supreme court

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

There are many states in America where a governor shares the ticket with his or her running mate. Nevada is not one of them.

That, however, is but a small detail.

Joe Lombardo, Nevada’s Republican governor, is seeking election to his second term. His chief opponent is Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Democratic attorney general.

But to hear Lombardo and his allies tell it, Ford’s guru, his doppelganger, his soulmate and political inspiration — if not his actual running mate — is the Democratic governor living next door. It’s almost as if Lombardo is facing Gavin Newsom in November.

Look, there, along the streets of Las Vegas, you’ll see California’s governor on billboards, grinning alongside Ford.

Stop at the gas pump, wince at the pain and ask yourself why? It’s not President Trump and the muddle-headed war he started over in Iran. Blame Newsom.

Higher taxes and more spending? Only if Newsom, er, Ford, has his way.

“It’s official,” a chirpy announcer says in one pro-Lombardo campaign spot. “Shared vision. Shared values. Aaron Ford: Gavin Newsom’s choice for Nevada.”

Lombardo seemed, for a time, the most politically vulnerable Republican governor in the country. Things have looked up. He’s built a big financial advantage over Ford. But anti-Trump sentiments are keeping the Democrat in contention, which is what happens when an incumbent is running shackled to a ball and chain.

Enter Newsom.

A familiar playbook

It’s not at all surprising he would endorse a member of his own party, especially in Nevada, which is holding one of the first contests of the 2028 presidential race. Newsom, if you haven’t heard, has been positioning himself for a potential White House bid for years. Backing Ford is a way of collecting chits, as they say in gambling and politics.

It’s also not surprising that Lombardo would try to deflect from the unpopular Trump by yoking his opponent to Newsom. Select a polarizing member of the opposite party and suggest your rival is their slavish devotee; it’s a strategy as well-thumbed as a Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas road atlas. (Google it, kids.)

In Nevada, the attack can have added resonance when the offending politician is from California, which has long been viewed, by some at least, as an overpriced, tax-happy, left-wing lunatic asylum.

“There’s a tendency in Nevada to worry about what’s called ‘Californication’ and this has gone on quite a while,” said Michael Green, a historian at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who suggested it’s a particular slice of California, not the moderately conservative Central Valley but rather outré San Francisco, that Lombard is trying to convey.

For the governor, Newsom-bashing is a return to form.

Four years ago, as the sheriff of Clark County — that’s Las Vegas — Lombardo said the Democratic incumbent, Steve Sisolak, cared “more about copying Gavin Newsom than governing in the best interest of Nevadans.”

This time, Lombardo has focused on high fuel prices, a particular torment in a vast state with a lot of long, gas-guzzling stretches of rural highway. In March, he sent an open letter to Newsom blaming California’s environmental policies for running up energy costs. (Nevada relies on California for nearly 90% of its transportation fuels, which mainly flow from Southern California refineries to Las Vegas.)

In April, he explicitly blamed “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies” for “driving higher gas prices for Nevada families” and said Ford refused to push back because “he doesn’t want to risk his relationship with his biggest ally.”

Newsom vs. Lombardo

Turnabout being fair play, the Ford campaign has responded by tying Nevada’s governor to the unpopular president.

“Joe Lombardo is endorsed by Donald Trump and is running on a platform of raising costs and is laser-focused on taking care of Trump’s billionaire friends and padding the pockets of greedy corporations,” said spokesperson Tai Sims, who suggested the governor was relying on a “failed MAGA playbook” because “he’s too busy embracing Trump’s cost-raising agenda to acknowledge the economic pain caused by the Lombardo-Trump economy.”

Newsom and Lombardo have also gone at it.

“Since I took office, Nevada has created more jobs than California,” Lombardo boasted in a July posting on X that, of course, tied Ford to Newsom. “As Governor, I’ll never let Nevada become an extension of California’s failed agenda.”

“FALSE!” Newsom’s press team replied, with a Pinnochio-nosed emoji and a link to Federal Reserve data. “Using the same official jobs measure your office cites, California added about 340,900 jobs from December 2022 through June 2026. Nevada added 100,800.”

Lombardo hasn’t just focused on economics. Playing on old animosities, he told a Jewish Republican audience in Las Vegas last month that a certain California governor “wanted to pass two holidays for the Muslim community, agnostic to the Jewish community.” (Legislation that would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays is on Newsom’s desk, for him to sign or veto.)

“That’s not going to happen in the state of Nevada,” Lombardo said to applause, and so much for appealing to the better angels of our nature.

In the end, will the forced marriage of Newsom and Ford matter?

Probably not a whole lot. There are doubtless many things that matter more to your typical Nevadan than whether California’s governor hearts the state’s attorney general.

Wait until 2028. If Newsom is on the ballot, then we’ll find out what Nevada truly thinks of its next-door neighbor.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Questions swirl over Trump’s pledge to give $5,000 payouts if GOP wins
The deep dive: Will the economy motivate voters? This Central Valley swing district could be a test
The L.A. Times Special:California provides tax breaks to Hollywood. Why not struggling news outlets?
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has blocked President Trump’s plan to restrict voting by mail, ruling it is too late to impose new postal service rules for the November election.

The justices on Monday turned down an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers, who argued the government needed a new and untested system of unique bar codes to track all the ballots of the tens of millions of people who vote by mail.

Instead, the justices left in place a judge’s order that prevents the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing the new rules for the midterm elections.

Concurring, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed it was too late to enforce the new rules for this election.

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision in USPS vs. California is a victory for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and the attorneys general for 22 other Democratic-led states who sued to block the new rules.

Last week, they warned there would be chaos and confusion if Trump’s rules were put in effect now.

Bonta cheered the decision late Monday, calling it “a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law” in a case where the stakes “could not have been higher.”

“Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form. In California and several other states, mail voting is the primary way elections are conducted,” Bonta said. “Had this rule been allowed to take effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic.”

He said his office “will remain vigilant in safeguarding our elections,” and urged voters to make their voices heard.

Under the proposed rules, state and county election officials across the nation would be required to enroll each voter with a unique bar code and submit this data to a new online portal that, as of last week, was not yet functioning.

Without the individualized bar codes, states could not send ballots through the mail. In California, that would mean election officials would have to enroll 23 million voters with new bar codes before state ballots could be mailed.

“Compliance with the USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the state attorneys general told the court last week.

The impact would not be limited to Democratic-leaning states. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said it would be “an unmitigated disaster” if the new rules were put into effect now. About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast ballots by mail in 2024.

But Trump has maintained, without providing evidence, that voting by mail leads to widespread cheating and fraud.

In March, he issued an executive order that called on the postal service to do more to “enhance election integrity.”

“Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots,” he said.

Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

State attorneys general argued that the Constitution entrusts states, not federal officials, to conduct elections. While Congress may impose new rules, it is not done to limit voting by mail or to empower the postal service to do so, they said.

Trump and his lawyers maintained the administration had a duty to combat fraud, including in elections.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer described the new rules as “modest measures that will help prevent and restrain potential gross abuses of the mails to perpetrate a fraud on the Nation.”

And he said the federal government, the states and the voting public would face irreparable harm if the new Postal Service rules were not allowed to be applied to the coming election.

But U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, in Boston, ruled the postal service may not put its new regulations into effect for the Nov. 3 election. She found the Trump administration had presented no evidence to the court of widespread fraud existing, while the states had presented ample evidence that implementing such a system on such a fast timeline posed tremendous risk.

The 1st Circuit Court affirmed her order and said the administration’s lawyers “have not even seriously challenged the … detailed findings about the chaos and widespread disenfranchisement that would occur between now and November 3 should the USPS rule take immediate effect.”

On Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — also blocked the new Postal Service rules from being implemented in separate cases brought by the NAACP and Democratic groups, finding they clearly exceeding the Postal Service’s authority in elections.

What the future will hold is unclear. The courts did not declare the new rules to be illegal or unconstitutional, though multiple lower courts have suggested that parts of the plan likely would be — including by exceeding the Postal Service’s authority to intervene in elections.

Much of the debate before the appellate and high court related to the rushed timeline under which the Postal Service was seeking to implement the changes. With that set aside by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the rules will not apply this election, the debate in the lower courts may shift focus to whether the new regulations can be applied to the 2028 elections.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said the high court’s ruling was a clear loss for Trump, and that state election officials are ready to continue their fight to protect U.S. elections if necessary.

“This ruling affirms what our Constitution has always held: Elections belong to the American people, not a desperate man in Washington,” he said.

SACRAMENTO — President Trump and the Republican Congress have unintentionally provided California state government with the financial means to subsidize — help save — endangered local news reporting.

Now it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to capitalize on the unanticipated gift.

He can sign or veto legislation to end state tax breaks for large corporations paying top executives $1 million-plus salaries and, instead, provide tax breaks for struggling California news outlets employing local reporters.

The state legislation would conform California law to a little-known provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that eliminated corporate deductions for execs’ compensation exceeding $1 million.

California newsrooms — print, broadcast, digital — would receive an estimated $43 million in tax credits for employees’ wages. There’d still be a net $15 million left over for a small state revenue boost.

I’ll admit to feeling a bit squeamish about this.

First, it’s a conflict of interest, arguing that a governor — whom my colleagues and I write about often — should shovel public dollars into our profession.

Second, why should state government and taxpayers be asked to subsidize a private enterprise that’s flailing in the marketplace? Especially one that prides itself in being an impartial watchdog over government actions and politicians’ behavior. The dog shouldn’t be begging for food from the critters it watches.

Well, one answer is that state government provides tax breaks for lots of interests, including Hollywood movie studios. We’re allotting $750 million annually in tax credits for films produced in California.

And there’s a bill on the governor’s desk to offer $100 million annually in tax credits for post-production work, such as editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

That’s all fine. What would California have become without a healthy Hollywood? I don’t want to imagine.

Newsom also recently provided $3,500 rebates to first-time electric vehicle buyers, benefiting Tesla and other EV makers. It was “investing in our future,” the governor explained.

OK, but subsidizing local news reporting is investing in democracy. Robust coverage of city halls, school boards, Sacramento politicians and the like is essential for self-government.

And that journalism is in free fall all across America as exploding technology and social media opportunism have altered news consumption, mostly bypassing local communities and often spewing misinformation.

So this legislation, AB 2222 by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), reaches far beyond just helping the troubled news industry. It’s about more than providing media outlets with financial incentives to retain and hire local reporters. It’s bolstering democracy.

Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, providing citizens with reliable, fact-based information about how their elected representatives are performing their duties, fulfilling their campaign promises and cozying up to special interests.

You’re not going to glean that information from the politicians. You’re going to get mostly self-serving spin — government propaganda — whether it emanates from the White House, the state Capitol or the local mosquito abatement district.

That’s why the nation’s Founders protected press freedom in the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, that was early in Jefferson’s political career, before he became vice president and later president. He ultimately turned into a harsh press critic. For example: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson, like countless politicians ever since, apparently carried a huge chip on his shoulder because of reporting on his job performance that ticked him off.

Newsom is a master at attracting friendly national news coverage, especially on cable TV. But he naturally shudders at more critical coverage by Sacramento beat reporters.

As of this writing, the governor hadn’t publicly disclosed how he feels about the local reporter tax credit bill.

His finance department, which crafts the state budget, opposed the measure when legislators were considering it. The state would “not [be] receiving any incremental economic benefit to justify the expenditure,” its analysis read.

Again, even if that were true, citizens and democracy would benefit.

Also, the analysis contended, the tax credit would likely “provide windfall benefits” for news media owners “rather than encourage new hiring activity.”

That’s not quite accurate. Anyway, it could discourage layoffs and save reporters’ jobs.

Late last week, the McClatchy newspaper chain — owner of the Sacramento Bee and several medium-sized California papers, plus dozens across America — announced massive newsroom layoffs.

Since 2002, more than 12,000 local journalism jobs have been lost in California, according to the bill’s sponsor, the advocacy group Rebuild Local News. More than 3,500 newspapers have closed nationwide.

Many communities have become “news deserts.”

When that happens, fewer citizens turn out to vote, tax money gets spent more carelessly and political corruption increases.

Under the legislation, California media outlets — big and small — would be granted modest tax credits for each employee covering state and local news. There’d be $20,000 for up to five full-time positions and $15,000 for each of the rest. On top of that, there’d be an additional $15,000 for every new full-time job that’s created. Part-timers would be entitled to $7,500.

“National news outlets would be excluded. So would partisan ‘pink slime’ sites controlled by political action committees,” says Matt Pearce, policy director for Rebuild Local News, a former Los Angeles Times reporter and newspaper guild leader.

It would be the most ambitious program of its kind in the country. New York, Illinois and New Mexico currently offer local news subsidies.

“It’s about civic infrastructure and the foundation of democracy. We’re teetering toward autocracy,” says former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), an ex-mayor who has long pushed for stronger local news coverage.

This bill won’t save local newsrooms. But it may give them breathing room while the big thinkers try to concoct a more profitable business model for democracy’s watchdog.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Architect of billionaire tax tried to ‘extort’ support for the measure and targeted women, union reports find
Money (That’s what I want): Becerra backers with business in Sacramento spend tens of millions boosting his gubernatorial bid
The L.A. Times Special: Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — If artificial intelligence doesn’t destroy humanity and there are actually future generations that look back, Sept. 8, 2026, may come to be known as “Coxon Day.”

That would be a reference to 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher and whistleblower at Anthropic (and previously OpenAI) who resigned in protest of the unchecked danger his work poses to us all. He posted a warning to the world on X that has gone viral.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

Within minutes, replies starting pouring in, including one from Evan Hubinger, another guy at Anthropic charged with making sure AI doesn’t destroy everyone.

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Hubinger wrote. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”

Coxon’s post has racked up more than 150 million views — including from legislators who until now have largely sidestepped the issue of regulating AI, and those within the industry who have long warned allowing it to move forward with no oversight is downright dumb.

That included Eliezer Yudkowsky, a founder of the Berkeley-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which, as far as book titles go, really cuts to the chase.

Yudkowsky has tried with little luck to publicize the urgency of this technological moment for years, and he was the one who named Tuesday in honor of the tech whistleblower for breaking through to our consciousness with one bold act of defiance.

“Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it,” he wrote, highlighting that as as bad as things are, it’s not too late to change course.

What exactly is the risk here?

“The Matrix,” “Terminator,” “War Games,” take your pick — the notion of a superintelligent machine taking over humanity is well-established in our psyches.

Current AI systems aren’t there yet, but they are on track to become smarter than humans in the next few years — if not sooner. This is mostly because AI companies are trying to create AI systems that make AI systems.

Right now, humans are in charge of creating what they have dubbed large language models. Whatever sanitizing term the industry slaps on them, the truth is, even those making them don’t understand exactly what they are.

“We know what data we put into them, but we already have very little ability to understand and control what AIs are after,” Rob Bensinger, research communications manager at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and a colleague of Yudkowsky, told me.

That’s because, as ChatGPT explained to me, “the inner mathematical reasoning and neural pathways are so vast and complex that how it arrived at a specific conclusion is hidden and poorly understood.”

But companies are hoping that these poorly understood but powerful machines can take over creating newer, even less understood but even more powerful AI systems — leaving humans largely in the dark about what they are creating and even what these beasts can and want to do.

The idea is that, because AI systems even right now are so fast and powerful, they can do the job of creating new versions of themselves at a pace and scale humans simply can’t.

Why, you ask, would this speed-without-understanding be a good thing? Isn’t it a bit like driving a race car while blindfolded?

Yes, yes it is.

But for-profit companies like making profit, and to do that, they want the most powerful product to sell.

Many in the industry are framing this recklessness as a necessity to prevent another country, China in particular, from creating a superintelligent AI system first. The Trump administration has so far grasped on to this greedy bit of misdirection like, well, oligarchs clinging to money.

Those who would prefer not to destroy humanity have urged international cooperation in the form of a slowdown while we figure out how to proceed safely.

We have no reason to believe China would not go along with this — in fact, China has more national-level AI regulation than the U.S. And humans have successfully controlled other technologies with catastrophic power, such as biological and nuclear weapons, through cooperation.

Does it matter which country creates the AI that kills humanity? The logic here seems to be that if anyone is going to cause a mass extinction event, it had better be an English-speaking AI, because it would be a huge loss to America if the planet were destroyed by one speaking a foreign language.

Is 10% really so bad?

In truth, 10% is an arbitrary number. Some put the chance of AI destroying everyone, everywhere, all at once at around 50%. Some go all the way to 90%.

“Nobody knows how to estimate it,” Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and the so-called godfather of AI, said on the BBC, calling 10% a not unreasonable estimate.

But remember, 10% was Coxon talking about the chance that AI wipes out all humans in a decade.

What about some humans next week?

The odds that a rogue AI causes something unfortunate and unexpected to happen in the near future aren’t bad, either.

There have been multiple examples recently of AI breaking free of safety restraints and doing things — like hacking into other companies and stealing stuff — that, if done by a human, would be a felony.

This shouldn’t be taken as proof they are conscious or have nefarious intent, researchers have told me. It’s more that they have been trained to be relentless in pursuing the goals we give them, but aren’t great at sticking to rules. Like their makers, they too often pursue winning at all costs.

“Which means the AIs will just get more and more kind of relentless and creative and adaptive at working around obstacles,” Bensinger said. “And unless we get exactly the right goals into the AIs, eventually humans will be obstacles.”

So if successfully completing a mission involves, say, shutting down the electrical grid or even doing something obviously deadly, like attempting to manipulate someone into suicide or releasing a bio-weapon, we can’t with any certainty say an AI system wouldn’t do it.

That might not wipe out the whole planet, but it is certainly worth avoiding.

The bright side

Which brings us back to Coxon Day, our collective chance right now to change this grim future. Bensinger said we overcomplicate regulation. Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage.

Since Coxon’s post, there has been enormous political and social momentum behind the demand for meaningful regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI, among other AI companies, have vowed to do better with safety.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has demanded a ban on superintelligent AI and a pause in global development. He’s holding a briefing for Congress with Hinton next week.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the most MAGA of MAGA legislators, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a special session on AI. Other Republicans, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas, a longtime proponent of AI regulation, have also spoken out.

“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive,” Moran wrote online. “We can achieve both through deliberate, thoughtful, and prudent policymaking.”

Yes, we can. If we demand it now.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: Anthropic Researchers Raise Alarm Over A.I. Acceleration
The California angle: Jimmy Kimmel interview with Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on ABC
The L.A. Times Special: Leaked emails reveal industry plan to kill California’s plastic and recycling laws

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Sept. 10, 2026 12:04 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Thursday upheld a block on President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, a decision that comes as the Supreme Court considers the same case and states have already started sending out ballots for the high-stakes midterm elections.

The three-judge panel refused to lift a preliminary injunction against the order issued last week by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. It prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing Trump’s directive. The Postal Service has said it would not deliver ballots from states that did not pre-clear their envelope design with the federal government and submit a list of voters to an online portal, which has yet to be activated.

Election officials warn that it’s impossible to comply with those terms, especially with the first mail ballots already being sent out in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

The panel of three judges nominated by former President Biden agreed with the plaintiffs that the president does not have the power to regulate states’ election policy.

“Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” they wrote, a reference to a rule published by the Postal Service to implement Trump’s order.

The panel wrote that the Trump administration had done little to dispel arguments by many election officials that the changes would bring “chaos and widespread disenfranchisement.”

“Indeed, appellants have not even seriously challenged this aspect of the district court’s ruling, much less demonstrated why it is clearly erroneous,” the order states.

The government also hasn’t shown evidence of past fraud to justify the restrictions, the judges said.

A request for comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The panel’s decision comes even as the Supreme Court is already considering the same case, which is part of a frenzied legal rush as states are beginning to send out mail ballots for this fall’s midterm elections. Democrats and civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., also are trying to halt the executive order.

The 1st Circuit also had upheld a previous hold Talwani placed on the executive order. But that ruling was lifted by the Supreme Court in a procedural decision that did not determine whether the plan was constitutional.

The plaintiffs swiftly filed new lawsuits after the Postal Service finalized its rule governing mail ballots.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

California and nearly two dozen other states warned the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to move forward with President Trump’s new rules for mail ballots in the November election would cause “chaos” and could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

“In some States … compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the states argued. “In the remaining States, there would be chaos — and a significant risk that millions more voters would be denied the ability to vote.”

The Democrat-led coalition — which includes California, 23 other states and the District of Columbia — also cited objections from lower-ranking state and elections officials in conservative states that have not objected to the Postal Service’s position, including the lieutenant governor and other officials in Utah saying implementation of the new rules would “be an unmitigated disaster.”

Similar warnings have emanated from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point,” the Democrat-led states wrote, pointing out that some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots.

The states’ arguments were in response to the Trump administration over the weekend filing an emergency appeal to the high court, asking it to overturn a lower-court ruling halting the plan from being implemented for the Nov. 3 election.

The new rules — developed in response to a March executive order from Trump — require states to submit their complete voter lists to the Postal Service, and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service. They require the Postal Service to then reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s order also directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own list of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump and other supporters of the changes — including top officials from a dozen Republican-led states — argue they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens. Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

The Democrat-led states sued to block the changes on multiple grounds, including that neither Trump nor the Postal Service have any authority to regulate state-run elections, that the changes would illegally prevent eligible voters from casting ballots, and that the timeline imposed by the new rule — formally issued by the Postal Service on Aug. 21 — made compliance by November impossible.

Independent voting rights groups also sued, alleging the new rules threatened to disenfranchise voters and make their work educating voters on their options for casting a ballot impossible to carry out.

A Postal Service whistleblower recently added skepticism to the agency’s ability to implement the new rules on its end, alleging in a statement published by congressional Democrats that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots was built in a “slapdash” manner, is “fundamentally flawed” and threatens as built to reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted requests from the states and the independent groups to halt the plans from being implemented nationwide, issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the Postal Service to cease all work on them.

The Trump administration then bypassed the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to ask the Supreme Court for relief from Talwani’s order.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, argued that the warnings from states that the changes are unworkable, represent an overreach of federal authority or would cause chaos in November are all baseless.

“The Rule ensures that States remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and eligibility to vote by mail, and it does not dictate ballot content, mailing or receipt deadlines, or ballot-counting procedures,” Sauer wrote. “The Rule thus plainly does not seize control of States’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.”

Sauer argued that if the court does not allow the changes to proceed, it would cause “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the States themselves, and the voting public” by “nullifying the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud.”

Experts have consistently rejected those claims — including in their own filings before the high court.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, joined three other election experts to argue to the lower court that the Trump administration’s claims of injury were “speculative and weak.” They noted that the administration had “offered no evidence” in court that the new rules would “stop any appreciable amount of voter fraud or even that voter fraud through the mails is a widespread problem that USPS should address.”

Meanwhile, they wrote, there was “undisputed evidence” presented to the lower court that the Postal Service is “still not prepared to implement its new rule or do so accurately and efficiently, even as states have begun mailing out their ballots,” and that the “harm to the states and to voters is enormous, as the rule threatens to disenfranchise millions of elderly voters, disabled voters, military voters and all others including the most vulnerable who depend on mail voting, in both red and blue states.”

The Democrat-led states also noted that the Trump administration hadn’t proven that widespread voter fraud is a legitimate threat, but had shown it is ill prepared itself to implement the changes without causing widespread disruption — as evidenced in part by the whistleblower’s claims.

It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will rule, though a relatively quick decision is expected given the emergency nature of the appeal.

Is a hissy fit worth $200 million?

That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters.

There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge.

There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.

The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.

In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.

The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.

Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.

One choice, not two

Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)

Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.

In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.

Still there?

Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.

But there’s still more to be done.

Ending political promiscuity

California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.

Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.

Not exactly a thundering roar.

The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.

“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.

If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?

The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.

The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.

Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.

Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms
The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms
The L.A. Times Special:Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

BRASILIA: A judge ordered the reinstatement of Brazil’s federal police chief on Wednesday after another judge ordered his suspension amid a deepening crisis in the nation’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino ordered police director-general Andrei Rodrigues to return to his duties, overturning a decision Tuesday by Justice Andre Mendonca, who had suspended him after accusing the police of illegally spying on him.

Scandal has engulfed the court ahead of October presidential elections after it emerged last week that a disgraced banker charged with fraud apparently asked one of its judges for help, days before his arrest.

Sept. 8, 2026 3:02 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rebuffed an appeal from Missouri officials who wanted to use new congressional districts backed by President Trump in the November election, a defeat for Republicans who had hoped the new map could help them hold onto their slim House majority.

The justices let stand a decision by Missouri’s top court, which said the new districts were automatically suspended by a citizen petition demanding a statewide vote.

The ruling marks a rare setback for Republicans in a nationwide redistricting battle that Trump urged Republicans to launch last year.

Missouri’s new districts were used in the August primaries. But the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in September that the state must revert to districts adopted after the last census.

Republican state Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway, who appealed, had argued it would violate federal rights to switch districts for voters between the primary and general elections. She also said it would cause confusion.

Missouri currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Republicans and two Democrats who were elected under districts that Republican state officials approved in 2022.

But at Trump’s urging, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe called the Legislature into a special session last year to redraw congressional boundaries to their advantage ahead of the midterms.

The revised map targeted the 5th Congressional District, held by longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. It reassigned portions of Kansas City to two neighboring districts represented by Republicans and stretched the remainder of Cleaver’s district far eastward into rural Republican areas.

Cleaver was unopposed in the Democratic primary. State Sen. Rick Brattin won the Republican primary in the reshaped district.

On the same day as the primary, Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected a petition with thousands of signatures seeking to force a November referendum on the map. Hoskins asserted that Missouri’s Constitution doesn’t allow a referendum on congressional redistricting. A lower court agreed, but the state Supreme Court reversed Hoskins’ decision.

The state’s top court said the new districts were retroactively frozen in December, when the petition signatures were submitted, and thus never became law. Hoskins on Tuesday assigned the redistricting referendum as Proposition A on the November ballot, in compliance with the state court order.

The Missouri Constitution does not specifically say that a referendum can be used for congressional redistricting. But the state Supreme Court said a constitutional provision allowing a referendum on “any act” of the Legislature encompasses congressional redistricting legislation.

Missouri was the second Republican-led state, after Texas, to respond to Trump’s call last year to redraw congressional districts. Several other states followed. All told, Republicans had hoped to win as many as 16 additional seats from new House maps enacted in eight states — Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama. Democrats, whose counterattack faced several setbacks, think they could win up to six additional seats from new districts in California and Utah.

It remains to be seen whether the redistricting works as intended for Republicans. The president’s party historically has lost congressional seats in the midterms, and Trump’s poor approval ratings could provide an extra hurdle for Republican candidates.

Whitehurst and Lieb write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO —  It was unprecedented and stunning: California’s governor and top two legislative leaders negotiated a compromise on a big bill — and one house rebelled, refusing to bring it to a vote.

Not just any bill, but this year’s biggest in the state Legislature, dealing with catastrophic wildfires, arguably the state’s most perilous problem.

The issue: who gets hit the hardest financially when a for-profit utility’s electrical equipment ignites a blaze. The utility’s investors? Its ratepayers? The insurers? Their premium payers?

At stake, depending on who you talk to, is whether the electricity providers can afford to stay in business and keep our lights on. Will some utility — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric or San Diego Gas & Election — be forced into bankruptcy when the next powerline-caused wildfire explodes?

Alternatively, there’s another unacceptable potential outcome: Property insurance companies completely stop issuing policies — not just in obvious fire-prone areas, but in tree-lined urban neighborhoods — and basically pull out of California. Or their premiums become flat-out unaffordable.

Politically, the wildfire legislation’s flameout called into question Gov. Gavin Newsom’s seeming weakness as a lame duck chief executive who will be termed-out of office in January.

Newsom stuck out his neck and took it on the chin from fellow Democrats — showing that even with lopsided one-party rule, unity and success aren’t always guaranteed.

But the episode also raised doubts about Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ leadership capability. The Hollister Democrat signed off on the deal with Newsom and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara), but reneged at the last minute under pressure from the Assembly Democratic Caucus. They killed the bill without a floor vote.

I’m in my seventh decade of covering California governors and legislatures and never have seen — or heard of — anything like this: a legislative leader backing out of a deal agreed to with the governor and the other house’s leader.

But in truth, Newsom didn’t really like the agreement much anyway. He was on the utilities’ side, and they were out-lobbied by the insurers and ratepayers.

“I know we all hate utilities, so no one wants to defend a utility. But you’ve got to deal with reality. This thing’s not going to get better on its own,” Newsom told reporters at the Capitol on the night before the deal collapsed, referring to the utilities’ worsening financial liability.

Personally, I think it’s an overreach to conclude that Newsom’s power has been severely weakened — or that Rivas necessarily showed lack of leadership. One can question their reasons for doing what they did, but that doesn’t mean it was because of political debility.

“Newsom’s still a powerful lame duck because he could be a presidential nominee,” Republican consultant Rob Stutzman says.

“One of the better things he has done all year is taking on this issue. It would have been very easy for him to just pass it on to the next governor.”

Leaving aside whether this governor could become a president, there are hundreds of bills piling up on his desk that he must sign or veto by Sept. 30. That gives him tremendous clout. It’s good politics — and human nature — for a governor to lean more favorably toward a measure if it’s authored by a legislator who has voted with him.

Plus, one of the Legislature’s last acts last week was to send Newsom a bloated supplemental budget bill containing more than $3 billion in spending, including countless stacks of pork sought by lawmakers for their districts. Newsom easily and gleefully could discard any or all of it.

So Newsom has awesome power, lame duck or not.

But he’s vulnerable to criticism for his style. He has had an annoying habit of waiting until the very end of a legislative session to spring a hefty proposal on the lawmakers. It’s called “jamming.”

In the past, this pressure tactic mostly worked, although it ticked off lawmakers. This time Assembly members rebelled.

It’s not clear whether his jamming is mainly strategy, or just lack of focus and a tendency to push too many projects at once. Or is he preoccupied with positioning himself to run for president in 2028? Probably all of the above.

“If we had more time, we could have had a different outcome,” Rivas told me.

With only a few days remaining in the legislative session, Newsom initially proposed an ambitious plan that would have shifted more cost for utility-sparked wildfires to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across California. Utilities would have gotten some relief.

It became a titanic fight between two powerful special interests. And insurers — teamed with consumer advocates — triumphed, forcing Newsom to back down.

After hard bargaining, the governor and legislative leaders finally agreed on a post-midnight deal to help wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly — a so-called fast-pay program — and to step up fire preventative efforts.

But utilities’ financial risks weren’t significantly reduced, and they quickly mounted an opposition campaign. That resulted in Assembly Democrats scuttling all of it on the session’s last day.

“It’s unfortunate that [bill] was not given a vote,” Limon said, adding that the Senate was prepared to pass it.

“I don’t want us to do the easy stuff and call it a day,” Rivas told me. “I wanted to see real utility accountability. This bill did not go nearly far enough.”

It went a fair distance, however, in helping future fire victims get their insurance payouts faster. And it probably should have been passed.

Half a loaf. Bird in hand. Incremental change. Next year more incrementalism. Ultimately it can add to massive reform.

Some problems are just too tough to resolve in one sitting.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Reining in Big Tech: How California lawmakers plan to regulate AI and social media
California vs. Trump: Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit challenging California transgender sports policies
The L.A. Times Special: Texas is red, California blue — but for how much longer? A Lone Star toss-up will tell

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Sept. 6, 2026 8:33 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Sunday renewed its appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge blocked new restrictions on mail ballots ahead of the midterms.

The filing came after U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani extended an order against the U.S. Postal Service enforcing President Trump’s executive order for the November elections.

The legal wrangling comes even as states start sending out mail ballots, leaving the administration little time to make big changes in mail ballot rules.

“Ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place — including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13,” Solicitor Gen. John Sauer said in the filing.

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them. And while the injunction allows the Postal Service and the States to continue taking steps to ensure that their envelopes satisfy the Rule’s requirements … each day the injunction is in place risks sowing confusion and chaos because the injunction makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.”

The appeal marks the third time the administration has asked the high court to intervene. The high court has allowed the plan to move forward but not ruled on whether it is legal.

The battle could have major ramifications for this year’s elections, when control of Congress is at stake. Nearly one-third of voters in the U.S. cast mail ballots. Mail ballots are sent to every California voter.

Democratic states and voting rights groups say the changes are unconstitutional and amount to voter suppression. Election officials contend that there isn’t enough time to revise their systems to comply with the new Postal Service directives.

The Trump administration has framed the restrictions as commonsense changes that are within its power to regulate the mail.

“Simply put, the best way to address respondents’ fears about inability to comply with the Rule is to grant an immediate administrative stay of the order, followed by a full stay pending further review,” Sauer said. “That will remove the improper cloud of uncertainty that the district court has cast over the Rule, making clear to all involved that compliance with the Rule is not optional and must start without further delay.”

Trump has long sought to limit mail voting, even though he himself often uses that method to cast his own ballot. He has falsely blamed mail balloting for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, spreading baseless claims of fraud. But so far, he has been unable to change the long-standing voting procedure.

Whitehurst and Fields write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — In a setback for Republicans, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the use of a GOP-favored congressional map in this year’s midterms, directing that a referendum on redistricting be put on November’s ballot.

The ruling came down Thursday, two months before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and after Missouri already using the use of the now blocked maps.

GOP-led Missouri was seeking to use a state legislature-approved redrawn map that was expected to increase the number of Republican-held districts from its 6-2 majority to 7-1, but the state’s high court on Thursday ruled that the opposition had the the right to have the issue put to a referendum.

The state’s General Assembly passed the redistricting bill in September 2025. In December, organizers who submitted a referendum petition collected more than 300,000 signatures in support of the effort.

But then last month, an hour before the statutory deadline, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins issued a “Certificate of Insufficiency of Petition,” stating that the state’s Constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly,” prompting Missouri voters to sue.

The state’s high court ruling on Thursday overturned a circuit court’s judgment, ordering Hoskins to issue a certificate of sufficiency as to the referendum petition to place it on the November general election ballot and enjoining him from implementing the General Assembly-approved map.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise. HB 1 did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in the ruling. “The congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022 remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said the state will appeal to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election. This unprecedented decision clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a full-fledged constitutional crisis,” she said in a statement.

“We are confident that the federal courts will not allow every Missouri voter to be disenfranchised — which is what today’s decision does.”

President Donald Trump also lambasted the decision on his Truth Social media platform.

“Not only was the ruling horrible, ridiculous and unConstitutional, but there won’t be enough time to change the map back with the Election coming up in a very short period of time,” he said in a statement.

“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America! Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for ‘Justice’ in Missouri!”

The midterms have been a focus of Trump, who has warned Republicans that if they lose control of the House, Democrats will impeach him.

To improve their chances of holding on to the House, Trump has encouraged GOP-led states to conduct unorthodox mid-decade redistricting efforts, with Texas last summer being the first to redraw its maps to create additional GOP-favored districts. This kicked off a gerrymandering arms race, with Democratic-led states saying they would do likewise to counter the Republican efforts.

To date, 10 states — all but one being Republican-led — have changed their congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though several others have tried or are in the process of redistricting.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to permit enforcement of its mail-in voting restrictions, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm because two states will begin sending ballots to voters before the block is to expire next week.

Filed Thursday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the request for an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order comes in protracted litigation over a Trump administration rule giving the U.S. Postal Service authority to screen outbound mail-in ballots for compliance with envelope standards and verify recipients have been entered on their state’s USPS Mail-In and Absentee Participation list.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts sided with the League of Women Voters in Massachusetts, which has been fighting the rule it says is unlawful and violates federalism principles of the Constitution, issuing a 14-day block against enforcing its key provisions while she considers the request to impose a longer, more restrictive preliminary injunction.

In his filing Thursday, Sauer argued that the federal government will be irreparably harmed if the restraining order is not lifted before North Carolina and Alabama send out their mail-in ballots next week, saying a court decision would come too late for those ballots.

“With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud,” he said.

Sauer continued that despite Talwani’s order allowing the Postal Service and states to take steps to ensure their envelopes meet the rule’s requirements, her block “risks sowing confusion and chaos because it makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.

“Thus, if the order is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections — as should occur — there is a grave risk that states may not have taken the necessary steps to comply due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper order, potentially depriving those states’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” he said.

Despite using the mail to vote himself, Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots, claiming them to be a source of voting fraud, though studies have found no evidence that mail voting produces higher overall rates of voter fraud.

The USPS rule is one of several actions Trump and his administration have taken ahead of November’s midterm elections, which the president has become increasingly focused on as he has warned Republicans that losing the House to Democrats could lead to his impeachment as well as investigations. While the moves generally have widespread Republican support, Democrats and critics say they are efforts to rig the midterms.

The new USPS rule being litigated comes in response to an executive order Trump signed in March to expand federal control over mail-in ballots, including authorizing the USPS not to send them to voters unless certain conditions are met.

Two weeks ago, the high court lifted an injunction blocking Trump’s mail-voting executive order, stating the challenge to the USPS provisions was premature as the agency had yet to issue a final rule. After the final rule was published Aug. 26, two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued, resulting in the two-week block the Trump administration is now contesting.

Sept. 3, 2026 9 AM PT

BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston said Thursday the U.S. Postal Service has told her nothing about how it would implement a plan to regulate mail ballots for the midterms as she considers whether to let the plan proceed in the weeks before Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani is deciding whether to extend her prohibition on the proposed regulation of mail ballots, an effort undertaken as part of an executive order by President Trump. The hearing in the closely watched case came a day before the first state begins sending mail ballots to voters.

“We are 70 days from the election and I have nothing from the USPS about how this will happen,” Talwani told Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Postal Service.

Last week, Talwani imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order to keep it from being used. That order expires next week as more states begin sending out mail ballots. Velchik said the administration will most likely go to the Supreme Court by the end of the week to seek permission to resume implementing the plan.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated in the Constitution to the states and in some cases Congress.

They won an initial victory with Talwani’s restraining order, which has already been appealed by the administration.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal. But the portal was still not active this week, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told Talwani that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system. But the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so.

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters, but if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

Riccardi and Casey write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.

For more than three decades, California and Texas have been like tectonic plates drifting in opposite directions.

California, the ancestral land of Republicans Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, has become a Democratic stronghold. It’s been 20 years since a GOP candidate won statewide office.

Texas, which bred Democratic giants such as Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson, has become a Republican fortress. A Democrat hasn’t been elected statewide in more than 30 years.

And yet with the midterm election about to enter its final, post-Labor Day sprint, Texas is home to not one but two competitive contests, for governor and U.S. Senate. It’s a stark contrast with California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears to be a shoo-in for governor and Adam Schiff, in 2024, waltzed into his Senate seat.

There’s still plenty of time between now and election day on Nov. 3. Democrats, to their deep consternation, have repeatedly seen their hopes rise, only to crash once Texans actually turn out to vote.

“You don’t take anything for granted,” said James Aldrete, a Democratic strategist in Austin, who’s watched for years as his party wandered fruitlessly in the campaign desert. “But there is beautiful native wildlife that grows in the desert, and it’s blooming right now.”

The question — for the moment, at least — is why California hasn’t budged while Texas has become a surprise battleground.

The answer involves individual personalities, demographics and political headwinds.

Of the two contests, the fight for Texas’ open Senate seat appears to be much closer. Election handicappers rate it a toss-up.

The Democrat, state Rep. James Talarico, is a highly gifted campaigner and prodigious fundraiser. But arguably the best thing he has going for his candidacy is his Republican opponent, Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose history of scandal, shady dealings and moral lapses trail him like dirty footprints on a white carpet.

Paxton stomped incumbent John Cornyn, with the help of President Trump, in a vicious GOP primary that left ill will among a number of Republicans. Had Cornyn won, many doubt the Senate seat would be in play.

‘A big ask’

In the race for governor, Republican Greg Abbott is facing Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa as he seeks an unprecedented fourth term — “a big ask of voters,” in the words of J. Miles Coleman, who analyzes elections at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the center’s forecasting project, recently moved the gubernatorial race to “likely Republican,” a shift away from “Safe Republican.”

Other election handicappers have done the same.

Texas has long fancied itself a place apart; secession is one recurring fantasy. But for all its perceived go-your-own-way independence, the state isn’t immune from broader trends, which helps explain why it’s suddenly in play.

“One of the external factors that’s making Texas competitive is the degree of wind in Democratic sails,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin.

Whether it’s anti-establishment anger, directed at the party in power, or frustration with Trump, his war-making and failure to deliver the sterling economy he promised, “when you think of the problems Republicans are having at the national level … that’s helping Democrats here as well,” Henson said.

(Trump’s taint is also a problem for California Republican Steve Hilton, running for governor in a state where the president’s approval rating rests at the subbasement level.)

By the numbers

Henson, who conducts polling statewide, said another reason Texas is more competitive than California is simple mathematics: “Democrats [haven’t] fallen quite as far in Texas as Republicans have in California.”

Texas doesn’t register voters by party. But weighting political surveys by demographics and following election results, Henson expects about a 10% Republican turnout advantage in November. By contrast, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1.

Yet another reason Texas appears to have grown more competitive is the apparent discontent of Latino voters, an increasingly important part of the state’s burgeoning electorate.

Though Latinos shifted strongly in Trump’s favor in 2024, many have grown disillusioned in the nearly two years since. “They’re moving away from both parties,” said Mike Madrid, a California strategist who’s spent decades studying the Latino vote. “When the environment is bad, they’re punishing whatever party is power.”

Two years ago, it was Democrats. Now it’s Republicans.

In recent years, as the country cleaved, California emerged as the unofficial capital of blue America, offering a political, social and cultural counterweight to Texas, the unofficial capital of red America. The two states anchor the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, and are key to their financial well-being and the success of their candidates nationwide.

A Democratic toehold in Texas would instantly scramble long-standing political calculations, starting with the 2028 presidential race.

“It changes the narrative. It changes the demographic strategy,” Madrid said. “It changes the 270 [electoral college] map. It changes the whole strategy.”

In short, a November win would be more than symbolic, or gratification after years of Democratic futility. It would be a political earthquake.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Whistleblower says USPS defied court to push ‘untested’ portal for Trump mail voting order
The deep dive: A conservative California upbringing paved Natalie Harp’s way to Trump
The L.A. Times Special:Don’t look now, but suddenly the U.S. Senate is in play

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked U.S. President Donald Trump‘s latest attempt at limiting birthright citizenship, saying Trump’s order “is almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Trump signed two executive orders related to the topic on Aug. 6, about a month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his earlier order banning birthright citizenship.

One of the August orders expanded the list of non-citizens whose children would not be granted citizenship automatically. These categories include children of whom either parent is “an alien enemy” or “a foreign government employee.”

The other would ban so-called birth tourism, which is when a traveler enters another country specifically to give birth there for citizenship reasons – a practice that is already illegal.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman said in Wednesday’s ruling that the August executive orders are likely unconstitutional “for the simple reason that the Supreme Court … already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth” in its June ruling.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them,” Boardman wrote.

Birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In its June decision, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 against Trump’s original executive order, which sought to end birthright citizenship for any children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens.

Chief Justice John Roberts said there was “scant evidence” for Trump’s interpretation of the principles of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War to protect the rights ofthe formerly enslaved.

“Citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “… We keep that promise today.”

Trump said the Supreme Court ruling “was too bad for our Country” and called on Congress to pass legislation against birthright citizenship.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A judge who vacated the conviction of former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2023 lacked the jurisdiction to do so, a federal appeals court ruled.

The case of Bergdahl, who walked off an Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, has stretched for years. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday reinstates Bergdahl’s dishonorable discharge from the military and other punishment.

“Obviously, we are disappointed by the outcome,” said Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, The New York Times reported. “This entire controversy has lasted a very long time. But it continues to be an important case, not only for Sergeant Bergdahl but for the integrity of the military justice system.”

Fidell said Bergdahl can request a rehearing before the same panel or seek a review by the entire appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the ruling Tuesday, the judges said the case “presents nuanced questions regarding jurisdiction and the evolving relationship between [federal district] courts and military courts.”

“Jurisdiction here turns on whether the remedy sought falls within a district court’s power to grant,” the ruling said. “Because Article III district courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Bergdahl’s claims. Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

In July 2023, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton vacated all judgments against Bergdahl after Oct. 16, 2017.

That is the date Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for his actions in Afghanistan — and the date the military judge in that court martial, Jeffery Nance, applied to become an immigration judge during President Donald Trump‘s first term, Walton’s ruling said. The Justice Department later hired Nance.

During his first presidential campaign, Trump called Bergdahl “a dirty, rotten traitor” and called for him to be executed or returned to the Taliban.

Nance refused a defense request to dismiss the case against Bergdahl because of those remarks, saying he was “completely unaffected” by them and that Bergdahl would still have a fair sentencing hearing. That hearing took place at the end of October 2023.

Walton, in his 2023 ruling, said that based on Nance’s application as an immigration court judge, any reasonable person could conclude that Nance’s impartiality was jeopardized.

An Army investigation found in 2015 that Bergdahl intended to hike to another Army post and report issues in his unit when he left his base in Afghanistan in 2009. He was captured not long after leaving and held and tortured by the Taliban over five years. In 2014, President Barack Obama secured Bergdahl’s release in a prison exchange.

A federal judge this week threw out the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California policies that allow transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

The Justice Department alleged that the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation were in violation of Title IX, a 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding. It argued the law requires that sports eligibility and facilities access be based on biological sex, not gender identity.

But U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela found that Title IX does no such thing — and that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing other states to apply such eligibility standards only reinforced her conclusion.

Valenzuela, an appointee of President Biden, wrote that the Supreme Court had “explained that Title IX’s regulations ‘expressly permit schools’ to maintain separate sex-based teams and ultimately held that States ‘may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females’ and ‘may determine eligibility’ for those teams based on biological sex” — and “thus upheld the biological-sex eligibility rules before it without holding that Title IX requires every school to adopt the same rule.”

Valenzuela wrote that the Supreme Court “declined to decide whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams,” and “expressly stated” that nothing in its opinion addressed that “distinct question.”

Valenzuela wrote that she, likewise, did not need to decide that issue, only “whether Title IX and its implementing regulations clearly required California to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams and sex-separated facilities.” She found “they did not.”

Therefore, Valenzuela wrote that California “lacked clear notice” of such categorical exclusion of transgender athletes as a condition of the federal funding California received, and other court decisions — including the Supreme Court’s in June — did not “supply the missing clarity.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is “evaluating our options for appeal.”

“We are disappointed by the Court’s order, and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports,” it said, referring to transgender girls.

The Justice Department suit threatened to cut $44.3 billion in federal funding from the California Department of Education, if the state did not change its policies.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which represented the California agencies in court, deferred questions to the agencies.

Rebecca Brutlag, a spokesperson for the CIF, said it does not comment on legal matters. The California Department of Education did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In court, they had made similar arguments as those Valenzuela cited in her ruling — arguing that Title IX does not require excluding transgender girls from girls’ sports, and neither does the recent Supreme Court ruling.

LGBTQ+ rights organizations praised Valenzuela’s ruling Tuesday.

Trevor Norcross, the father of Lily Norcross — a teenage transgender track athlete at Arroyo Grande High School on the Central Coast and one of the athletes whose participation in sports was cited by the Justice Department as a violation of Title IX — said it is “time to get back to supporting and enjoying girls’ and women’s sports instead of trying to tear them down.”

“I’m especially excited that girls in California can now focus on athletic competition without having to worry about manufactured culture wars and the prospect of invasive body inspections if they don’t look feminine enough,” he said.

Rainbow Families Action, a group that advocates for the rights of trans kids, hailed the decision, saying the Trump administration’s “relentless and hateful campaign against transgender children has hit another roadblock.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit was brought by two longtime critics of California’s policies for transgender students: Harmeet Dhillon, a hard-charging conservative attorney in California before her elevation to head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; and Bill Essayli, a conservative state lawmaker before his elevation to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

It was part of a much broader and ongoing effort by the Trump administration to erase trans-inclusive policies nationwide — around youth sports but also public bathrooms, medical care and official government documents.

California’s own policies for transgender athletes have been in flux.

Last year, President Trump took to his social media platform and demanded that state officials ban transgender teenage track star AB Hernandez from competing at the state track and field competition.

Amid those threats, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. Under the new rules, transgender athletes can compete, but their qualifying for events cannot take a spot away from any cisgender competitor, and they must share whichever podium position they win with the next best cisgender athlete.

Hernandez went on to compete and win multiple medals, sharing her spots on the medal podiums with the cisgender athletes who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing. Hernandez repeated her success this year, again sharing her wins with cisgender competitors.

Los Angeles Times reporter Howard Blume contributed to this article.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump‘s massive, $400 million White House ballroom project can continue — over dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices.

In the 5-4 ruling, the high court said the National Trust for Historical Preservation likely lacks the legal right to challenge the project and that national security reasons favor its continuation. This could give the Trump administration time to finish the project as lawsuits over it continue.

The court did not say if the project was legal. In a dissent, Roberts said that it likely is not, as the project was not approved by Congress.

“The White House is not just any building,” he wrote. “In failing to appreciate as much, the court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the executive’s likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”

Roberts called Monday’s decision “no victory for the separation of powers.”

The decision replaces a temporary court order from earlier August that allowed construction to continue.

Federal courts said earlier that the ballroom project needed to halt because it had not been approved by Congress. Administration lawyers had argued that Trump has total authority to renovate federal buildings and that the ballroom and connected security features are necessary.

The nearly 90,000-square-foot ballroom will be located on the former site of the East Wing, which Trump ordered demolished. The president initially said that it would be paid for by private donations, but The Washington Post has reported that the project (which it estimated will cost$600 million) will include $300 million in tax dollars.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to finish building his new White House ballroom with mostly private money and without approval from Congress.

By a 5-4 vote. the justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump and his lawyers on Monday and set aside a judge’s order that would stop the construction.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with the court’s three liberals.

The outcome turned on standing.

The conservative majoritysaid the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were not personally injured by the White House ballroom project and therefore, did not have to standing to sue Trump or the National Park Service.

They also said Trump and his appointees had stressed the new ballroom was needed for national security and said the lower courts judges should not have interfered.

The decision in effect gives a green light to Trump’s go-it-alone approach which is in keeping with his history as a hotel builder. He believed the White House needed a grand ballroom that could seat hundreds of dignitaries. And he ordered the East Wing torn down in October to make room of his larger ballroom.

He also said most of the project would be paid for by $400 million in private donations.

But the Constitution gave Congress the power to manage property belonging to the United States. A 1912 law says new buildings “shall not erected…on public grounds within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Trump chose to ignore the law and did not seek approval from Congress which is led by Republicans.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, contending Trump was a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Trump had no authority to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds without the approval of Congress, and he ordered a halt to the above-ground construction.

The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed his decision by a 2-1 vote.
“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” wrote Judge Patricia Millett for the appeals court.

Trump’s lawyers sent a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court on Aug. 14.

The court’s majority allowed Trump to fend off the legal challenge by concluding the historic preservationists could not show they were harmed by a huge new ballroom that may dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

SACRAMENTO — California could have some zany theater this fall: county prosecutors charging federal postmasters with felonies for obeying President Trump’s order to withhold delivery of mail ballots to voters.

Does Trump then federalize the California National Guard to protect his postmasters from local sheriffs bent on hauling them off to the jailhouse?

Just wondering after reading legislation whipping through the state Capitol.

None of it seems likely to happen, but with this unhinged president and his conservative Supreme Court hardly anything is certain — except chaos.

Trump keeps making himself even more unpopular with Democratic voters and tarnishing the GOP image.

One glaring example is Trump’s hypocritical move to interfere with state elections and cripple voters’ ability to cast ballots by mail.

“Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump asserted in March, while escalating his crusade against popular “absentee” voting. “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible what’s going on.”

It’s a big lie. There has never been any hard evidence produced by anyone, anywhere of significant mail-ballot cheating.

It’s also hypocritical because Trump routinely votes by mail himself in Florida elections.

Why is mail-voting OK for him but not for other Americans? “Because I’m president of the United States,” he told reporters. “I had a lot of different things” to do. As if the rest of us don’t. Voting apparently only needs to be convenient for him.

But Trump obsessively keeps trying to justify his false claim that Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory over him was rigged. It’s sick.

It may please his MAGA base, but Democrats and independents across America — especially in California — frown on Trump’s attack against their voting rights. They favor mail voting.

Overall, 58% of Americans support allowing ballots to be cast by mail, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. But there’s a huge difference between the parties — 83% of Democrats and left-leaning independents favor mail voting while 68% of Republicans oppose it.

In California, 72% of all voters approve of balloting by mail, according to a recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. But there’s a big split ideologically: 93% of Democrats and 72% of independents approve, but 62% of Republicans disapprove.

Regardless of what GOP voters tell pollsters, they must be overwhelmingly voting by mail. That’s because 81% of all California ballots were cast by mail in the 2024 presidential election. In this year’s gubernatorial primary, it was up to 89%.

In March, Trump issued an executive order directing the Homeland Security Department to compile a list of eligible citizen voters in each state and commanding the U.S. Postal Service to handle only the ballots of people on the list.

Gosh? What could possibly go wrong with Trump’s Homeland Security agency — the overseer of divisive ICE — deciding who is entitled to vote in the pivotal midterm elections?

California, along with a coalition of several blue states, sued.

The nation’s Founders decreed in the Constitution that states could decide on “the times, places and manner” of federal elections — unless Congress wanted to alter the rules. Trump persuaded the House of Representatives to pass legislation restricting mail voting, but the bill died in the Senate, blocked by Democrats.

Trump’s executive order was an effort to bypass Congress and essentially enact a law by himself.

The Supreme Court decreed on a 6-3 vote last week that Trump could proceed with his planning. But since no precise regulations had yet been announced by the administration when the opposition lawsuit was filed, it was premature to rule on their constitutionality.

But now Trump’s draconian rules have been revealed. And California has joined other states in filing a new lawsuit.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do,” Gov. Gavin Newsom declared. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy.”

In the Legislature, a bill was introduced to make it a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a person in authority to order the withholding of a ballot’s delivery to a voter or its return to a local election official.

A person like a postmaster? Who else could order mail carriers not to deliver ballots to some registered voters?

“That’s for law enforcement to decide,” says the bill’s author, Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward), who was just elected to finish the current term of resigned U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“My bill is trying to protect all voters. They may be on vacation, they may be ill. They may want to vote early or late. Whatever. They remain entitled to vote by mail.”

Her bill breezed through three Assembly committees in 24 hours — Democrats voting yes and Republicans no.

The measure is unlikely, however, to ever result in a postmaster being jailed for obeying the president.

For starters, it’s hard to envision the president’s executive order ever being ruled constitutional — even by this lackey court.

“Trump is trying to exercise control over elections when he has absolutely no authority to do so,” UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in a Times opinion piece last week.

If the Supreme Court shockingly did rule that Trump has the authority, then could his postmasters be arrested under the new state law? Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the answer would seem to be “no.” Federal law generally supersedes conflicting state law.

“An executive order cannot supersede state law,” says UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, who specializes in election law. “But there are all kinds of immunity doctrines and other reasons why a state would have a hard time prosecuting a federal official for violating state law in the conduct of official duties.”

The real answer is for Trump to stop trying to concoct a solution to an election problem that only exists in his warped imagination.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Will Trump interfere in the midterms? Democrats and their allies are preparing
California vs. Trump: Racist ‘Magic Deportation Bus’ isn’t the way for Trump to keep Latino voters
The L.A. Times Special: Two of California’s top law enforcement leaders trade barbs over state election integrity

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.