” Atty. Gen. Jay Jones, a Democrat who is close with Lucas, said the allegations against her must be tested in a “full and fair” legal process.

House Speaker Don Scott, Lt. Gov. Ghazala Hashmi, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger, all Democrats, echoed those sentiments, with Spanberger adding that the timing of the indictment so close to the midterm election would “further erode” Americans’ trust in the Justice Department. Lucas herself is not on the ballot this year.

Ryan McDougle, the Senate Republican leader, said he would not comment while the court proceedings play out.

The senator draws comparisons to Trump

Lucas, who represents a district that includes her hometown of coastal Portsmouth, operates with a sometimes-profane, unapologetic style that’s drawn comparisons to Trump.

She amassed a six-figure following on X and national attention, using the social media platform to advocate forcefully for her priorities and to bash her critics, including former GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin. She’s also occasionally blasted members of her own party, including Spanberger, with whom she’s had disagreements.

Earlier this year, Lucas helped lead Democrats’ ultimately unsuccessful plan to gerrymander the blue-leaning state’s congressional districts into a map intended to elect 10 Democrats and only one Republican. Along the way, she posted quips about four GOP members the intended map sought to oust, joking that they soon would be working at McDonald’s. She and other Democrats defended the maps as a reasonable response to Trump-backed efforts to boost the GOP’s midterm advantage in other states.

Lucas has been in politics for decades

Lucas has notched several historic firsts in her career. According to a biography from the state library, in 1971 she became the Norfolk Naval Shipyard’s first female shipfitter, a physically demanding job that involves working on metal assemblies for vessels.

She launched her political career in 1984, when, the biography said, she became the first Black woman elected to the Portsmouth City Council.

In the state Senate, Lucas has been a staunch advocate for abortion rights and increased public school funding and a leading voice on issues of racial justice and civil rights.

In 2019, after Democrats flipped control of the chamber, her peers elected her to serve as president pro tempore. And in 2024, she was tapped to lead the chamber’s budget committee, gaining enormous sway over any legislation tied to the state budget.

Richer and Rankin write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington and Rankin reported from Richmond, Va. AP journalists Eric Tucker in Washington and Steve Helber in Norfolk, Va., contributed to this report.

TOPEKA, Kan. — At 94 years, the Kansas GOP’s streak of one-party dominance in Senate races is the nation’s longest because even in the toughest years, disaffected Republican-leaning voters have reliably drifted back to the party’s fold before Election Day.

But Republicans fear this year could be different, setting the race between Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Democrat Adam Hamilton on track to be the most expensive in state history.

Hamilton, founder and senior pastor of the nation’s largest United Methodist church, has raised significantly more money than Marshall, who is seeking his second term. Hamilton’s candidacy — and voters’ disapproval of President Trump’s handling of the economy — have upended GOP hopes of seeing Marshall coast to victory as the GOP tries to hold its Senate majority.

Kansas, which Trump carried in three presidential races, is an unlikely Senate battleground. Republicans redirected money from the North Carolina Senate race to help Marshall, and Trump flew to Kansas this week to hold a rally for him, calling Marshall “one of the greatest senators in our country”.

Stalwart GOP voters sensed a serious threat even before Trump announced his rally.

In Topeka, 81-year-old Julie Adamson has been praying about the election, but she’s also knocked on doors for Marshall, about 200 by her count. She said if Hamilton wins and Democrats control the Senate, “We’ll see, ‘impeach, impeach Trump.’”

“And nothing will get done for our country,” she added.

A formidable candidate emerged in a tough year for the GOP

Before entering the race, Hamilton already had a public profile in vote-rich suburbs through building his Kansas City-area Church of the Resurrection into a 25,000 member congregation. Churchgoing Protestants also knew him as the author of several dozen books, and he’s honed his speaking skills through weekly sermons.

Hamilton has positioned himself as a moderate and made rising prices, particularly for fuel, a key issue. During a debate Wednesday, both he and Marshall endorsed barring transgender girls and women from female sports teams. Hamilton called for local officials to make such decisions but suggested Marshall and other Republicans have been bullying transgender people by making the issue prominent in campaigns.

Marshall, a mostly retired doctor, portrays Hamilton as too liberal — radical, even — for a state where less than 26% of the 2 million registered voters are Democrats, while more than 44% are Republicans.

During Wednesday’s debate, Marshall repeatedly said a Hamilton victory would put Democrats in charge of the Senate and that Hamilton would vote with liberal Democrats.

“We need to remind everybody that control the Senate goes through Kansas,” he said.

There are signs that voter enthusiasm is with the Democrats as advance voting has surged across the U.S. compared to the last midterm. In Kansas, it has more than doubled for the same period.

Amanda Chavez Thomson, who is part owner of a small home-restoration business, said she believes change has been needed “for quite some time.”

“I think we finally have a candidate that can give us that energy and that surge that we need from people who may be on the fence or may not have voted in the past,” she said.

Fundraising emerges as a key concern for Republicans

Since the state’s August primary, Republican groups have committed to spending more than $26 million on television and digital advertising to boost Marshall, more than what they spent in his first race in 2020, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. Including Marshall’s campaign, total GOP ad spending would exceed $32 million.

But Hamilton and Democratic groups together have committed to spending more than $38 million, according to AdImpact. Total ad spending — involving more than 40 groups outside the campaigns — would be about $71 million, a record for Kansas.

One of the reasons the GOP is pushing money towards Marshall may be that the incumbent has proven a lackluster fundraiser. Between the state’s August primary and Thursday, Hamilton has collected more than 10,000 contributions from Kansas residents, while raising $8 million from across the U.S., online campaign finance reports show. Marshall has about 200 contributions from Kansans while raising $905,000 total.

“People are crying out, saying, ‘Come on, Roger Marshall, speak up for us,’” Hamilton said during Wednesday night’s debate.

Marshall talking about liberal Democrats and ‘wokeness’

Marshall’s campaign and GOP groups have tried to knock any shine off Hamilton’s public image by attacking how he’s led his church and using snippets of his own sermons to portray him as too “woke.” During Trump’s rally, Marshall called Hamilton “the most radical liberal Democrat to ever get through a Senate primary in the history of Kansas.”

But such attacks aren’t resonating with at least a few disaffected Republicans. Don Hineman, a western Kansas rancher and former GOP state House majority leader, said he’s tired of “woke” being as an insult.

Hineman, who has signed on to the Republicans for Hamilton group, added that no one “was more ‘woke’ than Jesus Christ.”

Democrats have countered with television ads over Marshall’s pursuit of unpaid patient bills from the practice as an obstetrician that he gave up a decade ago. State court records online show that from 1996 through 2016, Marshall or his practice filed at least 700 debt-collection lawsuits, occasionally 10 or more a day.

The New York Times first reported the extent of the litigation. It said that in 81 cases, patients were arrested for missing court dates and quoted two experts who called Marshall’s tactics extreme. During Wednesday’s debate, Marshall said he’s faced a “gross mischaracterization” of his actions.

History and loyalty have been key assets for the Kansas GOP

Democrats can hold out hope for a Hamilton victory because the state has sizable blocs of moderate Republican and independent voters who’ve regularly swung elections to their candidates for governor and who protected abortion rights in a statewide vote in 2022.

Yet Republicans still have two key assets: Kansas’ political history and the loyalty that even unhappy Republican-leaning voters show to the party.

Not only have Democrats lost every Senate race in Kansas since 1932, no Democrat has come within 10 points of winning since 1974. In both 2014 and 2020, races considered tossups in mid-October fizzled, and Marshall’s predecessor, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, won.

Leroy Towns, a former Roberts chief of staff, said many Republicans in 2014 who considered voting against Roberts “just couldn’t do it.” Towns — who switched parties because of Trump — is backing Hamilton.

Towns believes Hamilton will win, but added, “That Republican pull at the end of an election is really, really strong in this state.”

Hanna and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington. AP writer Nicholas Ingram in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.

LEWISTON, Maine — Maine Republican Susan Collins has promoted her reputation as one of the most independent U.S. senators and she is using the waning days of the election season to sell that message to voters by campaigning with a former colleague who has endorsed her.

Collins is trying to fend off a challenge from Democrat Troy Jackson, a onetime state Senate president, and on Wednesday she made appearances with Joe Manchin III, a West Virginian who was a Democrat then became an independent late in his career before retiring.

After stopping for breakfast at Simones’ Hot Dog Stand in Lewiston, Collins spoke of how she and Manchin were “part of every piece of bipartisan legislation that passed and became law” during their time together in office.

Manchin said to lose Collins would be “to lose the soul of the Senate.” He praised her independent streak, her willingness to buck Republican President Trump and her record of fighting for Maine’s interests.

“This is a true blue-blooded Maine person who knows exactly where she came from,” Manchin said.

They planned a stop later at a New Balance shoe facility in Norway. Jackson, 58, is scheduled to campaign Thursday in Portland with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive congresswoman from New York.

Collins, 73, is in what may be her toughest reelection fight as she seeks her sixth term.

It’s only the second time that she has sought reelection in a midterm with a sitting Republican president, and the national trends are much less favorable to the GOP than they were the last time she did so, in 2002. Trump’s approval has fallen well below where it was when he took office last year, and a recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a strong majority of voters want change in Washington.

Collins has been working to persuade voters that she is independent of Trump and willing to break with him. In Manchin, she enlisted a politician who was one of the most moderate voices in the Senate. Manchin said in 2023 that Trump would “ destroy democracy in America” if he was elected to a second term.

Among the few dozen Collins supporters at the Lewiston event was Mike Marcotte.

“I may not have always been a fan of her complete package of votes, but when I look at the vitriol that’s in the U.S. Senate right now, we need more people like Susan Collins,” he said.

Jackson got a late start on campaigning after the party’s initial nominee exited the race but trails Collins in the money race by less than $3 million after an aggressive quarter in which he raised more than $20 million. Jackson has campaigned relentlessly and his events have drawn hundreds. Collins has largely stuck to smaller appearances.

Some of Jackson’s backers demonstrated across the street from the hot dog stand. A few held signs bearing the face of Brett M. Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court justice whom Collins voted to confirm and whose vote eventually helped overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

“Someone needs to stand up and be a check on Donald Trump and his harmful policies,” said David Sysko.

Collins has broken with Trump and Republicans over the years. She voted to convict him at his impeachment trial in 2021. Increasingly during the campaign, she has worked to distance herself from the president as Democrats argue that she is too close to him.

Collins said in early October that she is “not exactly his favorite senator,” and that she did not expect Trump to campaign in Maine. He has steered clear of the state with the Nov. 3 election nearing.

Pinning Collins to Trump is central to the Democrats’ strategy. In one ad, a nurse says the state is in a healthcare crisis “because of Susan Collins and Donald Trump,” citing Collins’ vote for Trump’s push for Medicaid cuts. Collins did vote to advance the bill but ultimately voted against it.

Trump also was a major focus of four contentious debates between the candidates this month, where Collins sought to distance herself from the president and Jackson repeatedly accused her of doing Trump’s bidding.

Asked at the final debate to name a time in which she bucked her own party and succeeded, Collins gave the example of rallying support against Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth, who was confirmed as Defense secretary.

Democrats seized on the moment and released a statement that said the exchange “underscores a central question in the Maine Senate race: Does Collins, a Republican in a state that disapproves of President Donald Trump and has grown bluer in recent years, stand up to her party enough to earn the independent streak she has staked her career on?”

Jackson has characterized Collins as out of touch with the struggles of working-class people in Maine. He has described Collins as a “rubber stamp” for the president and criticized her votes on Kavanaugh and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s second-term Health secretary. Collins has said she does not regret either vote.

Republican ads against Jackson, a logger from northern Maine, have focused more on accusations of his having a volatile personality and behaving like a bully with female colleagues. Jackson has denied those accusations.

Collins distanced herself on Wednesday from a Republican super PAC attack ad that she said “should be taken down.”

The senator was a top target of Democrats in 2020 when she defeated challenger Sara Gideon by nearly 9 percentage points. Collins is the only Republican senator from New England, a distinction she has had since January 2013.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles is still struggling to bring filming back to the region, though projects that receive a state tax credit are making up a growing share of local shoot days, according to a new report.

For the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, there were 4,171 shoot days in the greater L.A. area, down 4.8% compared with the same period last year, according to FilmLA Research, a program of FilmLA which tracks on-location production. That’s also down about 11.5% from the second quarter, and nearly 29% below the five-year average.

“Where the tax credit applies, it’s working to bring productions back to Los Angeles and put local crews to work,” FilmLA Chief Executive Denise Gutches said in a statement. “Still, overall production remains far below where Los Angeles needs it to be, and crews and businesses across the region are feeling it.”

The report counts only on-location filming. Productions shot on certified soundstages aren’t included.

Television shoot days totaled 1,400, a 2.8% slide from the third quarter of 2025 and a drop of nearly 53% compared with the five-year average. About 23% of the TV shoot days were for incentivized projects, up from about 9% a year earlier. Among them was the CBS drama “Tracker,” which relocated to L.A. from Vancouver for the show’s fourth season after receiving a state tax credit.

“California’s incentive is what made it possible to bring ‘Tracker’ here,” Elwood Reid, showrunner and executive producer of “Tracker,” said in a statement. “Los Angeles is the big leagues, and after more than a decade away, I’d forgotten what I was missing.”

Within television, comedy made the biggest gains, with 192 days of filming, up 143% from the 79 days in the third quarter of 2025. More than 60% of the comedy shoot days were for projects that received a production incentive, FilmLA said. The organization said this figure could be even higher, as many comedies shoot on soundstages, which are not included in this report. Promisingly, the third-quarter comedy numbers were a 16% improvement on the five-year average.

Other TV genres lost ground, including drama (494 days, down 9.4%), reality programming (630 days, down 2.9%) and pilots (9 days, down 52.6%).

Feature film production was a bright spot, with 533 shoot days, up 2.1% from a year earlier and about 20% from the second quarter. About 24% of that filming came from incentivized projects, up from about 22% a year earlier, including Netflix’s “13 Going on 30” reboot and Jonah Hill’s comedy “Cut Off” from Warner Bros., according to FilmLA. However, the third-quarter numbers are still a 19.3% decline when compared to the five-year average.

Production for commercials, which are not eligible for a state tax credit, continued to struggle, with 562 shoot days, down nearly 16% from the same time period in 2025, though it improved 3.5% from the second quarter.

FilmLA’s “other” category, which includes student productions, still photo shoots, documentaries and online content, totaled 1,676 shoot days, a 4.2% drop from the same period in 2025. Within that category, however, online content accounted for 556 days of filming, up 16.3% from last year.

What role will the Latino vote have in the upcoming midterm elections?

In the latest episode of “The De Los Podcast,” hosts and Times editors Fidel Martinez and Suzy Exposito welcome Times columnist Gustavo Arellano to dissect the increasingly important electorate, one that will help decide races locally and at the national level.

Long considered a reliable vote for the Democratic Party, Latinos shifted rightward in 2024.

“The Republican Party has always known — going back to the days of [President Dwight D.] Eisenhower — that there is something there in this demographic as it starts getting bigger,” Arellano said.

Arellano documented the history of Democratic support among California Latinos, highlighting the passage of 1994’s California Proposition 187 — which prohibited undocumented immigrants from using the state’s public services including non-emergency healthcare and education resources — as a turning point.

“It turned a whole generation of Latinos into voting Democrat, but it also showed the Republican Party that anti-immigrant politics work,” he said. “The problem with the Democratic Party in California for basically the next 30 years is all they would do is say, ‘You as a Latino should never vote Republican because they did 187.’”

A Pew Research Center study showed that in the 2024 presidential election, a slight majority of Latinos voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris — but they also voted for President Trump at a much higher rate than they did in 2020.

Trump garnered 48% of the Latino vote compared with Harris’ 51% share and significantly jumped past the 36% clip he received in the 2020 presidential election. The study’s results reveal that the initial 2024 exit polls actually underestimated Latinos’ Trump support, with the Republican candidate tracking at 46% of the Latino vote on election day.

Arellano contributed this shift in voting pattern to a lack of effective messaging from Democrats and widespread material hardships among Latinos.

“[You now have] an entire generation who have grown up and life has been harder for them because they are working-class folks,” he said. “And they’re saying, ‘The Republicans are racist? Well, life hasn’t improved for me as a Democrat, let me just take my chance with the racist.’”

But recent polling shows Latinos might have buyers’ remorse. The community cited increased cost of living, immigration tactics, involvement in wars across the world and a struggling economy as reasons for retreating from Republican leadership. Trump’s approval rating among Latinos dipped to 27% in an early October NBC News study. That same poll found that Democrats have a 24-point lead on whom Latino voters want to see in control of Congress.

“The Republican Party was given this extraordinary gift of the Latino vote, and what did they do? They blew it,” Arellano said.

He spotlighted Texas as a prime of example of how Republicans squandered their grip on Latino voters. The demographic voted heavily in favor of Trump in 2024, even in the long-Democratic borderland region of the state.

“Texas [Republicans] gerrymandered their state because they thought, “We have now this permanent Latino shift to our party, so let’s make these districts even more Latino because they’re going to vote Republican,’” Arellano said. “And now Latinos are running away [from the Republican Party] hard.”

Across the country, Latinos have also soured on the Republican Party due to the public display that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have put on in recent years, Arellano noted.

“To see people dragged and beaten … that weighs on you,” he said. “On top of that, the economy sucks, we’re in a stupid war, this president is increasingly saying crazy things … and now this immigration stuff. So [people are wondering] what good is it to be with [Trump] now.”

You can watch the entire episode below.

Top Democrats in Congress have joined a California immigrant and the Nevada State Democratic Party in suing the Trump administration over its unprecedented voter fraud probes in both states and broader efforts to meddle in state-run elections nationwide — alleging they are a “pretext to seize control over elections.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., late Tuesday, accuses President Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the agencies they lead of using “shoddily compiled lists of supposed noncitizens” and “coercive threats of legal retaliation against state officials” to assert federal control over the Nov. 3 midterms.

In addition to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and several national Democratic groups, the plaintiffs include Erick Jose Jimenez, an “active California voter” and naturalized U.S. citizen since 2006 who now “fears that he will be unlawfully targeted for voting and disenfranchised (or worse)” given the Trump administration’s track record of misidentifying naturalized citizens as noncitizens.

Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that while “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud, the Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections,” including by “prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

“Anyone who illegally votes in our elections will be held accountable,” Bis said.

A Justice Department spokesperson said “election integrity is a top priority” and that the department’s actions are “grounded in the law and being litigated in open court.” A Homeland Security spokesperson said it is “laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of U.S. citizens.”

Officials from both agencies have asserted that California and other states have ineffective policies for ensuring noncitizens do not vote — relying in part on voters attesting to being citizens — and staunchly defended their own processes for identifying noncitizens on state rolls.

Democrats and leading elections experts say isolated voter fraud does occur and should be taken seriously, but that there is no evidence of widespread fraud.

Tuesday’s lawsuit cites Trump administration claims of thousands of potential noncitizens on Nevada voter rolls crumbling amid state scrutiny. It also cites an administration list of 20,000 “likely noncitizens” allegedly on California rolls being “proven remarkably slapdash” and inaccurate in recent litigation between the administration and California.

The lawsuit alleges a coordinated effort between Trump and other administration officials — in violation of the 10th Amendment and other federal law — to intimidate state and local elections officials nationwide into removing voters from rolls, denying ballots to legally registered voters and segregating the ballots of others “based on spurious and unreliable claims that they are not citizens.”

It says the president is pushing the above efforts not “in a vacuum,” but in the face of repeated steps by Congress and the courts to block his election agenda.

The lawsuit, backed by prominent Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, follows another filed in the same court last month by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

That ongoing lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege registered California voters are not citizens, which it says risks misidentifying eligible voters and has left naturalized citizens frightened — the same argument made by Jimenez.

Jimenez, who could not be reached for comment, has “eagerly and consistently exercised his right to vote” since becoming a citizen two decades ago, and plans to vote in the Nov. 3 election but fears being misidentified as a noncitizen and targeted, Tuesday’s lawsuit says.

Administration officials have defended the accuracy of their lists, including in the lawsuit the Justice Department filed against California last week. In that case, the Trump administration has asked the court to force California to set aside the ballots of the 20,000 “likely noncitizens” it flagged until their citizenship is confirmed.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has said that list was compiled using public California voter registration records and third-party and law enforcement data, and that federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that those voters are ineligible.

On Monday, federal authorities filed fraudulent registration and other election-related charges against 28 lawful permanent residents in California, which Essayli said “prove our list is accurate and that noncitizens are actually voting.”

However, other administration officials have acknowledged the lists may not be entirely accurate. Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter said Monday that “there may be some names on there who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens.” A Homeland Security official said in a court filing Monday that “discrepancies” have been found in about 189 of the records.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office — both named defendants in the California case — have accused the Trump administration of illegally interfering in state elections and trying to purge voters in the immediate lead up to an election in violation of federal law using inaccurate data.

Logan’s office said Tuesday that a preliminary analysis of a subset of the administration’s list found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered or had never voted.

Federal authorities this week teased a “separate batch” of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters in their federal court challenge to California’s handling of alleged voter fraud.

In response, Los Angeles County officials questioned the accuracy of the government’s earlier list of 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters — saying a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found evidence that nearly 40% were born in the U.S.

The claims came in filings shedding new light on the unprecedented Homeland Security inquiry into California’s voter rolls just weeks before the Nov. 3 election.

On Monday, Nicolas Bartell, a Homeland Security official, wrote in a sworn affidavit that — in addition to developing the disputed list of 20,000 “likely noncitizen” voters at the heart of the litigation — his agency has also developed a “separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens.”

“Our review is ongoing as USCIS receives records on a rolling basis before the election date,” wrote Bartell, the associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On Tuesday, Monica Flores, a top official in the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, wrote in an affidavit that staff members had reviewed a sample of 200 registrations from the list of 20,000 voters whom the Justice Department alleged last week were “likely noncitizens.” The office found that more than half — 112 — had been canceled or were inactive, meaning no ballot was sent to those voters.

In instances where those voters’ birthplace was “meaningfully reported, 38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship,” Flores wrote, while 71.2% showed no record of ever voting.

Flores wrote that similarly vetting the citizenship of thousands of additional voters before the election would not only be “administratively impossible and take key personnel away from their critical election duties,” but would also “risk disenfranchising voters who are validly registered.”

Also Tuesday, Rachel Evans, an attorney in the California secretary of state’s office, wrote in an affidavit that the office since August has received and been complying with grand jury subpoenas for the detailed voter records of about 300 people.

Evans’ acknowledgment came a day after federal prosecutors charged 28 people across California with federal election-related crimes, including fraudulent voter registration and making false statements in a naturalization application, and suggests federal prosecutors are pursuing criminal cases against hundreds more.

Taken together, the filings indicate that the legal battle between the Trump administration and California over alleged fraudulent voting is only just gearing up — with no end in sight before Nov. 3 — as is the political sparring over the issue.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted to X on Tuesday that Flores’ acknowledgment that her office could not possibly vet voters’ citizenship before the election was a “massive concession,” proving the federal government’s case.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said that “any credible allegation of voter fraud should be taken seriously and investigated,” but that federal officials charging just 28 people in a state with 23 million voters showed they have no evidence of widespread fraud.

“Yes, non-citizen voter registration and voting does happen in isolated instances — in California and the rest of the country alike — but it is so rare that the Trump admin is parading around town about .0001% of California voters,” Newsom’s office wrote on X.

The broader case

On Monday, Justice Department lawyers filed a request for an emergency restraining order requiring state election officials to segregate any ballots from the 20,000 voters flagged on the initial Homeland Security list until their citizenship is proved. They argued the state is violating the law — and harming the federal government — by refusing to do so.

State attorneys argued Tuesday that the federal government has no authority over California elections and seeks to violate federal law precluding voter roll purges in the 90 days before an election.

State officials wrote that the Justice Department appeared to have “individualized evidence” of noncitizenship for the 28 people it had charged, and that nothing was preventing it from working through existing “statutory channels” to block those individuals’ ballots. But they argued that it does not have evidence to back its claims against all 20,000 voters whose ballots it is seeking to sequester.

Those contentions — and Bartell’s claim of a second list of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters — only add to an already heated debate about the scope of the inquiry and its legitimacy.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleged in a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that there “may be as many as 190,832 noncitizens registered to vote in California,” and demanded that the state work with federal authorities to investigate. The state asked that Homeland Security first provide more information, including about its methodology for identifying that figure.

Last week, acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote follow-up letters to Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar’s office, asserting that 20,000 “likely noncitizens” were on state rolls, and again demanding state cooperation within 48 hours to remove them. Weber balked, arguing that federal law precludes systematic roll purges within 90 days of an election to protect eligible voters.

Weber and other state officials also questioned the drop from 190,000 to 20,000, and the reliability of the federal government’s underlying data and methodology. “What happened to the 170,000? You just got those wrong?” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta asked.

On Monday, McCotter said the 190,000 figure was “the ceiling,” inclusive of cases that federal authorities had high, medium and low confidence in, while the 20,000 figure was “the floor,” inclusive of only high confidence cases.

Potential flaws in the list have been a major point of contention among California officials, who have pointed to substantial inaccuracies in lists elsewhere, including in Nevada, where a state review found that the 185 voters whose citizenship was questioned by the Trump administration were all citizens.

Now, it appears the federal government’s disputed list of 20,000 voters won’t be the last in California.

How voters were identified

In court filings, federal officials described purchasing California voter registration information before USCIS and Homeland Security Investigations agents worked to identify any voters who are not citizens. They said that they did so in part by comparing the state data with “third party commercial data” sets and law enforcement data sets, and that they further vetted their list by culling dead people.

Essayli pointed to those descriptions to dispel arguments that federal authorities have not provided their methodology for identifying potential noncitizens on voter rolls. He said that the federal process was robust and trustworthy and that federal authorities had compiled “overwhelming evidence of tens of thousands of ineligible voters on the state’s rolls.”

Independent election experts saw it differently.

“They admitted to using some of the same tools amateur election conspiracy theorists use, like unidentified third party software, commercial lists, and public versions of [the state’s] voter roll,” Gowri Ramachandran, an election administration expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “These amateur data matching efforts don’t get any better merely because the Department of Justice relies on them.”

“If DOJ could prove many more cases, we would have heard about it,” Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote in a blog post. “They’ve been on an aggressive hunt nationally for such fraud. It’s not surprising they’ve found little because it is a small problem.”

In what may be one of the most comical self-owns in recent politics, the esteemed attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday that despite the extravagant and terrifying misuse of their investigative power under the Trump administration, they have so far been able to identify only 28 people in all of California who may have voted illegally.

“The announcement today by the United States DOJ makes the point that there is no widespread voter fraud,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said after the news conference announcing the results of “Operation Protect the Vote.”

Twenty-eight people out of about 23 million registered voters in the state — and not all of them even tried to vote, according to the feds. That’s about 1 in 820,000 folks allegedly registering or voting illegally, a rate that roughly matches how often people in the United States get struck by lightning in a given year.

So much for Trump’s endless claims that there is a vast, organized conspiracy between Democrats and undocumented people to have them vote in large numbers to steal elections. I’ll point out here that none of those charged Monday have been accused of colluding with one another or with Democratic overlords.

All the power of the government — investigative, technological, legal — has been thrown at finding these mysterious, diabolically clever ballot baddies. And now, thanks to Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, and his colleagues across this great state, we now know that all 28 of them will be held accountable, if the government can prove wrongdoing. And let’s be clear — people who vote illegally should be held accountable.

But wait, there’s more, because this election-stealing plot by immigrants certainly doesn’t stop at the state line. Seamus Hughes of Court Watch, an excellent site that tracks federal litigation, reported Monday that since the start of this administration, 169 people have been charged federally with illegally registering or voting.

That number includes the new California cases, so it means an additional 141 potentially illegal voters have been charged across the U.S. — all told about 1 in 1.25 million registered voters being accused of illegally registering or voting, making this crime slightly less likely than guessing a six-digit pin code on the first try.

There. Is. No. Election. Stealing.

But that’s where the funny part ends, because this attack on California elections is serious and just getting started.

The federal government, you’ve probably read, is suing California, claiming it gave the state a janky thumb drive with 20,000 names of registered voters that it sort of strongly suspects maybe aren’t legal voters. Important note here: The government has been very careful not to claim that these people voted illegally, just that it might be so based on questionable data, which I’ll get to in a minute.

The feds gave the state a silly 48-hour deadline to agree to change constitutional law, dump common sense and sequester these 20,000 ballots, if they were even returned, to double-check they were cast by valid voters.

When California rightfully refused — because elections are run by states, not the federal government — the federal government sued on the thinnest of legal grounds. It basically claimed that voting illegally is illegal, and if California doesn’t do exactly what Trump wants, it could be violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by impeding the feds from enforcing the crime of voter fraud.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli speaks at a news conference Monday at which officials announced that 28 people in California had been charged with voter fraud.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Which is basically arguing that if the state government fails to stop voter fraud using the flawed methods Trump likes, then the state is somehow stopping federal authorities from prosecuting voter fraud themselves. But didn’t they just enforce it with 28 cases?

Get ready, because “state-facilitated voter fraud,” is a new right-wing thing.

California is “being complicit in non-citizens voting in our elections, and as they were warned last week, not only is it a civil violation, but they could also face criminal consequences,” Essayli said, which if it happened would give Trumped-up charges a whole new meaning.

Essayli said state officials are not being “good faith actors,” but I’ll argue that shoe is on the other foot. The list of 20,000 alleged, suspected, maybe-maybe-not illegal voters was likely drawn from the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, created by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, if you can remember that unfortunate relic.

It sought to draw data from more than a dozen government databases that were not only not compatible with such information sharing, but which had been kept separate until now for privacy reasons. Americans in general did not want the government collecting unified, know-all records of every citizen.

Luckily for us, I guess, the SAVE system can’t actually create reliable, unified records. It confuses people, convolutes them, merges records of people with similar names, and in general has been deemed unreliable by data experts.

In September, the good folks at the UCLA Voting Rights Project joined with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights to sue the federal government over its use of that system to target naturalized citizens for removal from voter rolls. Turns out, the government appears to be targeting immigrants who are now citizens with these voter fraud accusations.

As I wrote about a few weeks ago, naturalized citizens make up about 1 in 10 eligible voters, and nearly a quarter of them live in California. But they also live in swing states such as Michigan, where Democrat Abdul El-Sayed may draw such voters, and in other places such as Georgia and Nevada where races might be decided by only a few votes.

These arrests and lawsuits while voting is already underway in the midterms are a not-subtle form of voter suppression. Imagine being a naturalized citizen in the Central Valley, where ICE is driving rampant fear and where Republican Rep. David Valadao is running against Democrat Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District — one of the nation’s most closely contested races.

Would you consider sitting this election out just in case your ballot draws the frightening eye of the federal government? Even knowing that your vote is legal, what if you lived in a mixed-status household? Would it be worth risking voting if it meant a knock at the door from immigration checking on your status, and maybe finding that family member who lacks it?

Why take the risk?

“Basically, what they’re doing now is just completely harassing and intimidating naturalized citizens who are legally eligible to vote through these actions,” said Matt Barreto, co-founder of the Voting Rights Project.

And if the vote isn’t suppressed enough to give Trump the results he wants, these prosecutions and lawsuits feed the beast of conspiracy, giving Trump fodder to claim the results are fake, the election stolen.

And round and round we go, reckoning with Trump’s claims that lightning is striking everyone, everywhere, all at once, because the vote didn’t go his way.

Federal authorities have charged 28 people from across California with illegally registering to vote or casting ballots in federal elections despite not being U.S. citizens — again escalating an election battle between the state and the Trump administration just weeks before the Nov. 3 midterms.

Authorities said 11 of the 28 were arrested as of Monday morning and that the 17 others “will be in custody in the near future.” Some of the 28, all of whom are lawful permanent residents of the U.S., are charged with lying about registering or voting on their naturalization paperwork, officials said; 21 of them are suspected of casting votes, some in multiple elections. None are undocumented immigrants, a favorite target of President Trump and a group he has accused of infiltrating U.S. elections in the past.

Those charged represent a tiny fraction of the 20,000 “likely noncitizens” that the Justice Department alleged are on California rolls just last week, and an even tinier fraction of the more than 190,000 noncitizens the Trump administration alleged were on state rolls as recently as July.

State officials have previously warned, along with independent elections experts, that the Trump administration has badly overstated voter fraud claims in other states. In Nevada, for example, officials recently found that all 185 people the Justice Department flagged as potential noncitizens were in fact citizens. The administration has repeatedly revised downward its estimate for how many “likely noncitizens” are on California’s rolls.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter cast the arrests during a Monday news conference as proof that California voter rolls are corrupted and need to be purged to prevent noncitizens from negating the legitimate votes of U.S. citizens, and that California officials who have rebuffed recent Trump administration efforts to purge the state’s rolls are willfully obstructing justice.

“This Department of Justice will not look the other way while non-citizens vote in federal elections,” McCotter said. “Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for California and L.A. County.”

State and local officials — some of whom are being sued by the Justice Department over their handling of the broader claims — said voter fraud should be taken seriously, but that isolated cases are not evidence of widespread problems and that any voting allegations from the Trump administration must be viewed with skepticism.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn referred to Monday’s arrests as “voter intimidation and a blatant attempt to undermine trust in our midterm elections.”

“These arrests are being used to paint a picture of widespread voter fraud when we know that is not the case,” Hahn said. “California has laws in place to protect the integrity of our elections, and L.A. County is fully abiding by them.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said the 28 individuals charged Monday “represent a tiny fraction” of California’s 23 million registered voters, and that the Trump administration has not shown “evidence of widespread voter fraud, even if the allegations are true.”

Shifting claims

For months, federal prosecutors have been issuing grand jury subpoenas for voter records in California — suggesting a sweeping criminal investigation was underway.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin asserted in a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that California may have more than 190,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls. Last week, McCotter wrote letters to Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots of about 20,000 voters the Justice Department said were “likely noncitizens.”

When Weber and Logan balked at the demand — arguing the Justice Department had provided no proof the voters were ineligible, had presented similar and inaccurate claims in other states and had made the request too close to the upcoming election — the Justice Department sued Thursday, asking a court to immediately intervene and force the state and L.A. County to comply with McCotter’s demands.

In a filing in that case Monday, federal authorities cited the latest charges as more reason for the court to intervene, and before the election, to segregate out the flagged ballots until those voters’ citizenship can be verified — again raising uncertainty as to their citizenship status despite alleging during their news conference Monday that all were permanent residents.

“This Court should order California to set aside vote-by-mail ballots from likely noncitizens in the federal election — including any ballots cast by the individuals charged with [federal election] crimes this morning — until the voter’s citizenship status can be determined,” federal attorneys wrote.

The Trump administration’s apparent uncertainty about the citizenship of the voters it has flagged — and even those it’s charged — has been a focus of state and local officials. Bonta and others have questioned the drop from 190,000 to 20,000 and repeatedly pointed to what occurred in Nevada, where federal officials initially flagged more than 15,000 potential noncitizen voters. Independent election experts have also highlighted those discrepancies.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Monday that the data the federal government relies on to find purported noncitizens are “unreliable.” He wrote that the Justice Department’s demands on California risk “disenfranchising thousands of voters, and from DOJ’s track record, the lion’s share will be eligible voters.”

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the 28 alleged noncitizens charged represent “.0001% of California voters,” and that the Trump administration charging 28 people days after flagging 20,000 “raises serious questions as to whether DOJ has any evidence at all supporting their claims on the other 19,972 on their list.”

McCotter said the original 190,000 figure was “the ceiling,” while “20,000 is the floor” — with the larger figure representing individuals the administration had low, medium or high levels of confidence were noncitizens, and the smaller figure representing only those it has high confidence are noncitizens.

“So there’s not inconsistency between those numbers. They’re just looking at different levels of confidence,” he said.

McCotter also said the notion that a federal list of more than 15,000 alleged noncitizens in Nevada had resulted in zero noncitizens being found was a “false storyline,” in part because the larger group was never vetted by the state. However, he also acknowledged that the 185 that were vetted — and found to be citizens — were those the federal government had held “high confidence” in being noncitizens.

How the Justice Department further zeroed in on the 28 charged individuals also was not entirely clear.

U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian, the top federal prosecutor in Northern California, said prosecutors compared information from Homeland Security with voter information they subpoenaed from Weber’s office and various county election offices. Some of the criminal complaints said Homeland Security Investigations received investigative referrals from its Identity and Benefit Fraud Unit, which provided “relevant information regarding alleged voter fraud or related identity-based fraud indicators.”

Kevin Murphy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Diego, said the underlying investigations were not “based on assumptions or a single piece of information,” but required “thorough investigative work, coordination, and a commitment to ensuring that enforcement action is supported by the facts.”

Those charged include 13 people from the Central District of California, who live in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Anaheim, West Covina and other cities. They hail from a mix of nations, including Belize, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India and Mexico. Five others were charged in the Northern District of California, with one from San Francisco and others from the wider Bay Area; four in the Southern District and six in the Eastern District.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in L.A., dismissed the idea that such fraud is rare or that Trump officials are overstating the threat. “This is not a conspiracy theory,” Essayli said. “This is not made-up stuff.”

Essayli specifically highlighted the case of a 72-year-old Omar Munoz from Belize, who was arrested in a pre-dawn raid Monday at his home in Commerce. Federal authorities allege that he fraudulently registered to vote in 2019, voted in 2020, twice in 2022 and again in 2024. He is also accused of lying on his naturalization application.

In federal court downtown late Monday, Munoz’s daughter Lliani Orantes, a nurse born in the U.S., said the family was trying to figure out what happened, after federal officials swarmed their block and took her father, who is recovering from a recent surgery.

She said her brother, a registered voter, shares her father’s name, as does a nephew, and the family is wondering if it is all a mix-up. “Did the names get misconstrued,” she wondered.

McCotter said in the last seven weeks, the Trump administration has charged 113 people across 20 states with voting-related crimes. More than 154 million people voted nationally in the 2024 presidential election.

What’s ahead

Federal officials said their work — dubbed “Operation Protect the Vote” — would continue through the election and beyond.

Essayli said California’s own process for verifying voters’ citizenship, including requiring that they attest to being a citizen when they register, is insufficient. He said California election officials have “no idea who is a citizen,” but also know “they have noncitizens who are getting ballots as we speak” and several years ago admitted in an audit that noncitizens were being registered at the DMV.

“When we submit a list of 20,000 noncitizens to California that we are pretty sure are not citizens, it is outrageous that the response from the state is, ‘We don’t believe you and we’re not even going to look at it,’” he said. “That is not good faith actors. They are being complicit.”

McCotter said there “may be some names” on the list of 20,000 flagged voters “who, it turns out, ultimately are citizens.” He said federal authorities are “not perfect,” which is why they’ve asked California officials to work with them. “We could knock through most of these names pretty quickly, probably in a day or two, if California would work with us.”

He said the timeline — amid an ongoing election — was due to state officials refusing to cooperate sooner. “It’s an emergency of their own creation.”

While Republican Steve Hilton has spent months jackrabbiting around California during his long-shot bid for governor, Democratic front runner Xavier Becerra just recently emerged from quasi hibernation and stepped into political daylight.

Hilton has blasted Becerra as taking the state’s voters for granted, failing to hold public campaign events to explain his detailed plans to address California’s many ills. Despite pledging to participate in multiple debates, Becerra brushed aside several invitations, agreeing to just a solitary one-hour face-off against Hilton on CNN in late September.

That month, Hilton held 14 public events, a dozen more than Becerra, but the Democrat’s spokesperson said he appeared at multiple functions sponsored by other groups. Hilton wasn’t buying it.

“He is a useless nothing, a totally unaccomplished pipsqueak who is so smug, so arrogant, so entitled, that he somehow thinks he’s owed this job just because he was picked as a useful puppet by the Sacramento machine,” Hilton, a former Fox News commentator and British political strategist, said last week in West Sacramento.

On Oct. 10, Becerra, a longtime member of Congress and Biden’s secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, scoffed at his GOP rival.

“Uh, hello?” Becerra said sarcastically to reporters in Sacramento after being asked about his absence from the campaign trail.

“That Steve Hilton doesn’t see me on Fox News is his problem, not mine. I am gonna talk to voters,” Becerra said, rattling off a list of his recent campaign events. “I will talk to them until November the 3rd, and then I’ll be ready to talk to voters and taxpayers and the people of California when I’m the next governor.”

On Thursday, Becerra held a news conference in downtown Los Angeles with Latino leaders and famed Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez urging voters to turn out despite alleged intimidation efforts by the Trump administration.

On Monday, he held get-out-the-vote events in Santa Clarita and Glendale, shortly after he campaigned for former state Sen. Richard Pan, a congressional candidate, in Sacramento, and urged voters to cast their ballots early at an event in Santa Rosa. In September, Becerra promoted Proposition 1, a proposal on the November ballot that would allow the state to sell nearly $11.3 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing.

“We know we can get these men and women who are wearing these orange vests to work and keep them working, so they can afford to buy a house if we pass Proposition 1,” Becerra said, standing alongside union members in front of a chain-link fence encircling a vacant lot in North Long Beach.

Gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra held a news conference in Long Beach on Sept. 4 to highlight his housing agenda.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, who endorsed Becerra in April and appeared at the housing event, pushed back on the notion that Becerra is taking the election for granted after winning a top spot in the primary, positioning him to be the first Mexican American elected governor of California.

“I’ve seen firsthand the work that has taken place under the radar that may not be explicitly, openly political or openly be seen as campaigning, but it is the kind of thing you want to see,” Richardson said in an interview on Thursday, adding that he saw Becerra meeting with elected officials of both parties, the mayors of the state’s largest cities and labor leaders. “I’ve seen a very active candidate that has been making sure that real time was put into building relationships that will ultimately translate to a successful governorship, because that’s the goal. I mean, ultimately, what we want is a leader who has the relationships to lead our state.”

Becerra’s campaign said that the candidate has frequently met with voters since the primary without press coverage to hear from Californians, and that he would be a frequent public presence in the weeks before the election, when “voters really get engaged, when ballots land in their mailbox,” said spokesman Jonathan Underland.

“People have incredibly busy lives. They are worried about affording their healthcare, putting food on the table, paying for gas to fill their tank,” Underland said. “What is at the forefront of Secretary Becerra’s mind is the very real problems that Californians are facing every day.”

In contrast, Hilton has been publicly barnstorming California since the June primary.

Becerra’s schedule is not surprising given Democratic dominance in California, where the party’s registered voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. While appearing at parades, pancake breakfasts and in voters’ living rooms can be effective for candidates running in local campaigns, the most effective way for candidates to reach voters in a state as vast as California is through sustained advertising buys, which can cost tens of millions of dollars.

“If you’re the Democrat running in California, the operating theme of your campaign is do no harm and measure the drapes and figure out how you’re going to put an administration together and what is the tone that you’re going to set for that administration,” said Tim Rosales, a veteran GOP consultant who led businessman John Cox’s unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial campaign and previously worked on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s successful effort to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the 2003 recall campaign.

Newsom was more active in the 2018 general election campaign against Cox than Becerra has been this year, but Rosales argued that could be because Becerra views it as the final chapter of his political career, which also may have been the case with former Gov. Jerry Brown in his 2014 reelection campaign. Newsom, however, is pondering a 2028 run for the White House.

“This is potentially more of a swan song for Xavier Becerra, the icing on the cake for a long and distinguished political career, and for Gavin Newsom, it was a stepping stone,” Rosales said.

Becerra has raised $40.5 million, as of Friday, while Hilton has raised $29 million, according to the fundraising disclosure reports filed with the state. Those figures do not include the exponential advantage that Becerra had in independent expenditure committees’ spending over Hilton in the primary.

Veteran Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an advisor to Schwarzenegger, said that while Becerra will almost certainly be the state’s next governor, he should be cautious about his approach weeks before the November election.

“What he needs to be careful of is a big Democratic night across the United States that looks muted in California, and if that happens, the analysis will be that it’s his fault,” Stutzman said. “He should want to optimize his political capital as the clear leader of his party now in California. So he has to be a little careful of leaving some political capital on the table by not creating a stronger brand over the next three weeks.”

The last gubernatorial race that was viewed as competitive took place in 2010 between Brown and former eBay chief Meg Whitman, then a Republican who spent $144 million of her personal wealth on her campaign.

That contest drew national attention, but Brown beat Whitman by nearly 13 percentage points. Every gubernatorial election since that race has been sleepy and ignored in national politics, with Democratic candidates coasting to victory. The state has seen contentious gubernatorial primaries, notably in 2018, and this year, when the Democratic field was so crowded that party leaders urged low-polling candidates, including Becerra, to drop out.

He won the top spot in the primary after then-Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) dropped out amid rape and sexual assault allegations.

Mason Harrison, who worked for Republicans Carly Fiorina in a 2010 Senate bid and Neel Kashkari in a 2014 gubernatorial campaign, and worked with Hilton on business ventures but is not affiliated with his campaign, noted that while Brown was well-known by Californians because of decades in the public eye, Becerra is not. However, given Democrats’ edge in the state’s voter registration, as well as current headwinds against the GOP in California and across the nation, it’s unsurprising that Becerra has been less visible than Hilton. Harrison compared Becerra’s campaign to Biden’s in 2024 before the then-president bowed out of the race.

“The calculus seems to be, the more he gets out on the campaign trail, the greater the potential of him having a misstep in an interview or getting some tough question that he’s going to have to answer, and what’s the advantage of that in a year when you’re running against a party that, by historical standards, stands to lose significantly,” Harrison said. “Why make it more competitive by making yourself more vulnerable?”

Indeed, Becerra previously committed to multiple debates, but has participated in one so far and appears unlikely to agree to another. Still, he has repeatedly disputed the notion that he is taking the race for granted.

“If I were trying to coast, I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all,” he told reporters one sweltering August afternoon in Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles, an area he represented in Congress.

Xavier Becerra, center, walks with Helen Ota, left, president of the 2026 Nisei Week Foundation, while touring businesses and meeting with business community leaders at Japanese Village Plaza in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles on Aug. 18.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While there, he met with local business and community leaders. And he bought merchandise and delicacies, including a sweet mango mochi wrapped in a thin, fluffy pancake at a 123-year-old Japanese confectionery.

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report from Sacramento.

With just over two weeks left until election day, Democrats can barely contain their glee.

Control of the House seems about to fall into their eager laps. Senate races in states that are normally cardinal red — Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Texas among them — have grown fiercely competitive.

And, for the first time since 2010, a Democrat may soon be sitting in the governor’s office in more than half the 50 states. As recently as 2017, just 16 of them had Democratic governors — the lowest number in nearly a century.

The party owes a big thank you to President Trump, whose political standing seems to be sinking, like a depth charge, lower by the day. The only question is how much damage he inflicts on fellow Republicans.

There are, however, exceptions to every political trend, outliers in every election, a contest that zigs when races just about everywhere else are zagging.

Oregon, that crunchy and damp citadel of Left Coast liberalism, hasn’t elected a Republican governor since President Reagan was midway through his first term. In 2024, Kamala Harris walloped Donald Trump by more than 14 percentage points, extending a decades-long Democratic presidential winning streak.

And yet the state’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, is on the defensive as she fights for a second term in November, burdened by a dismal approval rating and a sense that things have been pretty lousy in Oregon under her leadership.

The state “hasn’t thrived in the last decade, and certainly hasn’t thrived since COVID, the way other states have,” said John Horvick, one of Oregon’s leading independent pollsters.

Kotek, a former speaker of the state House — and a highly effective lawmaker in that role — made some very concrete promises.

“She was going to build 36,000 new homes. She was going to improve our educational outcomes and make improvements to behavioral health in the state,” Horvick said. “Voters give her poor marks on all those.”

Most notably, perhaps, the epidemic of homelessness — which has curdled Portland’s hipster image and agitated Oregonians more than just about any issue in recent years — hasn’t abated under Kotek, despite a promise to make the problem her top priority.

Gov. Tina Kotek speaks to opponents of data center development during a demonstration at the state Capitol in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 8, 2026.

(Alex Milan Tracy / Sipa USA / Associated Press)

The Democrat still remains the favorite to win reelection. Oregon’s gubernatorial races tend to be closer than presidential contests and voters have been shown a reluctance to heave their governor from office, even when they tell pollsters they’re not happy with the incumbent or the state of their state.

“We watch this movie every four years in Oregon, where it looks really, really close and then, in the end, the Democrat wins,” said Kari Chisholm, a political strategist in Portland.

That may happen again. But Kotek’s travails show the perils of incumbency this angry election season, even for a Democratic swimming with a blue tide.

Thirty-six states are electing governors in November. Most of the contests lean toward one party or the other, like in California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears a shoo-in to replace Gavin Newsom.

But a dozen races are at least somewhat competitive, including toss-ups in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. All of the hardest-fought contests are in states that Trump carried in 2024 — several by double-digits — with Oregon being the lone exception.

Kotek, who’s been rated one of the least popular governors in America, is facing a rematch against Christine Drazan, a former GOP state House leader who now serves in the state Senate. In 2022, she lost narrowly lost to Kotek, 47% to 44%, in a three-way contest.

Unlike four years ago, Kotek has a gubernatorial record to defend and the case Drazan makes against her is succinct.

“Tina Kotek told Oregonians that she would solve the problems and challenges facing our state,” Drazan said in the candidates’ first debate this month. “She hasn’t.”

In a recent Fox News interview, Drazan elaborated.

“We have record high businesses that have gone out of business, bankruptcies, businesses that are leaving, family bankruptcies are at an all-time high,” Drazan said, exaggerating some. “Oregon is uniquely bad right now. It’s not a national issue, it’s here at home.”

Suggesting the state’s problems are indigenous is an obvious effort to lay responsibility on Kotek and absolve Trump, whose policies — ruinous tariffs, a reckless war, budget cuts — have slashed healthcare benefits, stoked inflation and driven fuel prices to all-time highs.

Further distancing herself from the Republican brand, Drazan has undergone a distinct makeover since winning the GOP primary in May. “Tough. Tested. Conservative,” is no longer the descriptive shorthand she uses on her campaign website. Now it’s “Mom. Public Servant. Champion for All.”

Drazan’s revised campaign biography also omits her opposition to various Democratic-backed policies, such as gun control, and her culture-warrior vow to “protect girls’ sports and keep men out of their locker rooms.” Instead, the Oregonian newspaper noted, her emphasis is now affordability and relatability.

Despite that, Kotek has continued wielding her sharpest-pronged political weapon, tying Drazan — an “out-of-touch MAGA extremist,” in her campaign’s parlance — to the unpopular president.

“I think we all know that there have been a lot of challenges facing our state and they’re still coming at us because of the confusion and disruption coming from Washington, D.C.,” Kotek said during the candidates’ third and final debate last week. “It’s just a fact. It’s upending who we are as a state and it is … making it harder for us to solve the problems that we have ahead of us.”

Passing the buck and pointing her finger is not exactly a message of triumph, uplift and achievement, but it may be enough to win Kotek a second term.

Grudgingly.

Julian Sayin threw a 38-yard touchdown pass to Jeremiah Smith on fourth down early in the fourth quarter Saturday, and No. 4 Ohio State survived what appeared to be the go-ahead score when Nick Marsh’s left foot was ruled to be out of bounds as the visiting Buckeyes beat No. 5 Indiana 19-15.

The victory ended Indiana’s winning streak at 22 and home winning streak at 19. They were the two longest active streaks in the Football Bowl Subdivision.

But the victory could prove costly for Ohio State (6-1, 4-0 Big Ten). Sayin appeared to injure his right arm during the fourth quarter, left the game and watched the final minutes from the sideline wearing a sling.

“I don’t have a ton of details, but it looks like Julian will be out several weeks,” Ohio State coach Ryan Day said.

Indiana sure didn’t go down easily in the rematch of last year’s Big Ten championship game. Trailing 19-7 after Smith’s touchdown catch, the injured Josh Hoover responded by finding Nick Marsh on a 19-yard touchdown pass and Turbo Richard on the two-point conversion to make it 19-15 with 10:30 to go.

It looked like he did it again on fourth and four from the Buckeyes 27-yard line when he hooked up with a wide open Marsh in the front corner of the end zone. The fireworks even went off, but Marsh’s left foot came down out of bounds. It was first home loss in coach Curt Cignetti’s three seasons and the first top-five matchup in Memorial Stadium history.

While the game lived up to the hype, the quarterbacks did not.

Sayin was 15-of-29 passing for 235 yards with two interceptions for the second straight week. Hoover appeared to hurt his right shoulder during the third quarter but returned for Indiana and finished 20 of 40 for 296 yards with one touchdown and one lost fumble, his first turnover of the year.

Florida 27, at No. 7 Texas 24: Quarterback Tramell Jones Jr. threw two touchdowns to Lacota Dippre in his first career start, Jadan Baugh scored a fourth-quarter touchdown and the Gators rallied to hand the Longhorns their second consecutive loss.

Florida (5-2, 3-2 SEC) had risen as high as No. 8 after a 4-0 start under first-year coach Jon Sumrall before consecutive blowout losses, but delivered what could be a season-saving victory.

The Gators defense, ranked last the Southeastern Conference, shut down Texas quarterback Arch Manning and the Longhorns offense, holding Texas (4-2, 1-2) under 300 yards of total offense.

at No. 22 Louisiana State 31, No. 16 Mississippi State 0: Sam Leavitt threw for 289 yards and four touchdowns without an interception, and the Tigers raced to a three-touchdown, first-half lead over the injury-depleted Bulldogs.

Jackson Harris had six catches for 85 yards and two touchdowns for LSU (5-2, 2-2 SEC) before leaving the game with an apparent lower left leg injury in the third quarter.

Playing without dynamic starting quarterback Kamario Taylor and top running back Fluff Bothwell, the Bulldogs (4-2, 2-2 SEC) lost their second straight — each by more than 30 points.

at No. 24 Southern Methodist 23, Virginia 13: Kevin Jennings threw two touchdown passes while former SMU soccer player Brendan Baird boosted the struggling special teams with three field goals.

Kendrick Raphael ran for 124 yards as SMU (5-1, 3-1 Atlantic Coast) improved to 10-0 at home in ACC games since rejoining a power conference league in 2024. The Mustangs are 17-3 overall in the ACC.

The Cavaliers (4-3, 2-2) were held to fewer than 300 total yards for a third consecutive game by an SMU defense that led a win over Boston College two weeks ago despite Jennings’ offense gaining only 218 yards. Virginia finished with 258 yards.

No. 25 Northwestern 24, at Michigan State 21: Jackson Kleather kicked three field goals, including the game-winning 34-yarder with two seconds left.

Aidan Chiles tied the score at 21 with 7:24 remaining on a one-yard run and threw to Alex Honig on a two-point conversion for Northwestern (5-1 overall, 2-1 Big Ten). After Matthew Smith blocked Michigan State’s 33-yard field-goal attempt by Liam Boyd, Chiles drove the Wildcats 64 yards in eight plays to set up the winning kick.

Chiles, who started 20 games at Michigan State the past two seasons before transferring to Northwestern, completed 18 of 27 passes for 226 yards and also had 16 carries for 25 yards.

The Spartans (2-5, 0-4) had led 21-13 early in the fourth quarter when Alessio Milivojevic tossed a 53-yard touchdown pass to Chrishon McCray. He completed 19 of 30 passes for 216 yards and two touchdowns.

Etc.

Joe Jackson ran for 159 yards and a touchdown, Avery Johnson threw for 203 yards and another score, and host Kansas State overcame a multitude of mistakes to beat bitter rival Kansas for the 18th consecutive time, 35-24 on Saturday. … Elijah Brown threw for 302 yards and three touchdowns Friday night to help Washington break a three-game losing streak with a 38-26 victory over Purdue. …

Mike Hawkins Jr. threw for a career-high 464 yards and Jack Cassidy kicked a 35-yard field goal as time ran out to lift host West Virginia to a wild 45-42 win over Cincinnati. … Quarterback Cale Hellums ran for 195 yards and five touchdowns and Army raced past visiting Florida Atlantic 56-24.

A spectacular run that included back-to-back World Series championships and delivered unforgettable memories ended with a whimper for the Los Angeles Dodgers on Thursday.

The Milwaukee Brewers, humiliated by the Dodgers last year in a four-game sweep, returned the favor at Chavez Ravine, defeating L.A., 6-4, in the National League Championship Series. The loss eliminated the Dodgers and ended their run at a vaunted three-peat, or three consecutive titles.

No North American sports franchise can claim such an accomplishment since the Shaq- and Kobe Bryant-led Lakers from 2000 to 2002.

How did a team of All-Stars fall short? Our sports team delivered tremendous coverage that answers that question and many more.

Columnist Bill Plaschke wrote how a team with seemingly every advantage fell short, beat writer Maddie Lee documented what led to the demise, while columnist Bill Shaikin provided updates to several questions on the team’s future. The devoted fans of the Boys in Blue have also had a chance to react.

Let’s sample some of their in-depth reporting.

Shohei Ohtani’s declining health was too much to overcome

Plaschke wrote that the single biggest reason the Dodgers didn’t three-peat centered on the health of designated hitter and pitcher Shohei Ohtani.

The owner of four MVP trophies, Ohtani began the season with a goal of also winning the Cy Young Award. So he focused on pitching, and he pitched well, going 8-2 with a 1.79 ERA in 14 starts.

Then he injured his knee, but he still pitched, long past when he should have been pitching, said Plaschke. He was finally pulled off the mound in early July, but by then he had also injured his elbow and his offense suffered because he was so worried about the pitching. It was at this point the Dodgers should have shut him down entirely, given him a month off to ensure he would be ready for October, according to Plaschke.

But no. Ohtani insisted he was fine even though his plummeting batting numbers said otherwise. When he was finally placed on the injured list in early September, Plaschke said it was too late, and he entered the playoffs as a shell of his former great self.

An autopsy reveals much

Lee agreed with third baseman Max Muncy when he said, “The train finally ran out of steam, I guess.”

A major aspect of the challenge of winning three straight is simply workload. The Dodgers not only have played more games than any other team the last two years, but their schedule has included grueling travel.

The Dodgers started both the 2024 and 2025 seasons early and overseas, playing in the Seoul Series and Tokyo Series in consecutive years. And both years ended with coast-to-coast travel for the World Series, as the Dodgers won titles over the New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays.

The team’s collective age — the oldest lineup in the majors this year, according to Baseball Reference, weighted by at-bats and games played — may not have helped.

Cap concerns

Shaikin wrote about a lockout expected this winter as Major League Baseball owners attempt to implement a salary cap, which limits the amount of money a team can spend on player salaries.

The owners initially proposed a salary cap of $245 million for next year. The Dodgers already have $347 million committed to 14 players next year, according to Cot’s Baseball Contracts.

Under a cap, the owners have promised a transition period to account for existing commitments, and an actual negotiated cap could be higher, said Shaikin.

Even if the players do not agree to a cap — and they insist they won’t — whatever economic system emerges from collective bargaining would likely make it painful for the Dodgers to spend so freely, according to Shaikin.

What some Dodgers fans are saying

Most baseball teams create a now well-anticipated “thank you fans” social media post after the conclusion of a season.

Passionate fans use the post as a sounding board for everything that ails them about their favorite teams. Just look at the “thank you fans” X posts from the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Phillies laced with profanities and vitriol fiercer than any East Coast nor’easter.

But on Friday, Dodgers fans were gracious and supportive on the fan appreciation post on X.

“Thank you for the great run over the last three years. Let’s come back stronger,” wrote one user.

“Thank you for the ride,” another tweet noted. “We’ll be back next year!”

The week’s biggest stories

A house burns off Calle Miramar in San Juan Capistrano during the Norte fire on Friday.

(Sandy Huffaker/For The Times)

Southern California wildfires

Olympics and sports news

Crime, courts and protests

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

• 🎭The world premiere play “Bobby Robotowitz” brings AI questions into your living room — literally — with performances on the Eastside and Westside.
• 👀 The 10 biggest revelations of Nathan Fielder’s new Elizabeth Holmes documentary, ‘You Can See Everything.’
• 🍽️ For many, like the preservationists pushing to save Santa Monica’s Mel’s Drive-In, the mere thought of demolishing the iconic restaurant is offensive. Eating there was certainly on the bingo card for columnist LZ Granderson when he and his son first drove across the Southwest decades ago, and it continues to be a favorite breakfast spot of theirs.

Today’s recipe

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Many meatballs are made with a panade, often a mixture of white bread soaked in milk, which lends moisture to the final meatballs. For these lamb meatballs, cooking editor Cody Reiss decided to make his panade out of ingredients that felt more in-line with the mutabbal he was serving them with. He ended up using a mixture of leftover pita bread and labneh (drained yogurt). The resulting meatballs were moist, herby, spiced, seasoned, spicy and just a joy to eat.

Photo of the day

Volunteers led by guerrilla activist Jonathan Hale paint over the faded crosswalks of an intersection near USC on Sept. 19.

(Etienne Laurent/For the Times)

Games

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

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, Fast Break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

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

First came the letter from acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter — just three weeks before the Nov. 3 election — demanding that Los Angeles County’s top elections official launch a sweeping investigation into thousands of voters the Trump administration alleges are “likely noncitizens” and withhold their ballots in the meantime.

The letter arrived with a thumb drive purporting to contain the list of voters in question, and a handwritten note providing the password. Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said accessing the device broke security protocols, and he wouldn’t open it.

Then came an Excel spreadsheet, listing some 20,000 voters by name, date of birth and address. It appeared to contain voters from across the state of California, not just L.A. County, and provided no information on the Trump administration’s methodology for questioning those voters. Logan’s office again pushed back.

“We cannot withhold or refuse to count ballots based solely on unverified allegations, nor can we disregard the legal requirements governing our election — and we certainly have no authority to act on records that are outside of our jurisdiction,” Logan said.

On Friday, the back and forth escalated yet again, when the Justice Department warned in a letter to L.A. County attorneys that county elections officials who tabulate ballots from the flagged voters could face criminal prosecution for being “aiders and abettors to a federal crime.”

For the last week, Trump administration officials and California election leaders have been locked in a fiercely contentious standoff over alleged election fraud that independent elections experts say is like nothing they have ever seen before.

The battle — which escalated into a federal lawsuit filed Thursday by the Justice Department against the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Logan — features striking assertions of official misconduct. They include willful indifference to systemic election fraud among California officials, as alleged by Trump officials, and a nefarious effort by the administration to “lay the groundwork” for questioning any unfavorable election results next month, as alleged by California leaders and independent elections experts.

With little public clarity around the voters whose registration is being contested and how the administration came to question their eligibility, the debate has centered instead on the efficacy of vetting voter rolls right before an election and the increasingly bitter claims of political meddling from the many federal, state and local officials involved.

“More dangerous nonsense from a President losing his grip on reality,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter sent a letter demanding that L.A. County’s top elections official investigate thousands of voters the Trump administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

(Finn Gomez / Getty Images)

“No, Governor. You are violating federal law by facilitating voting by noncitizens,” responded First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, whose office is leading the lawsuit.

“Mail ballots are already in most voters’ hands, and Election Day is less than three weeks away. Every count, recount, hand count, lawsuit, and audit has found that there’s no widespread voter fraud in the U.S. The Trump Admin’s last-minute demands are meritless, and we look forward to making our case in court,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote on the same platform.

“We produced a list of 20,000 noncitizens on your voter rolls, and your response is ‘it’s too late’ because you already mailed the ballots. Not good enough,” Essayli shot back. “It’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law for California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

Both sides have accused the other of being unreasonable and of ignoring practical concerns about voting and election security, though in very different ways.

Trump administration officials have said their effort “should not be controversial,” and reflects a common-sense approach to election oversight. “The law is clear, aliens in the United States cannot vote in federal elections,” McCotter said.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued it is “not practicable or feasible” for the federal government to investigate “thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals” before the November election alone, so California and local officials should be required to help them do it.

California officials — joined by independent elections experts — have accused the Trump administration of breaking the law to bolster a grand election conspiracy the president has propped up for years without evidence, including by trying to purge voters from rolls right before an election.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from conducting systemic maintenance of voter lists within 90 days of an election, and that the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that limit.

Bonta said the timing of the Justice Department’s demands “reeks of desperation and bad faith.”

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, attends the opening of a new ballot processing center in City of Industry in 2024.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

State officials and election experts also have questioned why Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin suggested California had some 190,000 noncitizen voters on its rolls as recently as July if the number now stands at 20,000.

“What happened to the 170,000? You just got those wrong?” Bonta said. He also noted with derision that the administration’s lawsuit repeatedly hedges its assertions by saying that federal officials “believe” that noncitizens “may be” registered in California.

“You believe, or you know?” Bonta said. “They may be or they are?”

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the 20,000 flagged voters “are the ones that have been manually verified” as ineligible, but that number “can and will go up” as federal authorities continue their work. She referred additional questions about the figures to Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions.

Becker said the administration’s figures “should be treated with serious skepticism,” given similar claims falling apart elsewhere. He cited a Homeland Security claim of about 16,000 noncitizens on Nevada voter rolls dropping to 185 voters before Nevada officials investigated and found every single one of those voters was a citizen.

California officials have not shown a similar interest in launching their own investigation.

In a letter to McCotter, Weber wrote that treating the 20,000 voters on the Justice Department’s list as “ineligible until proven otherwise” would not only violate the 90-day quiet period before an election, but amount to “an unprecedented suspension — and even denial — of voting rights.”

She said if the Trump administration has any proof for its claims, California would “review that evidence and any supporting data or methodology” and “take the appropriate steps in compliance with federal and state law” to address any problems. “However, I will not disenfranchise thousands of Californians — or order any county elections official to do so — based solely upon an unsupported and likely inaccurate ‘belie[f]’ that certain voters are ‘likely’ noncitizens.”

A spokesperson for Logan’s office said Friday that it was reviewing the Justice Department’s spreadsheet — in part to determine how many of the voters are actually in L.A. County — but had yet to receive requested information on the methodology used for flagging those voters.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said the Trump administration’s efforts in California are “another attempt by the federal government to harass and intimidate elections officials,” and that their timing is “obviously a political attempt” to prevent voters — particularly Latino voters —from holding the Trump administration accountable for its failed leadership.

But he also said that California officials — to the extent they can under the law, and working closely with Bonta — should work to refute the Trump administration’s claims through their own review of the data, just as Nevada officials did.

“We are not afraid to defend our elections,” he said. “And California should take that same approach. You cannot be reactive to these situations. You have to be strategic.”

The Trump administration on Thursday sued California over its handling of voter fraud claims, asking a federal court to immediately bar the state from counting ballots from about 20,000 voters statewide — many in Los Angeles County — whom the administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

The lawsuit is highly unusual, particularly given that California voters have already begun voting in the Nov. 3 midterms via mail ballots, experts said.

It’s also highly inappropriate and based on questionable federal data that have proved wildly inaccurate in other states, state officials said.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “Courts have made clear the federal government has no role in running state elections. We will defend free and fair elections in the Golden State and call out every authoritarian attempt to undermine our democracy.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, in his own statement, defended the lawsuit.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” he said. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government.”

The lawsuit states that “as part of an investigation into unlawful voting,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted a “multiagency and multilevel review” of state voter and federal citizenship data and determined with “high confidence” that around 20,000 “likely noncitizens” are registered to vote in the state.

It then forwarded those names to Homeland Security Investigations, which conducted its own investigation and concluded the same, the lawsuit says.

“This means that, consistent with state law, nearly 20,000 noncitizens in California have been sent a vote-by-mail ballot to participate in the federal election (or will receive one), with many addresses listed in Los Angeles County,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit comes two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the same ballots in order to investigate those voters’ citizenship status.

McCotter had said the Trump administration would be forced to file for emergency relief in the courts if Weber and Logan did not comply.

The lawsuit comes about three months after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote his own letter to Weber, alleging that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizens registered to vote in California.

The lawsuit makes no mention of that prior estimate, or why Homeland Security’s initial estimate was so much larger than its current estimate. It does say that USCIS identifying with “high confidence” that a voter is a likely noncitizen “means that the match between voter information on the voting roll and USCIS’ internal records is strong and consistent based on multiple identifiers that support a strong identity link.”

It also said, “The Federal Government notified California months ago that numerous noncitizens may be registered to vote in California. Despite knowing that California must send vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, the State made no serious attempt to work with the Federal Government to determine whether noncitizens are registered to vote.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for more information as to how the 190,000 figure dropped to 20,000.

In a letter back to McCotter, Weber noted both figures and accused the Trump administration of pushing forward to disenfranchise voters at the last minute before the midterms based on shoddy data work and no certainty that those voters are ineligible.

“Nowhere has the federal government clarified the basis for suspecting — not even confirming with any level of certainty — the listed individuals are non-citizens. And as one court recently noted, the federal government’s citizenship records are ‘known to be unreliable,’” Weber wrote, referring to a case brought against the Justice Department by the organization Common Cause. “To give just one example, in a similar incident in the State of Nevada, DHS initially alleged that Nevada’s voter roll included nearly 16,000 potential non-citizens. However, after working with the State of Nevada, DHS officials failed to establish that a single non-citizen was on the voter rolls.”

Weber called it “remarkable” that the Justice Department would demand that her office “review and confirm the citizenship status of each of the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list on the eve of an election and within a mere 48 hours” despite providing no clear evidence that those individuals are wrongly registered.

“This is an emergency of the DOJ’s creation,” Weber wrote. “California’s election administration will continue to be governed by applicable federal and state law, not by unsubstantiated claims and outrageous demands.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted about the lawsuit on X, noting the 48-window given to Weber and Logan had lapsed and writing, “Time is up for California.”

“This is not political or controversial,” he wrote. “We will not allow California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

The Trump administration’s lawsuit says that while the U.S. “actively investigates and prosecutes incidents of unlawful voting,” it “is not practicable or feasible for the United States to investigate before the 2026 election concludes thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals that two federal investigative offices identified on the California voter roster as likely being sent vote-by-mail ballots.”

Because of that, it argues, “California is thus knowingly imposing an obstacle on the United States’ ability to enforce [federal election law] by facilitating unlawful voting rather than working with the Federal Government to prevent it,” and the state is therefore legally barred from sending mail ballots to the 20,000 voters Homeland Security has flagged.

It asks the federal court in the Central District of California to declare the state’s actions — including providing and counting ballots for those 20,000 people — to be barred by law and in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and to issue an injunction barring the state from counting those ballots in federal elections “until those individuals’ citizenship status can be verified.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to use immigration data to reach conclusions about California voter rolls and intervene in California’s election is already being challenged in a separate federal case in the district of Washington, D.C., brought by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

The UCLA attorneys filed their own emergency petition Thursday to preclude the Justice Department from moving forward with such actions against California, citing the letters McCotter sent to Weber and Logan.

A judge in that case ordered the parties to meet and file a status report with the court by Friday as to when each side would be able to brief the court on the issue.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

California sued the Trump administration for the 100th time in under two years Thursday, challenging the practice of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arresting people for civil immigration violations at or near state courthouses.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said such arrests have long been barred because they are unconstitutional and deeply disruptive to the rule of law and the rights of victims, witnesses, defendants and other parties to court proceedings.

“We’ve seen serious criminal charges dropped and entire cases jeopardized because victims and witnesses are too scared to come to the courthouse to testify,” Bonta said. “Our justice system cannot function this way.”

Bonta said his office having to take the Trump administration to court 100 times in less than two years, often alongside other Democrat-led states, was a “sobering milestone” and a reflection not of political interference on California’s part — as the president and his supporters have cast it — but of Trump’s nearly unbridled lawlessness.

“It’s very troubling when the most powerful person on the planet and the president of our country is the one trampling over the Constitution, breaking the law so blatantly and brazenly, so consistently, so frequently,” Bonta said.

Independent legal experts said several factors have driven the wave of lawsuits.

Presidents of both parties have increasingly flexed their executive power, and state attorneys general have increasingly sued in response. During Trump’s first term in office, California — under the leadership of then-attorney general and current gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra — sued the Trump administration more than 120 times over four years. Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton — now a Republican candidate for Senate — sued the Biden administration just over 100 times in four years.

Trump in this term quickly began implementing an array of policies leftover from his first term or outlined in the Project 2025 policy blueprint, many of which Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general were prepared to sue over, experts said.

Trump was also able to appoint a host of loyalists with the help of the Republican-controlled Congress, who helped advance policies that less loyal agency heads would have balked at, and which were sure to draw additional legal challenges, experts said.

Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law School and author of “Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power,” said California’s raft of lawsuits is a result of the current Trump administration “doing more aggressive things right off the starting block” — but also repeatedly targeting California specifically.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. However, it has consistently derided Bonta’s litigation against the administration as baseless and misguided.

When Bonta claimed in August that his lawsuits had saved California more than $200 billion, namely by reversing Trump cuts to federal funding meant for the state, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Bonta should stop “filing frivolous lawsuits” and “focus on addressing problems in his own state.”

ICE, which also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has defended its arrests near courthouses as a “common sense” approach to apprehending offenders at times and locations where authorities know they will be.

The 100th case

Bonta’s lawsuit argues that such arrests are arbitrary and capricious given the chilling effect they have on justice in the state. They violate the Immigration and Nationality Act as intended by Congress, and interfere with California’s rights under the 10th Amendment to execute its “core sovereign judicial and police functions,” Bonta’s office said.

His arguments echo those made by other state officials in the past. During Trump’s first term, for example, then-California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye called the arrests “disruptive, shortsighted, and counterproductive.”

Arrests at or near courthouses began to rise again after Trump took office in January 2025. An ICE memo, issued in May 2025, said agents could conduct “civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information that leads them to believe the targeted alien(s) is or will be present at a specific location.”

Incidents quickly began cropping up. In June 2025, ICE agents arrested two women outside a Los Angeles courthouse after a hearing in a local criminal case. The same unfolded across the state.

Alejandro Barraza, a criminal defense and immigration attorney, said he has witnessed the impact firsthand.

In October 2025, a client was arrested driving home from a hearing at the Riverside Hall of Justice. In December, another client was arrested leaving the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse. And a third client chose to plead guilty in his criminal case rather than go to jury trial, despite Barraza’s advice that the case was worth fighting, for fear of being arrested by ICE.

“The victims are losing. Our clients are losing their rights to due process. Everyone is losing,” Barraza said.

In June, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Francisco struck down ICE’s expanded courthouse arrest policies nationwide. Although the lawsuit focused on immigration courthouses, the ruling also covered state criminal courthouses, restoring earlier restrictions that barred civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses except in limited circumstances. The Trump administration is appealing the ruling.

Since then, California court officials have tracked arrests by federal agents and reported them to the Judicial Council of California. Thirty people were taken into custody in June, 29 in July, 19 in August and 14 in September.

State legislators have tried to push back. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law strengthening California’s protections against civil arrests for people traveling to, attending or leaving courthouses for lawful purposes. The measure extends those protections to public ways within 1,000 feet of court facilities, while preserving an exception for arrests made under a valid judicial warrant.

Bonta said his lawsuit is necessary despite the new California law, in part because the Trump administration thinks that “no state law applies to them,” and courts have in some cases agreed — including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which this week blocked a state law that would have required federal immigration agents to display identification while working in the state.

The wider legal battle

Bonta’s office has had substantial success in halting some of the Trump administration’s biggest policy moves — including its plans to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of immigrants, its worldwide tariffs, its deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, and its withholding of billions of dollars in federal funding allocated to the state by Congress.

Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, said many of California’s lawsuits have been “legally meritorious,” as there is a “whole lot of legal error” coming out of the Trump administration — with a “lot of the overreach” having been “facilitated by the lack of internal checks” from loyal Trump agency heads.

However, he also said that as a California taxpayer, he doesn’t “appreciate having government using my tax dollars for what essentially are in many cases ideological lawsuits, even if meritorious,” because private litigants can and often do bring lawsuits of their own. He said he felt the same way about many of the lawsuits brought against the Biden administration by Republican states.

Bonta said he is proud of his team for challenging the Trump administration every time they believed it had broken the law and harmed California, despite Trump’s intentional effort to make that difficult.

“It was a shock and awe. It was flood the zone. It was trying to overwhelm with speed and volume, and we kept pace every time,” he said.

What happens next, he said, will depend on Trump. If he keeps breaking the law in ways that hurt the state or its residents, he’ll keep getting sued by California.

Oct. 15, 2026 Updated 9:38 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities are investigating letters with “suspicious substances” that have been mailed to congressional and election offices nationwide and are urging recipients to treat the mailings as “potentially hazardous.”

The investigation by the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and U.S. Capitol Police was first disclosed in a message from the Senate Sergeant at Arms obtained Thursday by The Associated Press. The notice, sent to Senate offices, said that law enforcement officials were working to intercept any additional letters, but “it is possible that some letters may reach their destinations.”

In Congress, the threat appeared limited to the Senate, though the House was monitoring the situation, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

An FBI statement said the bureau and the Postal Inspection Service were “investigating a series of suspicious mailings sent to various addresses nationwide, including Secretary of State offices and their related election offices.”

“Some of the letters contained an unknown substance and we are working closely with our law enforcement partners to respond to each incident,” the statement read. “We are also working with our partners to identify the individual or individuals responsible for the letters.”

Mailed packages containing a powdery substance led to the evacuation this week of election offices in at least two states, Louisiana and Oklahoma. The Ohio secretary of state said the Postal Service intercepted a package containing a white powder intended for its office and noted that similar mailings had been sent to election officials in multiple states.

News of the letters comes just three weeks before Election Day and is reminiscent of a similar threat in 2023, when election offices in six states received mailings that contained a white powder. In some cases, the incidents disrupted work around local elections.

Some of those letters contained threats and traces of the powerful opioid fentanyl, leading some election offices to stock up on the overdose reversal medication naloxone.

The National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors issued a joint statement condemning what they said were threats against election staff.

“Those who administer our elections should never fear for their safety while carrying out their essential duties,” they said in their statement.

Deputy Postal Inspector Brendan Donahue told reporters Thursday that “any threat or attack on election officials is unacceptable” and that “we are also working with our partners on identifying the individual or individuals responsible for the letters.”

Mascaro and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, celebrated the 20-year anniversary of landmark climate legislation he signed while in office alongside Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday.

“California is the perfect example of what can be done when people work together and when we don’t look at this as a Republican or as a Democratic issue,” Schwarzenegger said at an economic conference in Long Beach, noting that Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act had significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions while creating more than a half a million clean-energy jobs.

“This is the message that is so important for the world,” he said, because the state’s policies have become a model for other states and nations.

Newsom noted that the state had met “audacious” goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, touting 39,000 megawatts of clean energy that have been installed in the last seven years, 23,000 megawatts of battery storage created, and that no flex alert has been issued in the state in four years.

“So we’re not in the goal-setting business; we’re in the how business,” he said.

He added that the clean energy transition is “the most critical national security issue in the United States of America,” with economic and supply chain leadership at stake as China surpasses the U.S. in electric vehicles, clean-energy manufacturing and the deployment of renewables.

The state already met the climate change legislation’s ambitious target — returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — four years ahead of schedule. However, recent analyses indicate California is not on track to meet its future targets of cutting emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2045.

The legislation paved the way for the creation of California’s nation-leading carbon market, cap-and-invest, which launched in 2013. The Legislature extended cap-and-invest’s life to 2045 last year, and the state is now initiating the process of linking its market with Washington state.

The event as well as a luncheon the prior day in Santa Monica were rare displays of bipartisan unity at a time of heightened political polarization in the United States. Schwarzenegger and Newsom piled praise upon each other during the Wednesday afternoon discussion, hugging at the end.

At the luncheon, former Gov. Gray Davis, whom Schwarzenegger ousted from office in the 2003 recall election, as well as billionaire hedge-fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for governor this year, were among the Democrats in attendance, as well as former state Assembly Speaker Fabien Nunez and former state Sen. Fran Pavley, who were both pivotal in the passage of the climate-change legislation.

In addition to remarks highlighting the foundation of some of the nation’s bedrock environmental policies, such as former GOP President Richard Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency and signing the Endangered Species Act, there were moments of levity.

Schwarzenegger said he told fellow Republicans “f— you” when they balked at him naming Susan Kennedy, a Democrat, as his chief of staff, he said Tuesday.

During a breakout session at the Wednesday conference, he referenced his former wife, Maria Shriver, a scion of the Kennedy family, as he described his desire to hear from people on both sides of the aisle.

“So I had Democrats in my administration, and of course the Republican Party went nuts,” he said. “I didn’t care because, to me, I thought I wanted to hear what the Democrats were thinking. Plus, I was sleeping with one every night anyway.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nixed a trailblazing California law on Wednesday, permanently barring the state’s efforts to force federal immigration agents to display identification while on duty.

“As before, we conclude … the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the panel. “No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.”

The U.S. Justice Department first sued to block the ID requirement alongside a related law attempting to ban masks for federal agents and local police in the fall of 2025.

The joint case hit Los Angeles federal court at the beginning of this year amid a surge of immigration enforcement in Minneapolis that led to the shootings of civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

By then, more than a dozen other states were pursuing similar statutes in an effort to rein in what many saw as lawlessness in President Trump’s sprawling deportation force.

Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately blocked California’s law prohibiting the use of masks by law enforcement, on the grounds that it unfairly carved out an exception for state peace officers, but allowed the ID requirement for ICE agents and others to go forward, agreeing with the state that it was more akin to a speed limit on the highway than a direct regulation of the federal government.

The 9th Circuit quickly disagreed.

“If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” Bennett wrote.

The decision comes as ICE is quietly shedding many of the 12,000 new recruits it hired last year. Although public outrage over Trump’s militarized mass deportation efforts has diminished somewhat since the winter, it remains a potent election issue.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from September showed more than 40% of Americans strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration. Meanwhile, the share who fret over unauthorized immigration is nearly identical to the proportion who worry about the unchecked spread of measles — anxieties that pale in comparison with stress over the cost of living, the proliferation of data centers and the war with Iran, data show.

NEW YORK — The new White House press secretary is facing mounting questions about her background and resume as she transitions into her role as the public face of the Trump administration.

Katie Zacharia has long described herself as a lawyer as she has worked to establish herself as a commentator for conservative outlets such as Fox News and Newsmax. But so far, she and the White House have offered no evidence that she passed the bar exam in any state or in China, where she worked for a large law firm years ago.

The questions add to the confusion surrounding President Trump’s decision to hire Zacharia, who had worked for his social media company for only a few months when he announced her appointment and whose debut at the podium on Tuesday has been widely panned.

Afterward, the president was asked by reporters where Zacharia had passed the bar exam, following a report by the independent outlet Popular Information that she did not appear to be licensed in any state.

Trump stepped aside to allow Zacharia to answer.

“When I moved to China,” she responded over the sound of Marine One whirring in the background. It is unclear what she had intended to say or whether she had finished the sentence.

China’s notoriously difficult National Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination can be taken only by Chinese citizens.

Asked what credentials she held, the White House passed along a statement from Zacharia, who received a bachelor of arts degree from Pepperdine University in 2007 and received her law degree from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in 2011, according to the school and her LinkedIn bio.

“I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials,” it read.

Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, added that Zacharia was “uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people about all the great things President Trump and his Administration have been doing, and she will do an incredible job as press secretary.”

A resume under scrutiny

According to her LinkedIn profile, Zacharia has been the senior communications advisor at the Trump Media & Technology Group since June and spent two months as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security this year.

From 2011 to 2013, it says, she served as an associate on the International Practice Team at the Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing. She also worked as the manager of fundraising and communications for Compassion for Migrant Children, which assists the children of migrant workers, from 2012 to 2013.

More recently, it says she served as general counsel for Fix California, a group started by Trump administration official Richard Grenell.

Neither the firm nor the two groups responded to questions about her tenure and background.

Zacharia has long called herself a lawyer. On Instagram, she describes herself as the White House press secretary, “Wife, Mom, & Lawyer” (with three heart emojis after “Mom”).

And her official author page at the California Globe, where she wrote occasional commentary, says that, in addition to being a “regular commentator on Fox News, Newsmax,” she has “extensive experience in political advocacy, international corporate law, and non-profit work, including time as outside counsel for the World Bank and IFC in Beijing.”

A June 2026 news release from NovaRed Mining Inc. announcing her appointment to the company’s advisory board, which was first reported by Popular Information, said her “professional experience includes work related to international legal and financial transactions, including matters involving organizations associated with the World Bank Group and the International Finance Corporation during her tenure with Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing.”

In announcing her hire on his social media site, Trump described Zacharia as “a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax.”

“She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning. She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA!” he added.

‘No record’ found

Zacharia is not listed as a member of the state bar in California, where she currently resides, according to a public database.

Rick Coca, a spokesperson for the State Bar of California, a regulatory agency that oversees state licensing, said in a statement that it has “no record of Kate Sharon Zacharia or Kate Sharon Black” or any version of her married or maiden names “having been licensed to practice law in California.”

Popular Information said the same was the case in all 50 states it had queried, plus Washington.

In response, the watchdog group Campaign for Accountability filed a complaint Wednesday with the State Bar of California asking it to investigate whether Zacharia misrepresented herself as a lawyer in violation of California law.

“In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime. The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has,” said the watchdog group’s executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, in a statement.

The State Bar said it could not confirm whether the agency had received the complaint or was conducting an investigation, citing confidentiality laws.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.