vote

Republicans in the United States Senate have renewed their push to pass a controversial $70bn immigration-enforcement funding bill, a top policy priority for President Donald Trump.

But the effort on Thursday faced a series of hurdles, with Democrats forcing votes on several amendments that highlighted controversies related to the Trump presidency.

The rapid-fire votes on the amendments were dubbed a “vote-a-rama“, and they are slated to include issues ranging from Trump’s White House ballroom to his tariff policies and the US-Israel war on Iran.

“Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Early on, Republicans were forced to confront a topic that has dominated headlines in recent weeks: Trump’s proposed $1.776bn “anti-weaponisation” fund.

The fund has been controversial on both sides of the aisle, with critics calling it a slush fund for Trump’s allies.

Several Republicans indicated that the optics of such a fund could be politically catastrophic ahead of November’s midterm elections, and the Department of Justice has since backed away from the scheme.

But Trump himself has avoided saying whether the fund was dead, or just on hold.

It was created as part of a settlement following a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a part of his government, and it was designed to award payouts to alleged victims of politically motivated prosecution.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly called for such a fund to be banned outright, rather than relying on the Trump administration’s commitment not to revive it.

Nevertheless, on Thursday, Senate Republicans rejected the Democrats’ measure to permanently block the fund.

Republican Tom Tillis introduced a second amendment, which would have also banned the settlement fund. Instead, the legislation would have redirected the allocated funds to a separate anti-fraud fund within the Justice Department. That, too, was rejected.

Thursday’s votes on the “anti-weaponisation” fund were just the start of several rounds of voting on issues uncomfortable to the Republican Party.

Schumer, the top Democrat, signalled that other amendments would tackle another part of the IRS settlement: the permanent immunity from tax audits that Trump had secured for himself and his family.

Trump’s controversial immigration enforcement campaign and other issues were also scheduled to be taken up in the day’s amendments.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was not sure whether Republicans would defeat every measure, with some members of the party showing an increasing willingness to stand up to Trump.

“I can’t predict how it comes out,” he said.

Immigration funding bill

The situation on Thursday was the result of a standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

Democrats had pledged not to approve further funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), following the killing of two US citizens during immigration operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Republicans control 53 seats in the 100-seat chamber, short of the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

They have instead been forced to pursue a lengthy procedural manoeuvre to bypass the filibuster, which has taken weeks.

The $70bn funding bill had been stalled by the Trump administration’s demand to include $1bn for security upgrades for Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The request came after the president had repeatedly said that no taxpayer dollars would go towards the project.

The security funding, which roiled several Republicans, was subsequently dropped before the voting started.

The Senate’s parliamentarian, an official who interprets the chamber’s rules, had previously ruled that adding ballroom funding to the $70bn bill would make it ineligible for the budget reconciliation process, which allows the passage of fiscal-related bills with a simple majority.

If Senate Republicans remain unified, they are expected to pass the funding bill late Thursday night or early Friday.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to take up the bill shortly after.

In the race for Los Angeles mayor, incumbent Karen Bass secured a place on the November ballot. But who will challenge her is yet to be determined, as votes are still being tallied.

With 62% of the expected vote counted, reality television personality Spencer Pratt sits in second place and City Councilmember Nithya Raman trails in third. Although Pratt has declared victory, the Associated Press, which estimates the expected votes in, has not called the race.

This story is based on a snapshot of precinct-level results provided by the L.A. County registrar on Wednesday. The Times analyzed the 525,326 votes processed so far. This story will be updated when winners are finalized in early July by the secretary of state.

This map shows the margin and density of votes by precinct. Areas where a candidate leads by a wide margin, such as Brentwood for Pratt, appear darker on the map. More densely populated neighborhoods — such as Bass strongholds in Baldwin Hills and Hyde Park — appear in brighter colors. As of Wednesday, an estimated 710,000 ballots were yet to be counted, according to L.A. County officials.

The preliminary results show narrow margins among precincts on the Eastside, with some precincts showing an almost 30% split across the top 3 candidates.

Bass retained a strong lead in precincts across South L.A. compared with her 2022 race against Rick Caruso. Pratt has garnered heavy support from his neighbors in Pacific Palisades, as well as precincts in Bel-Air and Shadow Hills.

Raman, who represents Los Feliz, Hollywood Hills, Sherman Oaks and Encino on the city council, has so far underperformed in her home 4th District. She led in 12 of the 66 precincts, particularly in parts of Los Feliz. A few precincts in East Hollywood swung heavily for Pratt; but Bass led much of CD-4.

To win the race outright, Bass needs to secure at least 50% of the vote. She currently holds 35% of the vote and a five-point lead over Pratt. A Berkeley IGS poll released last week found that Bass and Raman would likely defeat Pratt by double digits in the event of a runoff.

Mail-in ballots with a June 2 postmark will be accepted by county election officials through Tuesday.

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after California’s primary election, President Trump took to social media with baseless claims of election fraud — predictable, but also dangerous.

“Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the Vote,” Trump wrote in one post.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote in another, apparently enamored of his latest juvenile slur.

Never mind that his candidate, Steve Hilton, is in the lead — for now anyway.

California has once again become the main dish on Trump’s buffet of bull-hockey as he continues to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power, using this disingenuous and patently untrue narrative that American elections are rigged by shadowy Democratic forces working in collusion with illegal immigrants.

That last part is called the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that “elites” are replacing white people — and white voters — with Black and brown immigrants in a bid to destroy white culture. It’s at the heart of Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

The twist this time is that Hilton, the man who wants to represent all Californians, seems to be jumping on the election fraud conspiracy train with the president. I get it, there’s the MAGA base to feed, and it’s a base that feasts on outrage and fakery. Serving up resentment glazed with lies and propaganda has been the MAGA playbook for years under Trump, a strategy that no one can deny has been heartbreakingly effective.

But Hilton is a smart man and must certainly know that voter fraud is rare, to the point of being inconsequential to election outcomes. Hilton by his own admission understands voting patterns, and that in this cycle, Republicans have voted early and often by mail, despite Trump’s claims that all vote-by-mail should be suspect. So Hilton understands that early votes have skewed his way, and that later vote tallies will likely favor Democrats.

And Hilton is definitely intelligent enough to expect that in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly three to one, he will not keep the top spot in this primary, and a slim chance remains that he will not make it into the top two. That’s just simple math.

So if Hilton truly seeks to represent this state as its top elected executive, now is the time to renounce election fraud myths and stand up to Trump’s lies. If Hilton can’t say that he believes our recent election was free and fair, then he has no business being our governor.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the path he’s taking, even as it seems increasingly likely that he will advance to the general election.

This week, speaking with far-right podcaster and former Turning Point USA creative director Benny Johnson (who was allegedly duped into working for a Russian influence operation), Hilton said that while “so far we’re not seeing any signs” of cheating, “we’re going to be all over it. We’re not going to let them do that.”

Hilton was responding to a question from Johnson on whether Hilton will sue over “cheating.”

On a post-election appearance with Laura Ingraham, the conservative Fox News host who has repeatedly promoted the Great Replacement Theory, Hilton delved into more conspiracy.

“Just to really underline the point that you made about the corruption,” he told Ingraham an anecdote about supposed fraud in a previous election cycle when a “whistleblower” at the post office told him that they were instructed that a handwritten postmark was acceptable when sorting ballots to deliver to the county registrar.

“It’s just unbelievable, and of course, that’s why so many people don’t believe the results, but it just undermines confidence,” he told Ingraham, certainly knowing that the post office forwarding a ballot on to a county registrar in no way means it will be certified or counted. Would we really want the USPS deciding which ballots to deliver? Disingenuous on Hilton’s part at best.

“The whole thing is a joke,” Hilton went on to say of California elections, which of course, is absurd.

Thursday, when I asked Hilton’s team to speak with him about his views on voter fraud, they sent back a response that focused on the slowness of the California vote count; voter rolls Hilton has described as “wildly inaccurate,” which is a wildly inaccurate claim; and two instances of actual fraud with voter registration — not examples of votes that were counted.

To be sure, all those items are important. Any malfeasance should be punished, and the system should always strive to improve.

But how hard is it to simply be against fraud, while accurately acknowledging that it is rare and our current system provides accurate results?

I am against voter registration fraud. I am against vote fraud. I am absolutely pro-democracy, including policies such as mail-in voting that increase participation.

I do not believe that there is widespread fraud in the California primary, or in American elections in general, because the evidence does not support that conspiracy. I do not believe that Democrats are running a decades-long, nationwide conspiracy to replace white voters with votes from Black and brown undocumented immigrants, because that is both false and racist.

Pretty basic stuff, and statements in line with the values and common sense of the majority of Californians Hilton says he will represent.

If Hilton can’t come out and clearly say that Trump is wrong — about fraud and about the Great Replacement Theory — can he really be trusted to represent the values of the Golden State?

WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

To the surprise of few, President Trump has once again claimed without evidence that Democrats are somehow cheating to win California’s primary elections — writing on social media late Wednesday that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are investigating the matter.

“The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS,” Trump posted to his social media platform Truth Social.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles,” he wrote in a second post. “Why the vote counting DELAY???”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — run by Trump loyalist First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — declined to comment Thursday morning on Trump’s claims of an investigation.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office responded directly to Trump late Wednesday with its own social media post, writing, “Trump is lying about California again — time to take the phone away from grandpa and put him to sleep.”

On Thursday morning, Newsom’s office wrote that there “is a lot of misinformation floating around about California’s election — including from the President,” and recommended people watch a CNN video about California’s election process. It concluded that delays in vote counting in the state are essentially a result of state leaders deciding that providing voters with “last minute options” for casting ballots is more important than a quick count.

“And yes, for the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Newsom’s office wrote — a nod to the fact that the issue isn’t new.

In an email, Brandon Richards, Newsom’s deputy director for rapid response, said Trump’s claims are part of “a tinfoil hat level conspiracy theory that has been debunked repeatedly.”

The president’s claims of cheating were predicted before the election by both elections experts and Democratic leaders in California, who dismissed them in advance as more baseless bluster from a president beset by low approval ratings.

A worker puts ballots in a counting machine at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Wednesdayin City of Industry.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Those same experts and Democratic leaders acknowledge that California’s system for counting votes takes a long time and should be quickened, but stress that is not because of anything nefarious. Rather, it is because California allows voters to cast ballots by mail up until election day — and then has to count those ballots, which can number in the millions and are subject to manual signature verification.

Trump has long dismissed such explanations. An election denier since he first entered politics more than a decade ago, Trump has pushed skepticism about elections he and his party lose time and again since — most notably when he claimed, again without evidence, that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen.

Trump even challenged Biden’s victory in court, but his claims were rejected completely because neither he nor his attorneys could produce any evidence substantiating them.

He has combined his tactic of targeting undocumented immigrants for political gain with his skepticism of election integrity by claiming, again without evidence, that such immigrants somehow vote in large numbers, particularly in big blue states such as California, despite experts saying there is no evidence of that.

He has alleged that mail ballots — such as those used by the majority of California voters — are a particularly rich source of voter fraud, despite again having no basis for the claim and it being disputed by experts.

A consistent feature of his election fraud claims is that they arise and target races only when Republicans lose or lose ground.

And, he has tried to use the power of his administration to make sweeping changes to election laws to bar mail ballots and require strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measures, despite the control of elections and their rules being constitutionally given to the states.

Those efforts have prompted a wave of litigation between the Trump administration and California and other blue states, with multiple cases pending in the courts over voter ID, proof of citizenship, mail balloting and the role that the U.S. Postal Service may be allowed to play in processing such ballots.

Trump’s latest remarks came as additional vote counting on Wednesday narrowed the advantage of Republican Steve Hilton over his Democratic challengers in the California governor’s race and closed the gap in the L.A. mayoral race between the MAGA-aligned candidate Spencer Pratt, currently running second, and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running third.

The trend was anticipated. Elections experts warned before vote counting began of the potential for a “red mirage,” wherein earlier voting among Republicans and late voting among Democrats — many of whom were unsure of whom to vote for in the two high-profile races — would create an early illusion of Republican victories despite large volumes of liberal votes from major population centers still to be counted.

It is a trend that has played out repeatedly in past elections, and one that does not come as a surprise to careful elections watchers.

Elections officials in California knew such claims were going to be made, as they’ve been made in the past. Some local elections officials made a point of preparing their staffs for baseless claims of election fraud in advance of this year’s primaries. State officials made repeated efforts to explain the reasons why California elections take time, precisely to undercut claims amid counting that the delays were the result of fraud.

But those claims have come regardless, and not just from Trump.

Above an X post Wednesday suggesting Pratt was losing ground to Raman as more counts came in, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote, “California keeps dumping votes. Odds are shifting because the vote dumps always seem to go one way. Count until you get the result you want?”

Above another X post Wednesday noting that the California count would take time, Katie Miller, a former Trump administration official and conservative podcaster married to Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller, wrote, “The Democrats are about to steal the LA mayoral race once again using mail-in voting.”

Both of the posts that DeSantis and Miller were responding to were from Polymarket, a prediction market where people can bet on the outcomes of political races, pop culture events and a slew of other subjects.

Such emerging financial markets, which process billions of dollars in bets, are causing rising concerns about political meddling for profit — including by campaign staffers and other individuals with insider knowledge of polling and other campaign information, or by politicians and their operatives, whose public remarks about politics can swing those markets.

The Times’ results pages reveal how Californians voted for governor, U.S. House seats and in local city, school board and ballot measure races.

Every registered voter in the state receives a ballot by mail. Polls close at 8 p.m. on June 2, and mailed ballots need to be postmarked on or before that day. Winners may not be known on election night due to the high volume of mail-in ballots arriving after election day.

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

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

These pages will update until the secretary of state certifies results on July 10.

Elections in the city of Los Angeles include mayor, City Council, three ballot measures and Los Angeles Unified School District board seats and, if you live in the city, you’ve maybe seen an ad about them.

The high-profile competition between incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, City Councilmember Nithya Raman and conservative reality star Spencer Pratt has been tumultuous. And that is to say nothing of Rae Huang, Adam Miller and the nine others contenders.

With leaked files, millions in campaign fundraising donated by a candidate’s mother, and a multi-campaign effort by L.A.’s chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, the race for mayor isn’t the only one making headlines this primary.

A candidate can win by getting a majority of the vote. If no one receives 50% + 1 vote, the top two advance to the November election.

Mayor

The Associated Press, which surveys the numbers posted by local election officials and projects the winner using vote returns and other data, will call a winner (or a runoff) for L.A. mayor.

City Council

Back to top

Officers

Back to top

Ballot measures

Back to top

Los Angeles Unified School District

Back to top

As the voters deliver their ballots to neighborhood drop-off sites and others wait to vote in person Tuesday, Times reporters fanned out across the city to ask residents whom they planned to support for mayor.

Here is a sample of what voters said about their preferred candidate.

‘The other choices were not worth my vote’

Steven Travers
57
Glassell Park
Self-employed

Voter Steven Travers told The Times that he didn’t feel like there were many options for him in the mayoral election this year, except for the incumbent Karen Bass.

Shopping at Vons in Echo Park, Travers said, “Just what I’ve seen of her, and you know, the way she speaks, she seems to be OK.”

“I guess she’s done an OK job since she’s been the mayor,” Travers said. “The people she’s running against, I mean, there’s really nobody else that I think I would want to be in that position.”

This decision to vote for Bass, despite the wide field of options, came down to how she had handled homelessness in the city and Travers’ neighborhood of Glassell Park, where there had been homelessness issues “for a period of time.”

The issue, Travers said, has been lessened and “certain areas things are getting a little bit cleaned up. And I’m assuming that she’s, you know, part of that whole thing.”

Travers also said that “anybody involved in politics in Los Angeles” seems to always talk about homelessness “more than anything else” and that Bass “seems to be trying to maybe do something about it.”

Simply put, “The other choices were not worth my vote,” Travers said.

Looking for a more humane L.A.

Zorah Archie-Winston
22
View Park
Recent USC graduate

Zorah Archie-Winston said that she’s probably voting for Nithya Raman for mayor.

“If I had to choose, like, right now, I think I’m leaning more towards Raman,” Archie-Winston said.

One of the main reasons for that, she said, is Raman’s personality and the humanity she brings to the table.

The 22-year-old View Park resident said that the unhoused population is something she feels very passionately about, and she believes Raman shares that.

“We could have, like, a lot more of a compassionate view on the unhoused population and those adjacent,” Archie-Winston said.

She said she’s been following along with Raman’s journey on the L.A. City Council and looks forward to seeing what the candidate could do as mayor, especially for tenancy rights.

“I think there are a lot of resources and things that are really inaccessible to those who are struggling to live in L.A. for one reason or another, and I think that’s something Raman will be able to help with,” Archie-Winston said.

‘He might be our only saving grace’

Ann Raljevich
66
Westchester
Medical biller

Ann Raljevich, a 66-year-old medical biller, says Spencer Pratt could be the city’s hero in the mayoral race.

“I think he might be our only saving grace,” said Raljevich, of Westchester.

Under the city’s current leadership, Raljevich tells The Times, she said she hasn’t seen change in the city. She said she still sees the same unkempt streets, drug addicts around town and high sales taxes.

“Being in the medical field — the drugs bring on the schizophrenia and bring on all the other things, and I mean, I see it when I drive in and out of town,” Raljevich said. “I see it everywhere.”

Raljevich said she also admired that Pratt was from Southern California and graduated from USC.

She said the fact that he hasn’t directly declared a political party affiliation shows that he doesn’t care what people think and is just here to do the job.

“He never really came out to say whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat,” Raljevich said. “He’s just for the people.”

June 1 (Asia Today) — South Korea is expected to begin procedures to appoint a special inspector general after Wednesday’s local elections, potentially reviving a presidential watchdog post that has been vacant for nearly a decade.

The special inspector general is tasked with inspecting possible misconduct involving the president, the president’s relatives and senior presidential office officials.

The system was introduced in 2014 under then President Park Geun-hye, but the post has remained vacant since 2016. Neither the Moon Jae-in administration nor the Yoon Suk Yeol administration appointed a special inspector general.

Political sources said Sunday that the ruling Democratic Party is preparing to begin the recommendation process shortly after the June 3 local elections.

The main opposition People Power Party has already selected Kang Ji-sik, a former prosecutor and lawyer at Baeksong Law Firm, as its candidate for the opposition’s share of the nomination process. Kang graduated from the Judicial Research and Training Institute in its 27th class.

The Democratic Party formally said it would begin the recommendation process after Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik publicly asked the National Assembly in April to move forward. But the process appears to have been delayed by the party’s floor leader election and the local elections.

Han Byeong-do, floor leader of the Democratic Party, said the party would proceed under the rules and procedures, though he did not specify a date.

A presidential official said the Blue House had asked that the appointment process move as quickly as possible.

“With the new party leadership in place and the election nearing completion, the process appears likely to begin immediately after the election,” the official said.

Under the law, the National Assembly recommends three candidates and the president selects one. The ruling and opposition parties each recommend one candidate, while the Korean Bar Association selects the third, who is jointly recommended by both parties.

The president’s nominee must then go through a parliamentary confirmation hearing before final appointment. The special inspector general serves a three-year term.

Lee said at a news conference marking his first 30 days in office last July that power should be subject to checks.

“Power should be checked,” Lee said at the time. “Even for the safety of those who hold power, it is better to be checked. I have already ordered the appointment of a special inspector general.”

After the National Assembly showed little movement, Kang Hoon-sik again urged lawmakers in December to quickly recommend candidates.

Lee renewed the request on April 19 before leaving for visits to India and Vietnam.

“President Lee believes the appointment of a special inspector general is essential under the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty, which require all power to be subject to institutional oversight,” Kang Hoon-sik said at the time.

“As the president has expressed his firm will, we ask the National Assembly to begin the relevant procedures as soon as possible,” he said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260601010000407

After the polls close in California on Tuesday, NBC News data analyst Steve Kornacki will just be getting started.

Since December, the khacki-clad vote-counting guru has been going live and uninterrupted on streaming platforms to provide results and analysis of every special election and even some state Senate contests.

The stream — called the Kornacki Cam — provides unadulterated number-crunching without any pundits weighing in. Rather than getting updates that last a few minutes, Kornacki provides continuous real time results until the last available total is counted.

“This all happens in full view,” Kornacki said Monday in a phone interview. “The audience gets to see the whole thing. They get to see the buildup, the anticipation, the payoff.”

In the 10 Kornacki Cam sessions streamed by NBC News so far, 20 million viewers have sampled on YouTube alone. The coverage — consisting of Kornacki, his Big Board, his producer and a Stedicam operator — is also available on NBCNews.com, the NBC News app and the division’s social media accounts on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.

The Kornacki Cam will focus on the primaries for Los Angeles mayor, California and several Congressional districts, shortly after the state’s polls close at 8 p.m. Pacific.

In a Monday chat with The Times, here are the trends Kornacki says he’ll be looking for on the night.

Polling in mayoral races is typically pretty unreliable. What do you make of the contest based on what you’ve seen?

You don’t always have super-competitive mayoral elections and they’re not all created equal. It’s not quite like a presidential election so you just don’t have a wealth of data to draw on for expectations either.

I’ve seen the polling you’ve seen. It suggests that of the three candidates, (Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV star Spencer Pratt and City Council member Nithya Raman) Bass is in the best position to get into the runoff. It also suggests that Spencer Pratt has had the most positive movement in the last month or so of the campaign. But we go in knowing there will be volatility and I’m open to any and all possibilities.

Spencer Pratt is an unusual candidate who has been able to take up a lot of oxygen in the race. Is there a hidden vote for him that people might not be eager to admit to pollsters?

You can look at the city and know where to look for whether Pratt is having a big night. The San Fernando Valley is gonna be more than a third of the vote, probably close to 40%. If he gets in the general election, he wants to be winning there by a big margin. 
If it’s not happening there for Pratt, I don’t think it’s happening anywhere else. Karen Bass is going to rely on central and south L.A., with probably a third of the vote coming out of those two places. Those should be her bulwarks. The Westside, I think could be more of a toss-up. There’s a fair chunk of the vote there.

We don’t do a ton of mayoral races around the country. So we’re still trying to figure out exactly how detailed we’re going to be able to zoom in, at the neighborhood level and the precinct level.

Turnouts usually are low for Los Angeles mayoral races. Will this year be different?

This mayoral race has received a lot more national attention than 2022. 
So my thought is that the turnout would be higher, just based on that. But this is something that is resonating nationally because Pratt has that celebrity factor. The number was 646,000 (total votes) for 2022. So that’s something we’ll be following — are we trending over or under that?

And what will be the best indicators for the gubernatorial race?

The place that I kind of got circled here is Orange County. In the last two sort of major statewide elections, it was the first to report out vote. 
At 8:06 p.m local time in California, in 2024, Orange County reported out half of its vote, right? So you’re getting, you know, you’re getting hundreds of thousands of votes, potentially, from this enormous county within, potentially within 10 minutes of polls closing. 
There were a couple others — the Central Valley, and we got a we got a good chunk of Merced and Fresno quickly.

So how long are we going to have to wait for a result on Tuesday night?

One of the other things that just surrounds everything in California, whether it’s the mayor’s race, or governor’s race, or anything else, is nothing is definitive in the first hour or so after the polls close. We’re probably realistically looking at a days or even weeks-long process of getting all the vote counted.

I know it drives many people nuts. Without editorializing on that, it’s just a fact that they can get out of about two-thirds of their vote on election night, and if the races aren’t clear and definitive, then you’re generally in for a pretty long haul.

We do know in California that they’re not going (to count) nonstop until they get a result. They’re going to then start doing updates as they process and count the remaining vote by mail, which is usually a considerable pile in a lot of these places. The vote by mail in California can continue coming in for seven days after the election.

So do you think your coverage reflects a shift in what the consumer wants? We already know how fragmented the audience is. Are there now enough political junkies who want the pure uncut stuff?

I’ve been doing this about 20 years, and when I would tell people that I reported on politics for a living, they either moved away from me or changed the subject. And now, you know, I found the last, you know, 10 years or something, has just totally changed. People come up to me, even if they don’t know I work in politics, and they want to talk politics. Everybody seems into it whatever side they’re on.

The leading candidates for mayor fanned out across Los Angeles this weekend to make their final cases to voters ahead of Tuesday’s hotly contested primary election.

An energized Mayor Karen Bass galvanized crowds of labor union workers sporting union merch Saturday. “Four more years!” crowds chanted as a slew of local and state Democratic heavyweights joined the incumbent.

City Councilmember Nithya Raman spent the day dashing between local restaurants and bars in an old-school yellow Scout convertible to meet with business owners and her supporters.

Meanwhile, former reality TV personality Spencer Pratt hosted a block party in Baldwin Village with barbecue food, free merch and American-flag lawn chairs — although he spent much of the event off to the side, listening to the concerns of Black residents.

Recent polls have placed Pratt and Raman within striking distance of Bass, who had enjoyed a comfortable lead for much of the campaign. A recent survey, co-sponsored by The Times, had Bass at 26%, Raman at 25% and Pratt at 22% — with a roughly 3% margin of error in either direction and 10% of voters undecided.

The top two candidates in Tuesday’s jungle primary will advance to a November runoff, unless one candidate manages to garner over 50% of the vote.

Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt speaks with Diane Waterhouse, a caregiver and Westchester native, about homelessness and drug addiction at a campaign event Saturday in Baldwin Village. “We just talk about it like, ‘oh it’s Skid Row, that’s just where the drug addicts are.’ No, there’s communities, there’s kids, there’s people that work there, businesses,” Pratt said.

(Noah Haggerty / Los Angeles Times)

“I believe God moves mountains; I believe that you can get that 51% on that Tuesday,” Diane Waterhouse, a 60-year-old caregiver, told Pratt at his Baldwin Village event.

On the lawn of Jim Gilliam Park on Saturday, supporters from across the city chanted Pratt’s name, took selfies in front of black campaign vans with his hummingbird logo and ate cookies decorated with his face as kids raced around on scooters and played with the handful of dogs attending.

But Pratt — who had spent the morning at the West Los Angeles Animal Shelter speaking with animal welfare advocates — headed toward the nearby recreation center to talk with residents away from the cameras.

“Most people that come here and want our vote — we give y’all our vote; we’re still living like this. Nothing changes,” Erica Helon, a 40-year-old bus driver, told Pratt in one of the most tense moments of the event.

Pratt, wearing a beige suit and a hat with his name stylized like the L.A. Lakers logo, emphasized he was in South Los Angeles to listen and wasn’t even asking residents for their votes. He pulled Helon aside and gave her his personal phone number so they could talk more.

“I’m here because I want to be a voice for the community,” he said at one point. “I’m here because I don’t know what I don’t know.”

Helon, who is still undecided, left the event open-minded on Pratt.

“I would love to see what he’s going to do for this city,” she said.

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman joins a group photograph during a campaign stop Sunday with SevaSphere volunteers after preparing meals for people experiencing homelessness at Oaks Kitchens.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Raman, who has made publishing detailed policy plans a staple of her campaign, spent Saturday meeting with local restaurant owners after recently dropping a policy plan for small businesses.

Around sunset, the yellow convertible pulled up to Lowboy Bar, an Echo Park staple. Raman, sporting a Japanese Dodgers hat and a rainbow City Council fanny pack, joined campaign staff for drinks at tables covered in “Nithya Raman for Mayor” pins.

A few young Angelenos, starting out their nights in trendy getups, recognized Raman and stopped by to chat and take pictures.

“I’ve lived in L.A. for 12 years. It’s a very, very important city to me,” said Ryan Bergeron, a 35-year-old who works in marketing and does art on the side.

Bergeron, who is on the Echo Park neighborhood council, hopes Los Angeles can serve as a “beacon in an otherwise scary time in the country” as it tackles affordability, the housing crisis and sustainability issues.

As for Raman, “I’ve seen her as a councilmember and been really proud of that,” Bergeron said. When she announced her candidacy for mayor, “It felt like everything really clicked.”

Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Monica Rodriguez attend the Los Angeles Democratic Party and Avance Democratic Club Carne Asada Tour, a community event held Saturday at the Yosemite Recreation Center. Avanceis one of the country’s largest Latino Democratic clubs.

(Karla Gachet / For The Times)

Bass, conversely, wound down after a day of union rallies by eating tacos at the Yosemite Recreation Center’s picnic tables in Eagle Rock with several local politicians, including Councilmember Monica Rodriguez and county Democratic Party Chair Mark Ramos.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna had joined Bass earlier in the day. Although Luna missed out on the picnic, he still enjoyed several tacos in his car.

Come Sunday, Raman, wearing jeans and a chartreuse cardigan, was greeting bike riders at a Sawtelle coffee shop and speaking to a phone bank group at UCLA.

“It is absolutely essential to making sure that our little campaign, without all the political machine behind us, without MAGA millions behind us, that our vision of Los Angeles still manages to get out to the people, and your work today is an essential part of that,” Raman told a group of United Auto Workers-represented graduate students from multiple nearby universities.

She had several other appearances scheduled for the rest of the day, including lunch with a group of Korean American Democrats in Koreatown, Encinofest, a block party in Silver Lake and a visit to Boyle Heights.

“There seems to be increasing awareness about the race and excitement about the issues,” Raman told The Times. “It’s been really exciting to see people engaging and feeling positive about the city’s future.”

About two dozen students spoke to potential voters associated with UAW and urged them to mark Raman’s name on their ballots by Tuesday.

Stephanie Wert, a 30-year-old psychology graduate student at UCLA and head steward for UAW, said the phone bank could determine whether Raman’s campaign would survive the week.

“This vote is going to be decided on the margins, and so I think we could really make the difference that pushes her to the runoff,” Wert said.

Bass peeked around the back doors of a supporter’s Venice home Sunday afternoon to cheers from several dozen supporters at an intimate event. Speaking over small snack plates and beverages, many said they saw real improvements in the homeless populations around their neighborhood during Bass’ tenure as mayor.

Tatiana Barhar, a Venice resident for over 30 years, said she saw in real-time an “extreme” homelessness problem get better during Bass’ term, thanks to her Inside Safe program. “I want to support her,” she said. “I think there’s a lot more she can do.”

Bass spoke of 1960s-level crime rates, thousands of unhoused people pulled off the street into housing and efforts to build up Hollywood during her time as mayor. “We got a lot to do,” Bass said. “We have such a bright future in the nation’s second-largest city, and I hope that you will continue to be there with me as we win.”

Pratt’s moves on Sunday remained more elusive. His campaign emphasized he was hoping to have intimate moments with L.A. communities, instead of a media and influencer frenzy like some of his previous, more widely publicized events.

One of those more intimate moments was a community event in a Latino neighborhood near downtown L.A. on Sunday morning. Pratt had spent Thursday in New York for some national media interviews to “get the message to as many people as possible.”

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge declared a New Hampshire law that would have required new voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship because it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott wrote in the ruling, issued on Thursday, that New Hampshire House Bill 1569 would have made it harder for people to register to vote and cast ballots by removing methods for them to do so.

The law would have required all new voters to provide a document proving citizenship, rather than attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on an affidavit.

New Hampshire state law already states that the form filled out and signed when registering qualifies as an affidavit, whether it is filed 30 days before an election or on election day, per state law, Elliott wrote.

“For many years, New Hampshire voters have been required to prove their citizenship,” Elliott wrote in the ruling.

“After this order goes into effect, New Hampshire voters will still be required to prove their citizenship,” she wrote. “Instead, this case questions, in part, whether it is constitutional to remove one of the methods previously available for proving citizenship — an affidavit swearing to the voter’s citizenship under penalties of voter fraud.”

HB 1569, which was passed and signed into law in 2004, was challenged by the ACLU of New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, New Hampshire Youth Movement and several individual voters.

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a press release.

“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” Klementowicz said.

When Compton Unified School Board President Micah Ali checked his mailbox last week, he was in for a shock.

The school district has been making headlines as a state and national leader in student performance gains, and it has been upgrading and replacing its aging campuses to help advance that growth. Next week’s ballot includes a $360-million bond measure called CPT, which would keep that momentum going and replace badly dated Dominguez High School.

So when Ali opened a slate mailer titled “Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Sample Ballot and Voter Recommendations,” he couldn’t believe her advice on Measure CPT.

Vote “no.”

Given Waters’ stature as a congressional representative for 35 years, Ali said, her slate mailers can swing outcomes.

“Yes, it does carry weight,” Ali said, and the thumbs-down recommendation “can literally cripple our ability to pass this bond.”

Ali was doubly surprised because the mailers went out to voters just a few weeks after Waters attended an unveiling ceremony for the new Compton High School campus. Compton High alums and hip-hop heavyweights Kendrick Lamar and Dr. Dre joined the celebration, and the latter was honored for his $10-million donation to the new performing arts center.

Lunch tables and a temporary cafeteria are set up outdoors at Dominguez High School because of a fire three years ago.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

A second district high school, Centennial, is being replaced with a modern campus, and district officials are hoping Measure CPT passes so Dominguez students aren’t left behind, but also because the district’s other schools would get multiple upgrades and repairs, from infrastructure to classrooms to athletic fields.

I met with Ali on Wednesday afternoon at Dominguez, along with Principal Caleb Oliver. The school turned 70 this year, and it shows. The grounds are scruffy, wiring and plumbing are outdated, the gymnasium air conditioning hasn’t worked in years. To walk the campus is to step back in time — to the Eisenhower administration.

While we were talking, Oliver called out to a senior named Angelina Ramirez, referring to her as a superstar student. I asked Angelina what kind of upgrades the campus could use.

Dominguez High School Principal Caleb Oliver.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

“Well, I like to use the cafeteria as an example,” she said, pointing to where it used to be.

What happened to it?

“It burned down,” she said. An electrical problem was the suspected cause, her principal added.

That was more than three years ago, and since 2023, the cafeteria has been an outdoor plaza.

“I feel like that’s affected students a lot,” Angelina said.

The big question, of course, is why Waters’ campaign committee — Citizens for Waters — recommended a no vote.

I’d like to tell you why it is that a rapper has written a $10-million check in support of Compton’s students while a congresswoman has told them to go fly a kite. But I’ve asked by phone, text and email, and I still don’t have an answer.

After contacting Citizens for Waters, which referred me to the congresswoman, I called her office and emailed her press office, which sent me this response at 7:43 p.m. Thursday:

“Per US House Ethics rules, we are unable to respond to your request.”

I don’t know what rules those are, but the rulebook needs some rewriting if a congresswoman can’t answer a simple question about why her campaign mailer recommends a no vote on a school bond measure.

“We have no idea, and we’re baffled,” Ali said. “Who would oppose the construction of a new school in a community like Compton?”

In the working-class community, the student population is roughly 84% Latino and 14% Black.

I suggested that Ali consider having students march over to Waters’ district office and ask for an explanation.

“We’d rather have these children’s butts in seats and learning,” Ali said, adding that “we need … to continue driving up these test scores.”

Compton school board candidate Tana McCoy talks to school board President Micah Ali about the mailer.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

It’s not as if there is no reasonable opposition to Measure CPT. These kinds of bonds cost taxpayers real money over the course of many years, and CPT would add about $60 per $100,000 of assessed property to annual tax bills.

That would hit working folks and retirees with an added tax burden of between a few hundred and several hundred dollars a year. And taxpayers have been paying off two previous school improvement bond issues, one passed in 2015 and one in 2022.

In addition to the financial burden, according to district parent Anthonia Limon, who wrote the statement against CPT for the L.A. County sample ballot, safety issues have undermined community trust in district leadership.

“Infrastructure alone does not create safe schools,” Limon wrote.

If Waters has similar concerns, that would be one thing. But to my knowledge, and to Ali’s, there has been no public explanation for recommending a no vote. And when you read the fine print on the slate mailer, which advises voters to “take Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ recommendations with you to vote,” it only raises more questions.

“This document was prepared by Citizens for Waters, not an official party organization. Appearance in this mailer does not necessarily imply endorsement of others appearing in this mailer nor does it imply endorsement of, or opposition to, any issues set forth in this mailer,” it says.

Huh?

Are they endorsements or aren’t they?

The Times reported in 2004 that the rep’s daughter, Karen Waters, “has charged candidates for spots on her mother’s ‘slate mailer,’ a sample ballot that many voters in South Los Angeles use to guide their choices.” Last year, the Waters campaign paid a $68,000 fine for campaign finance law violations following a Federal Election Commission investigation that involved Citizens for Waters.

Rep. Maxine Waters’ slate mailer.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Also in the fine print on the current mailer:

“Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by” an asterisk.

So are these endorsements or paid advertisements? There’s an asterisk on nearly every endorsement in the mailer, from city council to governor to judgeships to Measure CPT. The way I read this is that various parties paid for endorsements, but the mailer does not reveal who paid, or how much they ponied up. Such mailers, by the way, are not uncommon in California, according to election law experts.

“I think this is misleading for voters,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school. Although he thinks the endorsements are a form of protected free speech, he said this “reflects a very deep problem in our elections with dark money, when we don’t know where the money is coming from.”

On Thursday, I visited Tana McCoy, a Compton High grad and retired city employee who is running for Compton Unified school board. She showed me the slate mailer delivered to her home, but said she’s going to vote yes on CPT despite Waters’ recommendation.

“Children need to feel good about their environment, because that’s all part of their mental health,” McCoy said.

At Dominguez, where graduates have a 96% college acceptance rate, according to district officials, junior Zaiden Ross gave me a tour that included a stop at a gymnasium fountain that he said hasn’t worked in years. Some fountains are dirty, he added, “and some of the pipes on campus produce water that has, like, extremely high amounts of lead and magnesium.”

Student Zaiden Ross demonstrates a nonworking sink in a bathroom on the campus of Dominguez High School in Compton.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zaiden took me to a classroom to show me water samples he’s still testing. Then we visited the robotics classroom, where he turned on a faucet, and the flow was closer to the color of apple juice than water. The air conditioner was rattling, and teacher G.C. Esiobu, who runs the engineering and robotics club, said there had been an “emergency” fix for a busted system. Zaiden gave me a quick rundown of dated computers and other equipment students use to design drones and robots.

And yet despite all that, a display case was filled with trophies. At competitive meets, Esiobu said, “we have been winning with little or nothing.” With equipment upgrades, she added, “just imagine the level we will go.”

There’s still time, before Tuesday’s election, for Waters to visit Dominguez High and maybe get a tour from Zaiden and Esiobu.

If she does, she might rethink that endorsement.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Samsung Electronics Co.’s unionized workers voted to approve a wage agreement that includes a substantial bonus package for chip workers, the union said Wednesday, easing concerns over potential disruptions to the global supply chain.

In the six-day vote, 73.7 percent of the 62,616 members of the tech giant’s two largest unions approved the tentative deal. The agreement was finalized after a majority of eligible voters took part in the vote and a majority voted in favor of the proposal.

Later in the day, the two sides signed the wage agreement, with management pledging to strengthen the company’s global competitiveness.

“Starting with the conclusion of this wage agreement, labor and management will work together as one to strengthen our global competitiveness,” Yeo Myeong-gu, head of the company’s Device Solutions division’s People Team, said in a press release.

The labor union and management reached the agreement just an hour before an 18-day strike was set to begin at the world’s top memory chipmaker last Thursday.

Labor and management had been deadlocked since late last year over performance-based bonuses tied to earnings from the company’s artificial intelligence (AI)-related semiconductor business amid the ongoing global memory chip boom.

Under the deal, Samsung will allocate a special semiconductor performance bonus equivalent to 10.5 percent of business performance earnings, without a cap.

The special bonuses will be paid in company stock over at least 10 years, based on targets for the chip division to achieve more than 200 trillion won (US$132 billion) in annual operating profit from 2026 to 2028 and 100 trillion won from 2029 to 2035.

Of the total bonus pool, 40 percent will be allocated to the division as a whole, while 60 percent will be distributed to individual business units.

Based on forecasts that Samsung’s operating profit could reach 300 trillion won this year, the agreement could translate into bonus payouts of up to 600 million won for each of the 28,000 employees in the company’s profitable chip division.

Following the signing, the company announced it will create a 5 trillion-won fund over the next five years to invest in future talent development and build an ecosystem supporting its suppliers and underprivileged groups.

“Over the next five years, we will raise a total of 5 trillion won to invest in win-win cooperation and building a healthy ecosystem, as well as nurturing future talent,” according to the statement attributed by company executives.

The move is widely seen as an effort to counter criticism that the company has been distributing massive profits from the semiconductor supercycle as excessive employee bonuses.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

May 22 (Asia Today) — Samsung Electronics labor unions began voting Thursday on a tentative wage agreement, but sharp divisions between the company’s semiconductor and device divisions are emerging as a major source of tension.

Choi Seung-ho, chairman of the Samsung Electronics branch of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union-affiliated Samsung Group labor organization, said he would hand over 2026 negotiations to the remaining union leadership and seek a confidence vote if the agreement is rejected.

“The union must follow the will of its members,” Choi said. “I will not change my direction.”

Samsung Electronics unions began voting on the tentative agreement at 2:12 p.m. Thursday. The vote will continue through Tuesday.

Attention is focused on whether growing conflict between the semiconductor-focused Device Solutions division and the Device Experience division, which oversees consumer electronics and mobile businesses, could affect the outcome.

Under the tentative agreement, employees in the semiconductor division are expected to receive large performance bonuses. Workers in the nonmemory semiconductor business could receive about 200 million won ($146,000), while memory semiconductor employees could receive up to 600 million won ($437,000).

By contrast, DX division employees are expected to receive company stock worth about 6 million won ($4,400). Additional performance bonuses also appear uncertain due to weaker business results this year.

Labor groups with many DX employees, including the Donghaeng union and the Suwon branch of the National Samsung Electronics Union, strongly criticized the agreement as rushed and overly centered on memory chip workers.

The Donghaeng union also claimed its members were excluded from the vote, raising concerns about voting rights.

The umbrella union organization said voting rights apply only to union members listed as of 2 p.m. Wednesday within labor groups participating in the joint bargaining body.

Donghaeng union officials, however, said the umbrella union had previously told member unions by email that all voting rights would be respected before later reversing its position.

The Donghaeng union reportedly grew from about 2,600 members to 12,000 members, most believed to be from the DX division.

Some DX employees argue the semiconductor division’s current profits were made possible in part because DX business performance supported companywide investment during weaker periods for semiconductors.

Complaints have also continued during negotiations that discussions were centered on the semiconductor division rather than the DX business. Some workers have even filed a court injunction seeking to invalidate the bargaining process.

For the agreement to pass, more than half of eligible union members must participate and a majority of votes cast must support the deal.

Samsung Electronics employs about 77,300 workers in the semiconductor division and about 51,700 in the DX division. The umbrella union has about 57,290 members, while the National Samsung Electronics Union has about 8,176 members.

If the agreement is rejected, negotiations would resume and the possibility of a strike could increase.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260522010006743

May 21 (UPI) — House Republicans abruptly pulled legislation to curb President Donald Trump‘s ability to continue the war with Iran on Thursday amid Democratic accusations that GOP leaders shelved the measure over fears it would pass.

House Concurrent Resolution 86 was listed on House Majority Leader Steve Scalise‘s schedule for possible consideration on Thursday but no vote was held before the House left Washington.

The resolution was delayed until after the lower chamber returns from recess on June 2, leaving Democrats fuming.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars, gas prices are through the roof, people can’t afford their groceries? Is that why you’re pulling it?” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., asked on the House floor as cheers and boos erupted behind him.

“You guys don’t have the guts … to vote on this.”

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., directs Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.

Democrats put the measure forward amid a larger congressional push aimed at reining in Trump’s ability to go to war in the Middle East. Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday advanced similar legislation in the eighth vote they have forced on the matter since the war began Feb. 28.

While Democrats have said the war is illegal without congressional authorization, Trump and his Republican Party argue the effort is moot, claiming the war ended with a fragile cease-fire announced last month.

The Senate measure advanced with support from a handful of Republicans who have split from their party on the issue as the war has continued. In the House, where the GOP also holds a narrow majority, defections were anticipated. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has supported previous similar measures.

“Let’s be clear: Republicans pulled this vote because they knew they were going to lose it,” Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement after the House recessed.

“They know this war is a political and strategic disaster. They know that as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend paying over [$]4.50 a gallon at the pump, they cannot go home and explain they voted to keep this war going. So, instead of casting that vote, they ran from it.”

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., accused House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans of abdicating their responsibility by postponing the vote.

“This is a new low,” he said in a social media post.

“This is a disservice to the American people and the troops being put in harm’s way.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lambasted Trump for starting the war without articulating its objectives and exit strategy and without garnering public support or congressional approval for it.

“Even as we prepare to recognize our nation’s fallen heroes on Memorial Day, House Republicans refuse to show up and be accountable to the brave service members that have been recklessly put in harm’s way,” he said in a statement.

“The American people will remember in November.”

“Survivor 50” castaway Joe Hunter has made it to the final tribal council of the grueling competition show twice, but walked away with slim to none when it came to jury votes.

On Wednesday night, four-time “Survivor” player Aubry Bracco was crowned sole survivor and won the not $1-million but $2-million prize (thanks to a twist that involved a coin toss and MrBeast), and Jonathan Young came in second. Hunter, a firefighter and fan favorite, lost on an 8-3-0 vote.

According to Hunter, jury members had made up their minds before the remaining three castaways even had a shot to sweeten their chances at the final tribal council.

“I sit down in that chair for final Tribal, right? I’m thinking alright, here we go,” Hunter told “Entertainment Weekly.” “Right away, the second before any word was said, I went, ‘Oh, that one hates me, this one hates me, hate me, hate me, hate me.’ And I thought, ‘There’s zero chance.’”

Hunter was somewhat optimistic leading up to the tribal council and said that he thought some of the jury members had come with an open mind. “I’ll give credit to Emily, Rick Devens, Christian, Dee,” he said.

“I just felt it was very transparent based on the questions and responses that, before this thing started, I think it was a wrap.”

During the series finale, “Survivor” legend Cirie Fields put Hunter on blast, saying that castaways felt like they had to babysit him and jokingly calling it the “Joetation” when it was a player’s turn to sway Hunter to vote alongside them.

Hunter chalked up the babysitting remark to his own naivete when it came to being vulnerable with other players he thought were his friends on the island. “I just put that vulnerability in the wrong hands,” he told the outlet. “That’s really what it is. And that’s part of the game.”

Hunter also spoke with “Entertainment Tonight” and admitted that yes, he’d blocked a select few “Survivor” players on social media. “So, 751 players,” Hunter said, “yeah, there’s two.

“I’ll tell you this, each one of them is not random,” he said. “Actually, there’s three. It is not random. … All of which I would love to talk to and solve it, and have tried.”

Last week, former “Survivor” players Kelley Wentworth, who’s been a castaway three times, Savannah Louie, who won Season 49 and was on the same tribe as Hunter in Season 50, and Tiffany Ervin, who competed on Seasons 46 and 50, all said they’d been blocked by Hunter.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.

In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.

The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.

Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.

“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”

A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.

The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.

“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”

As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.

“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”

“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.

The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.

Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.

“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.

That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.

“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”

Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.

“We need to get some clarity,” he said.

Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.

“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”

Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.

“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans appeared increasingly unlikely to meet their self-imposed deadline for passing a roughly $70-billion immigration enforcement bill this week as disputes over security funding for the White House and the Trump administration’s $1.8-trillion settlement fund effectively derailed progress.

Republicans were already expected to abandon $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom amid backlash from members of their own party. But then questions about the settlement fund added to some of the senator’s concerns. They are questioning who would get the money.

Republican senators met with acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Thursday as they worked to finalize the bill’s text and whether to put parameters on the settlement, which was designed to compensate Trump’s allies who believe they have been politically persecuted. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that senators had questions and wanted to know “how we might make sure that it’s fenced in appropriately.”

But senators who emerged from the meeting were tight-lipped and indicated that lawmakers would not hold a vote on the package before leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break, risking failure to meet Trump’s June 1 deadline.

Asked about a vote this week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, “I don’t even know.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) was more blunt: “We’re going home,” he said.

The last-minute scramble comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several GOP senators have spoken out against the settlement, which was announced this week, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

Asked Thursday at the White House if he was losing control of the Senate, Trump replied: “I don’t know, I really don’t know. I can tell you — I only do what’s right.”

Possible parameters on Trump’s settlement fund

The “anti-weaponization” fund, part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, unexpectedly became one of the main complications in the bill. Democrats said they would force votes to block it or place restrictions on it.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments, potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Presenting a united front, Democrats from both the House and Senate rallied on the Capitol steps Thursday to show their opposition. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the amendment process “will give Republicans countless chances to do the right thing.”

He added that if they declined to make changes, it would show voters that “Ballroom Republicans are not working for you, they are busy fighting for Trump.”

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans have voiced reservations about the fund. So Republicans are now discussing their own last-minute additions to head that off, potentially placing some parameters on the settlement and who could receive compensation, according to two people with knowledge of the private discussions who requested anonymity to discuss them.

It was unclear how any Senate changes would be received in the House. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday that the House will pass the bill “whatever form it takes.”

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged the settlement and parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post on Wednesday.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump also renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

Republicans need to “get smart and tough,” Trump said, or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

While they have been loyal to Trump on most issues, Senate Republicans have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Secret Service request falters

Under the Secret Service’s request, about $220 million would fund security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea.” The bill should not have included the other security improvements, he said, “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in his GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Left in the bill is the money for ICE and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked for months in protest of the administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Democrats demanded changes for the agencies, but negotiations with the White House yielded little progress. So Republicans are using the complicated budget maneuver called reconciliation — the same process that allowed them to pass Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill last year — to fund the agencies through the end of Trump’s term with a simple majority and no Democratic votes.

Still, passage requires sign-off from the parliamentarian and unity from Republicans.

Jalonick, Freking and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

As plenty of Californians remain undecided about the gubernatorial primary’s unsettled Democratic field, some are waiting to cast their ballots, creating the potential for a slower vote count or a longer wait to find out the winners.

Though the landscape could change quickly if Democrats coalesce around a single candidate within the next several days — signs of which were emerging this week — for now, many Democratic-leaning voters appear to be waiting for new developments before making their final decisions, political analysts say.

“This has been a roller coaster of a race, and I think voters are waiting to see when the ride is going to end and cast a vote at that time,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

A larger-than-usual number of people casting mail ballots on or close to election day could extend the ballot-counting process, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. County election officials said they were prepared for that possibility. Early returns so far haven’t made it clear whether most voters will wait longer than usual to cast ballots.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County registrar, said the county was “fully prepared” for the possibility of receiving “a significant number” of ballots returned close to or on election day, June 2.

“It is not uncommon in primary elections, particularly those with a large number of contests and candidates, for some voters to take additional time to review their ballots and hold onto them longer before returning them,” he said.

Californians who want to vote on or close to election day can vote in person or use a mail-ballot return option that doesn’t rely on the U.S. Postal Service to help speed the process and avoid the risk of a mail ballot arriving late, election officials said.

Hesitation by Democratic-leaning voters reflects the toll of a historically uncertain primary race for governor. The contest has been marked by the unusual lack of a clear Democratic front-runner and the party’s failure to line up behind a single candidate after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in April.

Early concerns within the party that a split Democratic electorate could put two Republicans on the November ballot under the state’s top-two primary system also heightened the sense of stakes among left-leaning voters.

Those factors, combined with a large slate of candidates, voter confusion about how candidates’ platforms differ and a desire to choose the person “most likely to win” have made Democratic-leaning voters uncertain, said Christian Grose, director of the USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.

“There’s a little bit of, whoever’s in the lead some Democrats are choosing to vote for … but people don’t know who that person is,” Grose said, noting that “some of that [could start] to go away” as the race tightens.

An indication that Democrats are starting to consolidate around Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, came Tuesday in a new survey released by the California Democratic Party. It showed Becerra with support from 21% of respondents, followed by billionaire Tom Steyer with 15%.

Republican-leaning voters appear to favor Steve Hilton, who had support from 22% of survey respondents. Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, had 10%. Under California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Tallies from a handful of counties showed varying early turnout so far.

In San Francisco, a relatively small number of ballots have been returned, indicating that voters may be waiting, Michelle Parker, president of the city’s elections commission, said Tuesday. If people vote by mail close to election day — rather than voting in person or using a drop box — it could affect the speed of vote-counting, a possibility the city’s election staff is prepared for, she said.

“We’ll see how quickly they come in, but knowing what the news has been like and watching what the dynamic has been like across the state, I’m not surprised people are waiting,” Parker said, referring to the governor’s race.

In San Bernardino County, 5.6% of mail ballots had been returned as of Tuesday, a rate comparable with previous elections, Registrar of Voters Joani Finwall said. Election officials “strongly encourage” voters to cast ballots early using drop boxes or early voting locations, Finwall said.

In Orange County, by contrast, data so far indicate that voters are not waiting, the Registrar of Voters office said. More than 129,000 vote-by-mail ballots had been returned by the end of the day Monday, more than had been returned by the same time in the 2024 and 2022 primaries. Of those, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats had voted.

If a large number of voters were to wait until June 2 to cast a mail ballot, the county would be able to efficiently process them, said Registrar of Voters Bob Page, noting that 90% of the county’s early vote-by-mail ballots were included in election night results in the 2024 presidential primary.

Voters should be prepared for the possibility that the gubernatorial results aren’t determined on election night, Grose said. One candidate could appear to be in the lead on election night and another could overtake them once all ballots are counted.

State election officials warned this month that some social media posts urging Democrats to vote “late” could be misinformation. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it would look into such posts, one of which falsely attributed the message to historian Heather Cox Richardson.

Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and arrive within seven days after the election; otherwise, they are considered late and not counted.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, acknowledged chatter around people holding onto their ballots but said the survey released Tuesday indicated voters are “beginning to move towards specific candidates.”

Even as Becerra and, to a lesser extent, Steyer rose in popularity, other Democrats saw support in the single digits in the poll, including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“This race isn’t over; we’ve certainly seen a lot of twists and turns to this point, but you do see some clear consolidation taking place for both Democrats and Republicans,” Hicks said on a call with reporters. “I’m not concerned about California Democrats having their voices heard.”

Still, the race’s surprises have taken a toll on voters, Grose said: Swalwell’s exit under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, along with a guilty plea to federal corruption charges by Becerra’s former longtime advisor, two videos that raised questions about the temperament of Porter and a lack of disclosure by influencers being paid to promote Steyer.

“There is some uncertainty among Democrats about, ‘Is there one more shoe to drop for someone?” Grose said. “That’s one reason people are holding onto their ballots.”

Voters who want to cast ballots later than May 26 should return their mail ballots at a voting site, county election office or drop box, rather than via the Postal Service, by 8 p.m. on June 2 or should vote in person, recommended Alexander, of the California Voter Foundation.

Because mail ballots require election officials to conduct signature verification, they take longer to count than in-person ballots. In addition, recent changes at the U.S. Postal Service have slowed mail service, creating a higher potential for mailed ballots to arrive late.

Alexander also urged voters to take advantage of Saturday in-person voting, available at county election offices statewide the weekend before election day, and other early voting options.

“I am very sympathetic with voters who want to take their time to make their decision in this very fluid election,” she said. “The important thing is to have a plan.”

California is facing a major vote in the days ahead — and no, it’s not who will be the next governor.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board are set to decide on May 28 whether to approve the latest blueprint for limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters through 2045, a program known as cap-and-invest. The update to the state’s signature climate program has Sacramento in a tizzy and seemingly no one is pleased with the proposal on the table.

California is one of a handful of states, and the first, to have an an enforceable annual limit on the emissions that change the climate.

After a January draft was criticized by both industry and lawmakers over concerns that capping emissions too much and too quickly would drive up already soaring energy costs, CARB went back to the drawing board and came up with the latest iteration, unveiled in April. But opponents now say the plan kowtows to oil and gas interests who are lobbying hard for concessions, citing an already unstable state and international energy market.

The program works by setting a limit on the greenhouse gases that industries can emit in California. Companies must obtain credits, or allowances, for every ton they release, with the total number of allowances declining over time, consistent with what scientists say actually addresses climate change. The auctions for unused allowances generate billions of dollars in revenue for the state each year that fund clean energy, clean water and other key climate programs.

This year’s original draft sought to remove 118 million allowances from the market by 2030, which it identified as the minimum that must be retired to meet the state’s ambitious climate goals. But the April revision upends that, instead creating a new pool of 118 million “compliance instruments” — defined as allowances or offset credits — above the cap that companies can earn if they invest in decarbonization projects.

Critics argue this first-of-its-kind mechanism, called the Manufacturing Decarbonization Incentive, effectively dismantles the program.

“The whole goal of the cap is to lower emissions over time,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of the nonprofit California Environmental Voters. “To then allow pollution above the cap is kind of blowing up the program.”

CARB maintains that this change still cuts the emissions coming from California, because the new instruments enter the market only “if they’re applied for, are approved, and deliver verified greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” And the proposal still results in an 11% cap decline year over year through 2030, and 7% from 2031 to 2045, said spokeswoman Lindsay Buckley.

The move would also significantly reduce cap-and-invest’s revenue, according to an analysis from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It found that the new plan would result in a loss of $2 billion, or roughly 50% less money per year for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, than it has received through the program in recent years.

Many of the lawmakers who voted to reauthorize the program last year are also concerned. Nearly 30 Democrats signed a recent letter urging the air board to “push back on pressure from an oil industry that is making hundreds of billions in wartime profits.”

The fossil fuel industry has indeed lobbied heavily against requirements that it pollute less, spending a record $10.3 million in the first quarter of this year to influence state policy around cap-and-invest and other climate and energy issues, state records show. Among them are the Western States Petroleum Assn., Chevron and Phillips 66, which have argued that lowering the pollution cap will drive up gasoline prices and push more refineries out of the state.

But even they are not thrilled with the latest iteration of the cap-and-invest plan.

“We need to continue to be competitive with other refineries throughout the world, and while there are some very short-term changes within the [revised package], it still doesn’t have the long-term certainty that will drive investment,” said Jodie Muller, WSPA’s chief executive. Muller said she’d like to see the new decarbonization incentive program extended beyond 2030 and eligibility expanded to include additional activities, such as refinery maintenance programs.

“It’s important that we get this right,” she said.

More California climate news

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently unveiled his revised $350-billion budget proposal, which came with an unexpected $16.8-billion increase in tax revenue largely attributed to the success of artificial intelligence companies. Among the plan’s big wins and losses are boosted funding for public schools and higher health premiums for undocumented immigrants.

On the environment, the plan broadly maintains funding and policy support for climate commitments, such as a $200-million incentive program for passenger electric vehicles designed to make up for federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration. It also includes a new $100-million disaster rebuilding fund to help wildfire survivors rebuild their homes.

But the plan does not include major new spending on the environment, in part due to the ongoing restructuring of cap-and-invest, the state’s main climate funding source. Some environmental groups said the revised budget doesn’t do enough to support California’s clean energy transition or hold oil and gas companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund urged lawmakers to prioritize proven climate investments in the final budget agreement, such as virtual power plants and incentives for zero-emission delivery trucks. “The actions we take over the next decade are vital to preventing the worst possible scenarios for our kids’ future,” she said.

A few more things

Speaking of the governor’s race, California Resources Corp., one of the state’s top oil producers, just made a hefty $500,000 contribution to an independent campaign committee supporting leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, Politico reported. Becerra has already been criticized for accepting a $39,200 donation from Chevron, while opponents Tom Steyer and Katie Porter have both pledged not to accept contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal developer with a major Google project in Utah, raised $1.89 billion in an initial public offering this month. The company’s $7.7-billion valuation signals growing investor appetite for energy companies amid soaring demand for electricity fueled by the growth of AI, the Wall Street Journal said. Geothermal technology taps into pockets of steam and hot water rising from the center of the earth, which is then used to spin turbines to generate power.

Los Angeles is gearing up for its role as a host city of the 2026 World Cup, which will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico beginning in mid-June. But experts told my colleague Blanca Begert that the tournament’s expansion will make it “the most emissions-intensive World Cup that we’ve ever seen,” in part because fans and players will have to traverse the three countries to watch the games. Jet exhaust is a major contributor to climate change, representing 3% to 4% of all warming. It is the second of our stories examining the environmental implications of the coming World Cup.